report geotechnical design report · and the 50% detailed design drawings, dated 15 november 2019...

REPORT

Geotechnical Design Report Highway 93/95 Improvements, near Radium Hot Springs, BC

Submitted to:

BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Attn: David Tracz, PEng

4th Floor, 310 Ward Street

Nelson, BC

V1L 5S4 Canada

Submitted by:

Golder Associates Ltd.

590 McKay Avenue, Suite 300

Kelowna, British Columbia,

V1Y 5A8 Canada

+1 250 860 8424

19115216-007-R-Rev0

2 March 2020

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

ii

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ....................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Desktop Study ...................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2

4.1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................... 2

4.1.1 Edgewater South............................................................................................................................. 2

4.1.2 Edgewater North ............................................................................................................................. 3

4.1.3 Harrogate ........................................................................................................................................ 3

4.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.3 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................................... 4

5.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 4

6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 5

6.1 Edgewater South Embankment ........................................................................................................... 6

6.2 Edgewater North Embankment ............................................................................................................ 6

6.3 Harrogate Cut Slope ............................................................................................................................ 7

7.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 8

7.1 General ................................................................................................................................................. 8

7.2 Site Suitability ....................................................................................................................................... 8

7.3 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................... 8

7.3.1 Stripping and Sub-Excavation ......................................................................................................... 8

7.4 Frost Susceptibility and Protection Depth ............................................................................................ 9

7.5 Fill ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

7.5.1 Embankment Fill ............................................................................................................................. 9

7.5.1.1 Fill Beneath Structures ................................................................................................................. 9

7.5.2 Landscape Fill ................................................................................................................................. 9

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

iii

7.6 Temporary Cut Slopes and/or Shoring .............................................................................................. 10

7.7 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes .......................................................................................................... 10

7.7.1 Edgewater South........................................................................................................................... 10

7.7.2 Edgewater North ........................................................................................................................... 11

7.7.3 Harrogate Cut Slope ..................................................................................................................... 11

7.7.3.1 Harrogate Wet Area ................................................................................................................... 11

7.8 Construction Dewatering .................................................................................................................... 12

7.9 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................................... 12

7.9.1 Existing Pavement Structure ......................................................................................................... 12

7.9.2 Traffic Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 13

7.9.3 Comments on Existing Pavement ................................................................................................. 14

7.9.3.1 Edgewater South ....................................................................................................................... 14

7.9.3.2 Edgewater North ........................................................................................................................ 14

7.9.3.3 Harrogate ................................................................................................................................... 14

7.9.4 New Pavement Construction ........................................................................................................ 15

7.9.4.1 Edgewater South ....................................................................................................................... 15

7.9.4.2 Edgewater North ........................................................................................................................ 15

7.9.4.3 Harrogate ................................................................................................................................... 16

7.10 Geotechnical Field Review and Materials Testing ............................................................................. 16

8.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 18

TABLES

Table 1: Highway 93/95 Improvement Details .......................................................................................................... 1

Table 2: Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration Values for Edgewater (Site Class C) ................................... 4

Table 3: Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration Values for Harrogate (Site Class C) ..................................... 5

Table 4: Summary of F values for Site Class D Conditions ..................................................................................... 5

Table 5: Analysis Results – Edgewater South ......................................................................................................... 6

Table 6: Analysis Results – Edgewater North .......................................................................................................... 7

Table 7: Analysis Results - Harrogate ...................................................................................................................... 7

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

iv

Table 8: Current Pavement Design ........................................................................................................................ 12

Table 9: Diverted AADT/ESALs Traffic Estimate ................................................................................................... 13

Table 10: Estimated AADT during 2020 and 2021 ................................................................................................. 13

Table 11: Truck Factors .......................................................................................................................................... 13

FIGURES

Figure 1A: Test Hole Locations - Edgewater South

Figure 1B: Test Hole Locations - Edgewater North

Figure 1C: Test Hole Locations - Harrogate

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Important Information and Limitations of this Report

APPENDIX B Geotechnical Data Report

APPENDIX C 2015 NBCC Seismic Hazard Calculation Reports

APPENDIX D Graphical Results of Slope Stability Analyses

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As requested by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has

carried out a geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements to Highway 93/95 between Golden and

Radium Hot Springs (Radium), BC. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the soil and

groundwater conditions at three proposed sites (Edgewater South, Edgewater North and Harrogate), and based

on the results of the investigation, provide comments and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of

the proposed highway improvements at each site.

The geotechnical investigation was carried out in accordance with the scope of work presented in our proposal,

dated 8 October 2019 (Golder Reference 19115216-001-TM-Rev1-4000), with one exception, the proposed scope

of work for Spillmacheen was not carried out as part of this geotechnical investigation, as requested by MoTI

following issue of the proposal.

It should be noted that this scope of work is limited to the geotechnical investigation outlined in the proposal and

does not include any investigations, analytical testing or assessments for possible soil and groundwater

contamination, archaeological or biological considerations or erosion and/or sediment control measures.

This report should be read in conjunction with the “Important Information and Limitations of this Report” provided

in Appendix A. We specifically direct the reader’s attention to this information, as it is essential for the proper use

and interpretation of this report.

2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

MoTI provided Golder with the Conceptual Design Report and Drawings, dated September and October 2019,

and the 50% Detailed Design Drawings, dated 15 November 2019 (MoTI Project No. 25042-0000, Rev PD).

Based on these reports and drawings, Golder understands that traffic will be temporarily detoured along Highway

95/93 during planned improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway (HWY 1) between Golden and the Alberta

border. With this temporary increase in traffic, three sites along Highway 93/95 have been identified as priorities

for safety and capacity upgrades.

The proposed improvements to these sites have been summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Highway 93/95 Improvement Details

Site Distance South

of Golden (km)

Existing Infrastructure Proposed Development

Edgewater

South

94 Existing intersection with Columbia Road

(Riverview Road), south of Edgewater

Improve the intersection and

turning lanes

Edgewater

North

92 Existing intersection with Columbia Road,

north of Edgewater

Improve the intersection and

turning lanes

Harrogate 52 Historic borrow area located northeast of

the highway used as an unpaved pull-out

area

Develop a commercial vehicle

inspection facility near the

existing pull-out including

improved turning lanes

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

2

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

The results of Golder’s geotechnical investigation are presented in our 13 January 2020 Geotechnical Data

Report titled “Geotechnical Data Report Highway 95 Improvements, Radium Hot Springs, BC” (Rev#: 19115216-

400-006-R-Rev0). This report is presented in Appendix B. The following section presents a summary of the

investigation program intended to aid the readers in interpreting the comments and recommendations presented

in Section 7.0 of this report.

3.1 Desktop Study

Prior to undertaking the investigation program, Golder reviewed available technical literature pertaining to the

general site conditions and depositional environment of the sites. The sites span an approximately 42 Km section

of highway 93/95 which runs north-south adjacent to the anastomosing upper Columbia River along the east side

of the Columbia Valley region of the Rocky Mountain Trench which separates the Columbia Mountains (west)

from the Rocky Mountains (east). The Columbia Valley was primarily formed by geological faulting, however, has

also been considerably shaped by each Pleistocene glaciation.1

Based on this geomorphological environment Golder anticipates that the subsurface stratigraphy primarily

comprises layers of glacial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits overlain by high and low energy alluvial

deposits. Due to the proximity of the highway to the base of the Rocky Mountains, isolated coarse grain colluvial

deposits may be encountered.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The drilling program was completed under the full time supervision of a member of Golder’s geotechnical team

who identified the drilling locations in the field, logged the subsurface soil conditions and collected representative

samples for laboratory testing.

Detailed descriptions of the investigation program and subsurface soil conditions encountered can be found in the

Geotechnical Data Report presented in Appendix B. A condensed summary of the subsurface conditions at each

site are presented below.

4.1 Summary of Subsurface Conditions

4.1.1 Edgewater South

Asphalt Thickness: Highway 93/95 shoulder to 0.18 mbgs. Columbia Road/Riverside Road to 0.08 mbgs.

Fill: Generally, inferred density to compact, dry, dark brown SILTY SAND and GRAVEL. Fill material was

encountered below asphalt to a maximum depth of between approximately 0.8-1.3 mbgs.

1 Clague, J (1975). Late Quaternary Sediments and Geomorphic History of the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench, British Columbia. Department of Geological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia Canada V6T 1W5. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 12, 595-605.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

3

Native Soils: Generally, light brown to greyish brown, SILTY CLAY to SILT. Based on SPT results, the

consistency of the soil ranges from soft to very stiff, generally becoming stiffer with depth. The moisture

content ranges from below to equal to the plastic limit. A layer of brown, stiff gravelly CLAYEY SILT was also

encountered in AH19-04 between 1.2 mbgs and 2.9 mbgs.

4.1.2 Edgewater North

Asphalt Thickness: Highway 95/Columbia Road intersection to 0.25 mbgs. Highway 93/95 shoulder to

0.08 mbgs.

Fill: Generally, inferred density of compact, dry and ranges from dark brown gravelly SILTY SAND to SILTY

SAND and GRAVEL. Fill material was encountered below asphalt to a maximum depth of approximately

0.9 mbgs.

Native Soils: The native soil encountered at Edgewater North was variable and generally comprised the

following units:

▪ Brown, moist, gravelly SILTY SAND to sandy SILTY GRAVEL was encountered from 0.9 mbgs to

1.4 mbgs. The density of this soil was inferred as compact.

▪ Light brown, cohesive, gravelly/sandy CLAYEY SILT and SILTY CLAY was encountered from 1.4 mbgs

to maximum depth of 5.2 mbgs. The consistency of this soil was inferred to be soft to very stiff, with a

moisture content ranging between less than and equal to the plastic limit.

▪ Brown to grey brown, dry to moist SAND and GRAVEL was encountered from 4.4 mbgs to termination

depth of 5.2 mbgs in AH19-06. The density of this soil was inferred to be dense.

4.1.3 Harrogate

Asphalt Thickness: Highway 93/95 and Ben Hynes Loop Road intersection to 0.18 mbgs. Highway 93/95

shoulder to 0.08 mbgs.

Fill: Generally, inferred compact to dense, dry and ranges from dark brown to brown, gravelly SILTY SAND

to SILTY SAND and GRAVEL. Fill material was encountered to a maximum depth of 0.9 mbgs along the

shoulder of Highway 95, to 2.7 mbgs at the Highway 95/Ben Hynes Loop Road intersection, and within the

existing gravel pull-out, approximately 0.6 metres.

Native Soils: The native soils encountered at Harrogate was relatively consistent across the site and

generally comprised the following units:

▪ Brown to grey brown, compact to very dense, gravelly SILTY SAND to SAND and GRAVEL ranging

between 1.1 mbgs and 5.2 mbgs. Moisture content ranged from dry to wet. Cobbles and boulders were

also noted in some boreholes; overlying

▪ Light brown to grey, firm to very stiff CLAYEY SILT to SILTY CLAY, as identified in AH19-08, AH19-10

and AH19-13, between 4.4 mbgs to maximum termination depth of 6.7 mbgs. Moisture content was

equal to or greater than the plastic limit.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

4

▪ In the most southern boreholes (AH19-07 and AH19-08), brown to light brown, very stiff, CLAYEY SILT

was noted below fill material between 0.9 mbgs and 3.2 mbgs. The moisture content was equal to the

plastic limit.

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at Harrogate in AH19-10, AH19-11 and AH19-13 between 2.9 mbgs and 4.8

mbgs. Groundwater was not encountered at Edgewater North or Edgewater South.

4.3 Laboratory Testing

All soil testing was conducted at Golder’s material testing laboratory in Burnaby, BC. The following testing was

completed:

Water Content Determination (ASTM D2216) – 18 tests

Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D6913) – 8 tests

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) – 10 tests

Laboratory Hand Vane Test (ASTM D4648/D4648M-16) – 1 test

5.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS

The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), S6-14 divides sites into six classes (A to F) for evaluation

of seismic site response. The classification is based on the average shear wave velocity, standard penetration

resistance (‘N’ value) or soil undrained shear strength over the top 30 metres of the soil profile. Based in the

results of the geotechnical investigation, and our understanding of the soil conditions that are characteristic of the

geological and depositional environment in the area, we consider that the Site Class D is an appropriate

classification for Edgewater South, Edgewater North and Harrogate sites.

Site specific seismic hazard predictions for each site were obtained from the Natural Resources Canada website

using the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 2015 Hazard Calculator and are presented in Appendix C.

The predicted peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and spectral accelerations for the 1 in 2475, 1 in

975 and 1 in 475-year return period earthquake (2%, 5% and 10% probability of exceedance in a 50-year return

period) are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 below. The values in Table 2 and Table 3 are for “firm ground”

(NBCC - Site Class C).

Table 2: Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration Values for Edgewater (Site Class C)

Return

Period

PGA PGV Sa (0.2) Sa (0.5) Sa (1.0) Sa (2.0) Sa (10.0)

1 in 2475 0.12g 0.097m/s 0.26g 0.17g 0.095g 0.046g 0.0060g

1 in 975 0.069g 0.060m/s 0.15g 0.10g 0.059g 0.030g 0.0040g

1 in 475 0.041g 0.040m/s 0.093g 0.065g 0.039g 0.021g 0.0030g

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

5

Table 3: Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration Values for Harrogate (Site Class C)

Return

Period

PGA PGV Sa (0.2) Sa (0.5) Sa (1.0) Sa (2.0) Sa (10.0)

1 in 2475 0.12g 0.097m/s 0.26g 0.17g 0.095g 0.046g 0.0060g

1 in 975 0.069g 0.060m/s 0.154g 0.104g 0.058g 0.030g 0.004g

1 in 475 0.041g 0.039m/s 0.094g 0.065g 0.038g 0.020g 0.003g

Site coefficients taken from CHBDC S6-14, Section 4.4.3.3 – Site coefficients are provided in Table 4, such that

the Site Class C spectral accelerations in Table 2 and Table 3 can be factored to Site Class D ground conditions.

Table 4: Summary of F values for Site Class D Conditions

PGAref F (PGA) F (0.2) F (0.5) F (1.0) F (2.0) F (10.0)

0.120g 1.25 1.21 1.43 1.52 1.54 1.47

0.069g 1.29 1.24 1.47 1.55 1.57 1.49

0.041g 1.29 1.24 1.47 1.55 1.57 1.49

6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

Based on our review of the 50% Detailed Design Drawings, Golder understands that slope re-grading may be

necessary north of the proposed Harrogate inspection site, at the intersection of Columbia Road South and

Highway 95 (Edgewater South). In order to assess suitable slope angles for the proposed cut and fill slopes

Golder carried out a series of global slope stability analyses on representative sections of the embankments

taking into consideration various cut slope angles. The approximate alignment of the sections used in the

analyses are presented in Figures 1A, 1B and 1C.

Golder analysed the static and pseudo-static behaviour of various cut slope angles using the Slope/W software

(Version 10.2) developed by GeoStudio International Ltd. The Morgenstern-Price method was applied to all

models. The basis for the models is described as follows:

Model dimensions were derived from the topographic information available on the 50% Design Drawings

(MoTI Project No. 25042-0000, Rev PD) as well as measurements taken by Golder during field

reconnaissance.

The delineation of subsurface stratigraphy in the models was assigned based on the subsurface stratigraphy

recorded in nearby boreholes as well as Golder’s review of surficial soil conditions on the existing cut slopes.

Material properties for the observed fill and native embankment soils were assigned based on typical values

commonly used in geotechnical engineering practice, considering the site observations and soil descriptions

contained within borehole logs and from index testing completed on representative soil samples.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

6

No laboratory testing to define the strength properties of the soil has been undertaken by Golder, all material

input parameters used in this analysis are assumptions based on relevant published technical literature and

engineering judgement.

The horizontal seismic coefficients used for the pseudo-static slope stability analyses at each site were

determined by selecting the relevant return period for the road category as per the MoTI Bridge Standards

and Procedures Manual Volume 1 Supplement to CHBDC S6-14 (MoTI supplement to CHBDC S6-

14), Section 4.4.6.4. , adjusting the relevant PGA for each location to the site class (Site Class D) and using

two-thirds of this as the horizontal component of the PGA.

6.1 Edgewater South Embankment

A cross section of the proposed embankment widening located immediately south of the intersection of Columbia

Road South and Highway 95 was considered for analysis. Table 5 presents the calculated factor of safety (FOS)

for embankment orientations considered. Graphical results of each analysis are presented in Appendix D1.

For an estimate of shear strength of the SILTY CLAY, a Laboratory Hand Vane Test (ASTM D4648/D4648M-16)

was conducted in our Kelowna laboratory on an undisturbed tube sample of SILTY CLAY obtained during the field

investigation from 1.57 mbgs in AH19-01. The vane test yielded an undrained peak shear strength of 59.8 kPa

and a remoulded shear strength of 14.4 kPa. For the purposes of the slope stability model, a cohesion of 28 kPa

was used for the re-used silty clay fill and a cohesion of 59 kPa was used for the native, undisturbed silty clay.

Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling. A piezometric surface at the base of AH19-01 was assumed

for modelling purposes.

The Edgewater South Embankment was classified as a “Major-Route” (MoTI supplement to CHBDC

S6-14, Section 4.4.6.4.) and therefore the horizontal seismic coefficient used for the pseudo-static analysis was

0.059, which is two-thirds of the PGA for the 1 in 975 return period factored for Site Class D ground conditions.

Table 5: Analysis Results – Edgewater South

Slope Angle Cross Section AA’

Static Pseudo-Static

2.0H:1V 1.58 1.38

2.25H:1V 1.83 1.57

6.2 Edgewater North Embankment

Table 6 presents the calculated FOS for a cut slope required at CH200+235 (as shown in the 50% Detailed

Design Drawings – MoTI Project No. 25042-0000, Rev PD) for the construction of a proposed turn-around area,

adjacent to the north bound lane, located at the northern end of Columbia Road North. Graphical results of each

analysis are presented in Appendix D2.

Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling so no piezometric surface was assumed in this model.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

7

The Edgewater North cut slope was classified as “Other” (MoTI supplement to CHBDC S6-14, Section 4.4.6.4.)

and therefore the horizontal seismic coefficient used for the pseudo-static analysis was 0.035, which is two-thirds

of the PGA for the 1 in 475 return period factored for Site Class D ground conditions.

Table 6: Analysis Results – Edgewater North

Slope Angle Cross Section BB’

Static Pseudo-Static

2.0H:1V 1.47 1.33

6.3 Harrogate Cut Slope

Table 7 presents the calculated FOS for multiple cut slope orientations considering two cross sections of the

embankment located north of the proposed commercial vehicle inspection facility near the existing pull-out.

Graphical results of each analysis are presented in Appendix D3.

During the drilling investigation groundwater was encountered in borehole AH19-10 at 2.9 mbgs. For modelling

purposes, a phreatic surface at borehole AH19-10 was assumed at 2.9 mbgs. The phreatic surface was modelled

to slope at a steady gradient down towards the Columbia River.

The Harrogate Embankment was classified as a “Major-Route” (MoTI supplement to CHBDC S6-14, Section

4.4.6.4.) and therefore the horizontal seismic coefficient used for the pseudo-static analysis was 0.059, which is

two-thirds of the PGA for the 1 in 975 return period factored for Site Class D ground conditions.

Table 7: Analysis Results - Harrogate

Slope Angle Cross Section CC’ Cross Section DD’

Static Pseudo-Static Static Pseudo-Static

1.5H:1V 1.27 1.13 1.25 1.12

1.75H:1V 1.46 1.28 1.46 1.28

2.0H:1V 1.63 1.42 1.61 1.40

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

8

7.0 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

The following sections present comments and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical design aspects of the

project based on the results of Golder’s geotechnical investigation and the proposed scope of work provided in

the Conceptual Design Report and 50% Design Drawings (MoTI Project No. 25042-0000, Rev PD). The

information in this section of the report is provided for the guidance of the designers and is intended for this

project only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the information, satisfy themselves

as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it

affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.

7.2 Site Suitability

Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, Golder anticipates that the subsurface stratigraphy is

suitable for the proposed highway developments provided that the recommendations presented in this report are

followed.

7.3 Site Preparation

7.3.1 Stripping and Sub-Excavation

Topsoil, organic, deleterious or loose fill materials are not generally considered suitable for direct subgrade

support or re-use as embankment fill and should be stripped/sub-excavated from the entire footprint of proposed

pavement areas. Other Type D fill, as specified in the 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction -

MoTI (2016SS), such as existing road base material, can be left in place or stockpiled for future use as structural

fill.

The subsurface investigation program was intended to determine pavement thicknesses and the composition of

subgrade soils underlying the existing highway. As such, the presence and thickness of topsoil, organics or

otherwise deleterious materials in the areas of toe extensions was not determined during the borehole

investigation. The comments below are estimates based on observations made while on site during the fieldwork.

Edgewater South

Surficial soils in the area of the proposed embankment extension to the east of Hwy 93/95 will likely need to be

stripped to ~200mm to expose the native silty clays.

Edgewater North

Surficial soils in the area of the proposed hammer head on Columbia Road will likely need to be stripped ~150mm

to expose the native prior to cutting and filling for the proposed turnaround.

Harrogate - Embankment

Surficial soils in the area of the proposed embankment extension to the east of Hwy 93/95 will likely need to be

stripped to ~200mm to remove organic materials and topsoil to expose native silty sands and gravels.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

9

Harrogate – Pull Out Area

Base on borehole logs no significant stripping will be required as type D material is exposed at surface in most

cases. However, there may be localized areas of deleterious materials from previous pit operations. The area

will likely require sub-excavation in order to construct the pavement structure.

7.4 Frost Susceptibility and Protection Depth

The estimated frost penetration depth for the site is approximately 1.3 mbgs, based on a design freezing index of

655.2 degree-days Celsius. This is based on data from the Wasa Weather Station which is located approximately

120 kilometres from Edgewater and 150 kilometres from Harrogate, at a comparable elevation. Therefore, we

recommend that soil placed within 1.3 metres of ground surface have no more than 5% fines in order to mitigate

susceptibility to frost heave.

7.5 Fill

7.5.1 Embankment Fill

No organic, frozen, or otherwise deleterious soil should be placed in the fill section. In addition, fill materials

should not be placed on previously placed fill, if these surfaces are frozen or covered with snow. Furthermore,

placement of fill during poor weather should adhere to 2016SS Section 202.22, unless otherwise specified in the

design documents.

Prior to placement of the structural fill, it is recommended that the exposed subgrade be proof rolled by several

passes of a heavy vibratory steel drum. All structural fill should be placed as recommended in 2016SS Section

201.37.

Excavated native deposits that are free of deleterious materials can be stockpiled and considered for re-use as

embankment grade fill for construction provided that it meets the required material gradation and properties for its

intended use, as determined by a geotechnical engineer, and is free of particles greater than 150 mm in diameter.

Due to frost susceptibility and poor drainage properties the native silty clay and/or clayey silt is not recommended

for re-use as structural fill within the frost influence zone of the final grade. Additionally, should the moisture

content of the native deposits proposed for reuse deviant from the optimum moisture content (determined by

Standard Proctor ASTM D698) the material will require appropriate drying or moisture conditioning prior to

acceptance for use.

7.5.1.1 Fill Beneath Structures

Fill placed beneath proposed structures and/or foundation elements should be Bridge End Fill (BEF) meeting the

gradation presented in 2016SS, Table 202-C.

7.5.2 Landscape Fill

Material that is deemed not suitable for use as structural fill can be stockpiled for landscaping. Care should be

taken to store the material in a location that allows for drainage of the stockpile. Landscape fill should be placed in

accordance with 2016SS section 751.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

10

7.6 Temporary Cut Slopes and/or Shoring

Temporary excavations should be developed with side slopes no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V)

for slope heights no greater than 3 m. Shallower side slope angles will be required if seepage is encountered or if

the excavations extend below groundwater level. Excavations should be monitored frequently by qualified

personnel; if signs of instability are observed, a reduced slope angle may be required and a geotechnical engineer

should be consulted.

The stockpiling or storage of excavated spoils, construction materials, heavy equipment or other surcharge

loading should not be permitted within 1 metre of the crest of the excavation slopes to prevent overloading of the

crest and reduce potential for slope movement.

We recommend use of shoring approved by a qualified geotechnical engineer if temporary excavation side slope

angles which exceed 1H:1V are required.

7.7 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes

The following section presents comments and recommendations pertaining to permanent cut and fill slopes at the

Edgewater South, Edgewater North and Harrogate sites based on the analysis presented in Section 6.0.

The target FOS for the embankments and slope cut are based on the requirements of MoTI’s Supplement to

CHBDC, S6-14 (CHBDC S6-14), Table 4.1 which include an assumed degree of understanding for

embankments (dependent upon level of investigation at each location) and a varying consequence factor. Golder

completed a subsurface investigation program in the area surrounding the embankments which included SPT

blow counts and soil sampling. Although the investigation did not include the sampling of soils though the full

cross section of the embankments, Golder also completed a field assessment of the surficial soil outcrops to help

form our understanding of the embankment stratigraphy. As such, we considered it appropriate to assume a

typical degree of understanding and a typical consequence classification for all sites except the one design cut at

Edgewater North which we have assigned a typical degree of understanding and MoTI has indicated that a low

consequence classification applies. As per Table 6.2b CHBDC S6-14, the required FOS for Global Stability

(Permanent Case) is 1.54 for a typical degree of understanding and typical consequence. For the Edgewater

North cut, the design FOS for the Typical/Low classification is 1.34.

Golder recommends that all permanent slopes be provided with suitable vegetation to mitigate erosion and

sloughing of the surficial embankment soil.

The following sections provide site specific recommendations for each location within the project.


The Global Stability analysis completed on a representative section of the embankment located adjacent to the

northbound lane, immediately south of the Columbia Road – Highway 93/95 intersection indicates that a slope

angle of 2.0H:1V yields a FOS of 1.58 which exceeds the CHBDC S6-14 recommended target of 1.54. As such

Golder recommends that the permanent cut and fill slopes at the Edgewater South site be developed at a

maximum slope ratio of 2.0H:1V. In order to achieve a 2.0H:1.0V slope, high quality embankment fill (i.e., sand

and gravel) is required. If use of silt and clay materials is considered here, the maximum slope ratio will need to

be reassessed.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

11

Golder identified zones of inferred stiff SILTY CLAY soils within the area of the proposed roadway widening at

Edgewater South. Extending the embankment east of Highway 93/95 to allow for widening would result in loading

of the potentially compressible soils which could result in differential settlement between the existing and

proposed new embankments. In order to analyse the potential impact of the loading, Golder completed staged

settlement analysis accounting for settlement of the existing embankment, construction of the new embankment

section and construction of the new pavement. Assuming a maximum stiff SILTY CLAY layer of 4 metres, a

minimum 2 weeks between construction of the embankment fill / pavement structure and asphalt placement, and

ignoring secondary consolidation, we have calculated that the differential settlement between the edge of the

existing embankment and new embankment edge will be less than 25 mm over a 20 year design life.


The Global Stability analysis completed at the proposed turn around area extension on the northbound lane, at

approximately CH200+235 along Columbia Road North indicates that a slope angle of 2.0H:1V yields a FOS of

1.47 which exceeds the CHBDC S6-14 recommended target of 1.34. Golder recommends that the permanent cut

and fill slopes at the Edgewater North site be developed at a maximum slope ratio of 2.0H:1V.

7.7.3 Harrogate Cut Slope

The Global Stability analysis completed on two representative sections of the embankment located north of the

proposed commercial vehicle inspection station indicates that a slope angle of 2.0H:1V yields a FOS of 1.63 for

Section CC’ and 1.61 for Section DD’. As both FOS obtained exceed the CHBDC S6-14 recommended target of

1.54, Golder recommends that the permanent cut and fill slopes at the Harrogate site be developed at 2.0H:1V or

flatter.

7.7.3.1 Harrogate Wet Area

A wet area was observed at the bottom of the Salisbury Road property adjacent to AH19-13 and was identified as

an area of interest by MoTI. Shallow ponding water was identified in the upslope ditch and there were signs of

flow/movement amongst the organic deposits. The borehole log for AH19-13 identified water at 4.8 mbgs in a

layer of gravelly SILTY SAND above a dryer SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT at 5.49m. It is inferred that the water

ponding in the upslope ditch is draining underneath the existing embanking along the path of least resistance

(well-draining granular subgrade). There are no signs of piping failure or washing away of fines on the downslope

side of the road.

Golder has reviewed the Typical Sections (Drawing Number R2-25042-303H), part of the 50% Detailed Design

Drawings for the proposed northbound expansion at Harrogate and notes the use of rockfill to construct the

upslope embankment. In order to help maintain the existing wet area and reduce the flow of water into the new

embankment through the rockfill which could result in erosion of the embankment soils, we propose the inclusion

of a low permeability layer on the upslope embankment face near the wet area. An example of this would be a

layer of clay fill which would reduce the rate of water flow through the embankment fill and promote natural

infiltration of the ponding water into the ground within the existing wet area.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

12

7.8 Construction Dewatering

Groundwater was observed at depths between 3.0 and 4.8 mbgs during the subsurface investigation at

Harrogate. Golder anticipates that the groundwater depth may fluctuate seasonally and is anticipated to be

shallower during periods of river flooding, snowmelt and/ or heavy rain. As such, there is a potential that

groundwater seepage may be encountered should excavation be required. Provided the seepage level is not

below the natural groundwater elevation, consideration can be given to typical sump and pump methods of

seepage control for excavation dewatering. If excavation is planned below the natural groundwater elevation,

specific dewatering planning and design should be included.

Should seepage or wet zones be encountered during excavation, shallower temporary and permanent slopes may

be required. If the seepage or wet zones are encountered below the toe of the slope, the groundwater may be

managed using ditches and properly filtered sump and pump systems. Water removed from the excavations

should be directed toward a suitable discharge location.

Control of surface water should always be maintained, and surface water should be directed away from all

existing roadways, excavations and exposed subgrade soils.

7.9 Pavement Design

7.9.1 Existing Pavement Structure

The results of the geotechnical investigation indicate that the current pavement structure on Highway 95 consists

of 0.08 to 0.25 metres of asphalt overlying 0.8 to 2.7 metres of silty sand and gravel fill, which is anticipated to

consist of base course and subbase material. The encountered pavement structure for each site is summarised in

Table 8 below.

Table 8: Current Pavement Design

Site Asphalt Thickness

Shoulder (m)

Asphalt Thickness

Trafficked Lane (m)

Fill Thickness (m)

Edgewater South 0.08 0.18 0.8 – 1.3

Edgewater North 0.08 0.25 0.9

Harrogate 0.08 0.18* 0.9 – 2.7

*0.18 m asphalt thickness for the trafficked lane was measured at AH19-08, which is located on Ben Hynes Loop Road at the intersection with Highway 93/95.

The granular pavement courses fill was observed to consist of silty sand and gravel. The silt content of silty

material is considered to be greater than 12%. BC MoTI specifications limit the silt content of granular pavement

courses to be 5% or less. As such the existing granular pavement courses material is not within specification.

While the silty granular courses material was inferred to be of a compact consistency, its drainage properties are

anticipated to be inferior to material with 5% or less silt content. Materials with a lower permeability will likely have

some detrimental impact on pavement performance and design life. However, considering presence of significant

thickness of such granular course material with compact consistency, the material could be left in place as is

unless funding is available to reconstruct the pavement to meet full pavement design specifications.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

13

7.9.2 Traffic Data Analysis

Golder understands that HWY 1 traffic will be diverted to HWY 93/95 when the Golden to Alberta segment of

HWY 1 closes. From discussions with MoTI, the duration of the closure is anticipated to be about six weeks. To

estimate the traffic that will get diverted, HWY 1 traffic information from Count Station Kicking Horse P-37-5EW-

NN located 15 km east of Route 95 was considered. Based on the 2018 Traffic data, the following diverted

AADT/ESALs traffic are estimated below in Table 9.

Table 9: Diverted AADT/ESALs Traffic Estimate

Hwy 1 Closure

Year

Diverted HWY 1 AADT (ESALS) on Design Lane

Design Lane traffic for one travel lane in

a direction

Design Lane traffic for two travel lanes

in a direction

AADT Six weeks traffic AADT Six weeks traffic

2020 5712 239904 4570 19140

2021 5827 244734 4661 195888

Note: A lane distribution factor of 0.8 applied to one lane traffic to obtain design lane traffic for two lanes in a direction

The traffic estimation on HWY 93/95 excluding HWY 1 diverted traffic was carried out using traffic data from count

station Radium North P-37-7NS-NY located at 1.7 km north of Forsters Landing Road, Radium Hot Springs.

Based on the traffic data, the estimated AADT during 2020 and 2021 are shown below in the Table 10.

Table 10: Estimated AADT during 2020 and 2021

Year Design Lane AADT HWY 95 (ESALs)

Design Lane traffic for one travel lane

direction

Design Lane traffic for two travel lanes in a

direction

2020 932 745

2021 950 760

The 20-year design lane traffic on HWY 95 is estimated to be 8.1 million ESALs for one travel lane in a direction

and 6.48 million for two travel lanes in a direction.

To derive the above estimates, the truck factors shown in Table 11 were used.

Table 11: Truck Factors

Vehicle Length (m) 0.0 – 6.0 6.0 – 12.5 12.5 – 22.5 22.5 – 35.0 35.0 – 99.0

Truck Factor (ESALs) 0.0 2.7 4.7 6.7 5.7

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

14

From the above information, it is observed that compared to 20-year design lane ESALs of HWY 93/95, the traffic

of HWY 1 that will be diverted for six weeks is insignificant to be of concern for long-term performance of the

pavement. However, in short-term, the excessive daily heavy vehicular traffic on HWY 93/95 during those six

weeks of HWY 1 closure may result in pavement distress in the form of rutting or cracking of pavement,

particularly during periods of hot or wet weather requiring some maintenance.

7.9.3 Comments on Existing Pavement

7.9.3.1 Edgewater South

The HWY 93/ 95 asphalt pavement is approximately 180 mm thick underlain by a 1040 mm to 1270 mm layer of

silty sand and gravel fill, over firm silty clay and stiff gravelly clayey silt. We have assumed that the asphalt

pavement thickness is a result of rehabilitation/upgrading of pavement over a period of time. Assuming the

existing asphalt pavement is in good condition, it is our opinion that the existing pavement structure thickness is

sufficient to meet with the 20-year design lane traffic. However, we recommend assessment of structural strength

of existing pavement to determine if upgrading is required.

7.9.3.2 Edgewater North

From the borehole data, HWY 93/ 95 asphalt pavement on the travelled lanes is approximately 250 mm thick,

underlain by 660 mm of gravelly silty sand. On the shoulder, the asphalt is 80 mm thick underlain by 830 mm of

gravelly silty sand. The subgrade consists of stiff to very stiff, gravelly clayey silt/silty clay or compact sandy silty

gravel.

We have assumed that the asphalt pavement thickness is a result of rehabilitation/upgrading of pavement over a

period of time. Assuming the existing asphalt pavement is in good condition, it is our opinion that the existing

pavement structure thickness is sufficient to meet with the 20-year design lane traffic. However, we recommend

assessment of structural strength of existing pavement to determine if upgrading is required.

7.9.3.3 Harrogate

The HWY 93/95 asphalt pavement on the travelled lanes is approximately 180 mm thick (AH19-08), underlain by

580 mm of compact gravelly silty sand, and further underlain by 1980 mm of compact to dense gravelly sand fill.

The underlying native subgrade consists of very stiff to compact soil deposits.

We have assumed that the asphalt pavement thickness is a result of rehabilitation/upgrading of pavement over a

period of time. Assuming that the existing asphalt pavement is in good condition, it is our opinion that the existing

pavement structure thickness is sufficient to meet with the 20-year design life traffic. However, we recommend

assessment of structural strength of existing pavement to determine if upgrading is required.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

15

7.9.4 New Pavement Construction

7.9.4.1 Edgewater South

HWY 93/95

The following minimum pavement structure for widening along HWY 93/ 95 is recommended:

125 mm Asphaltic concrete; underlain by

300 mm thickness of crushed granular base course; underlain by

300 mm thickness of select granular subbase course; underlain by

Geotechnical engineer approved subgrade.

Columbia Road South

Traffic data for Columbia Road South was not available, therefore, we have assumed the traffic on the road to be

similar to ‘Collector’ type roads in municipalities. For widening along Columbia Road South, the following

minimum pavement structure is recommended:




Geotechnical engineer approved subgrade

7.9.4.2 Edgewater North

Columbia Road North

Traffic data for Columbia Road North was not available, therefore, we have assumed the traffic on the road to be

similar to ‘Collector’ type roads in municipalities. For the proposed turn around extension on Columbia Road

North, the following minimum pavement structure is recommended:





2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

16

7.9.4.3 Harrogate

Additional Northbound Travel Lane

For the additional Northbound lane, the following minimum pavement structure is recommended:

North of Ben Hynes Loop Road

North of Ben Hynes Loop Road it is anticipated that the subgrade would consist of gravelly silty sand of compact

to very dense consistency. Accordingly, the following minimum pavement structure is recommended:





South of Ben Hynes Loop Road

South of Ben Hynes Loop Road it is anticipated that the subgrade would consist of very stiff clayey silt. As such,

in order to promote groundwater drainage, the base of the new pavement structure should be at or below the

underside of the existing pavement structure. Accordingly, the following minimum pavement structure is

recommended:





7.10 Geotechnical Field Review and Materials Testing

Golder should be given the opportunity to review the final plans and specifications to confirm that the geotechnical

engineering recommendations provided herein, or subsequently provided during detailed design, are

appropriately incorporated in the project design prior to tendering the project or at least before construction.

We recommend that all structural fill materials be approved by the geotechnical engineer before being used on

site. Provisions should also be made for experienced geotechnical personnel to review and approve the exposed

subgrade and fill surfaces prior to structural fill placement. Further, we recommend conducting in situ field density

testing on structural fill to confirm that satisfactory compaction is being achieved.

ADioquino

Stamp

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

18

9.0 REFERENCES

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), Bridge Standards and Procedures Manual,

Volume 1 Supplement to CHBDC S6-14, October 2016

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), Standard Specifications for Highway

Construction, Volume 1/2, Adopted 1 July 2016.

Clague, J (1975). Late Quaternary Sediments and Geomorphic History of the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench,

British Columbia. Department of Geological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British

Columbia Canada V6T 1W5. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 12, 595-605.

CSA Group, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) S6-14, April 2014.

830

840

850

840

840

850

830

840

RIVE

RVIE

W R

OAD

PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE


AH19-01A

AH19-02

AH19-04

AH19-01B

HIGHWAY 95

SPUR VALLEY

RADIUM HOT SPRINGS

5 616 000 N5 616 000 N

562 300 E 562 300 E

5 615 900 N5 615 900 N

5 615 800 N5 615 800 N

562 200 E 562 200 E

101+100

101+200

101+300

300+

100

AH19-01A

AH19-02

AH19-04

AH19-01B

A

A'

025

mm

19115216PHASE/TASK4000/4030

FIGURE

1A0

2020-01-13

A. WANG

A. MORPETH

G. RUTHERFORD

G. RUTHERFORD

HIGHWAY 95/93 IMPROVEMENTSRADIUM HOT SPRINGS, BC

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

TEST HOLE LOCATIONS - EDGEWATER SOUTH TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\M

inis

try_o

f_Tr

ansp

orta

tion\

Hw

y95_

Rad

ium

Hot

Spr

ings

_BC

\99_

PRO

JEC

TS\1

8112

195\

4000

\403

0\D

OC

_XXX

\02_

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

1219

5-40

00-4

030-

EDG

EWAT

ER.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: xin

wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:3:

08:3

1 PM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:3:

31:5

4 PM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

NOTES

1. ALL DIMENSIONS IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. COORDINATES ARE IN UTM NAD83 ZONE 11.

REFERENCE

1. BASE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATIONAND INFRASTRUCTURE.FILE NAME: GEOMLANE-COLUMBIA ROADINTERSECTIONS-Model-EXPORT.dwg RECEIVED DATE: NOVERMBER 28,2019.

EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY CONTOURS

SITE BOUNDARY

PROPOSED DRAINAGE DITCH CENTRE

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY

AUGER HOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2019)

PROPOSED ROAD TOES

LEGEND

0

1:800

20 40

METRES

THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED FOR CLIENT'S ONE TIME USE ONLY AND IT IS NOT INTENDED OR REPRESENTED BY GOLDER TO BE SUITABLE FOR REUSE BYANY PARTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE CLIENT, ITS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUBCONTRACTORS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS ON ANY EXTENSIONOF A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR FUTURE PROJECTS, WHETHER CLIENT'S OR OTHERWISE, WITHOUT GOLDER'S PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION. ANYMANIPULATION, ADAPTATION, MODIFICATION, ALTERATION, MISUSE OR REUSE UNAUTHORIZED BY GOLDER WILL BE AT CLIENT'S SOLE RISK.GOLDER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY AGAINST ALL THIRD PARTIES RELYING, USING OR MAKING DECISIONS ON THIS DRAWING. THIRD PARTIESDO SO AT THEIR OWN RISK. EXCEPT WHERE WRITTEN AGREEMENT STATES OTHERWISE, THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

840

PROPOSED ROAD SHOULDER

870

860

850

880

890

890

COLUMBIA ROAD

HIGHWAY 95


AH19-05

AH19-06

SPUR VALLEY

RADIUM HOT SPRINGS

103+100

103+200

103+300

200+300

200+400

200+500

AH19-05

AH19-06

B

B'

5 617 600 N

5 617 600 N

561 400 E

561 400 E

5 617 700 N

5 617 700 N

5 617 500 N

5 617 500 N

5 617 400 N

5 617 400 N

561 300 E

561 300 E

561 200 E

561 200 E

025

mm

19115216PHASE/TASK4000/4030

FIGURE

1B0

2020-01-13

A. WANG

A. MORPETH

G. RUTHERFORD

G. RUTHERFORD



TEST HOLE LOCATIONS - EDGEWATER NORTH TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\M

inis

try_o

f_Tr

ansp

orta

tion\

Hw

y95_

Rad

ium

Hot

Spr

ings

_BC

\99_

PRO

JEC

TS\1

8112

195\

4000

\403

0\D

OC

_XXX

\02_

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

1219

5-40

00-4

030-

EDG

EWAT

ER.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: xin

wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:3:

08:3

1 PM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:3:

13:0

7 PM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

0

1:800

20 40

METRES



LEGEND

840

SITE BOUNDARY




PROPOSED ROAD TOES

PROPOSED ROAD SHOULDERNOTES


REFERENCE


HIGHWAY 95

COLUMBIA RIVER

BENHYNES LOOP ROAD

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

790

790

PARSON

SPILLIMACHEEN



5 648

600

N

5 648

600

N

538 000 E

538 000 E

5 648

800

N

5 648

800

N

5 648

400

N

5 648

400

N

5 648

200

N

5 648

200

N

537 800 E

537 800 E

537 600 E

537 600 E

538 200 E

D

D'

C

C'

APPROXIMATE EXTENTS OFOBSERVED SANDY SILTOUTCROP

100+900101+000 101+100 101+200 101+300 101+400 101+500 101+600

AH19-07

AH19-08

AH19-09

AH19-10 AH19-11 AH19-12 AH19-13

025

mm

19115216PHASE/TASK4000/4030

FIGURE

1C0

2020-01-13

A. WANG

A. MORPETH

G. RUTHERFORD

G. RUTHERFORD



TEST HOLE LOCATIONS - HARROGATE TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\M

inis

try_o

f_Tr

ansp

orta

tion\

Hw

y95_

Rad

ium

Hot

Spr

ings

_BC

\99_

PRO

JEC

TS\1

8112

195\

4000

\403

0\D

OC

_XXX

\02_

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

1219

5-40

00-4

030-

HAR

RO

GAT

E.dw

g |

Las

t Edi

ted

By: x

inw

ang

Dat

e: 2

020-

01-1

3 T

ime:

10:4

8:39

AM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:3:

14:2

4 PM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

1:2,000

1000

METRES

50


NOTES


REFERENCE


EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY CONTOURSLEGEND

860

SITE BOUNDARY




PROPOSED ROAD TOES


2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

APPENDIX A

Important Information and

Limitations of this Report


19115216-007-R-Rev02 March 2020

1

Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level

of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising

under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and

physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development

and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to

a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any

change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of

the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder can not be responsible for use of this report, or

portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No

other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent. If the

report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of

the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for

the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others

is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as

well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the

copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but

only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and

Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any

other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is

susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely

upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.

The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to

Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by

Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the

suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the

report. Golder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only

for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including

the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs

would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking

the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented

in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed

construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.

Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units

have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and

related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves

judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than

abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions.


19115216-007-R-Rev02 March 2020

2

Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.

Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during construction.

Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client’s expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal.

Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of Golder’s report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder’s report.

During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of Golder’s report and to confirm and document that construction activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder’s report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not followed, Golder’s responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the preparation of the Report.

Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.

Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the system.

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

APPENDIX B

Geotechnical Data Report

REPORT

Geotechnical Data Report Highway 95 Improvements, Radium Hot Springs, BC

Submitted to:

BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Attn: David Tracz, PEng

4th Floor, 310 Ward Street

Nelson, BC

V1L 5S4 Canada

Submitted by:


590 McKay Avenue, Suite 300

Kelowna, British Columbia,

V1Y 5A8 Canada

+1 250 860 8424

19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

13 January 2020

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

ii

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ....................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Desktop Study ...................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Site Reconnaissance ........................................................................................................................... 2

3.2.1 Edgewater South............................................................................................................................. 2

3.2.2 Edgewater North ............................................................................................................................. 2

3.2.3 Harrogate ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.3 Drilling Program.................................................................................................................................... 3


4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 5

4.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions .................................................................................................................. 5

4.1.1 Edgewater South............................................................................................................................. 5

4.1.2 Edgewater North ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.1.3 Harrogate ........................................................................................................................................ 6

4.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................................................... 7


5.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

TABLES

Table 1: Highway 95 Improvement Details ............................................................................................................... 1

Table 2: Borehole Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Laboratory Testing Results Summary ........................................................................................................ 7

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location Plans

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

iii

APPENDICES


APPENDIX B Record of Boreholes

APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Results

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As requested by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has

carried out a geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements to Highway 95 between Golden and

Radium Hot Springs (Radium), BC. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the soil and

groundwater conditions at three proposed sites (Harrogate, Edgewater North and Edgewater South), and based

on the results of the investigation, provides comments and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects

of the proposed highway improvements.

The geotechnical investigation was carried out in accordance with the scope of work presented in our proposal,

dated 8 October 2019 (Golder Reference 19115216-001-TM-Rev1-4000) and as modified by subsequent email

directions from MoTI. It should be noted that the scope of work for Spillmacheen was not carried out as part of this

geotechnical investigation, as requested by MoTI following issue of the proposal.

It should be noted that this scope of work is limited to the geotechnical investigation outlined in the proposal and

does not include any investigations, analytical testing or assessments for possible soil and groundwater

contamination, archaeological or biological considerations or erosion and/or sediment control measures.

This report should be read in conjunction with the “Important Information and Limitations of this Report” provided

in Appendix A. We specifically direct the reader’s attention to this information, as it is essential for the proper use

and interpretation of this report.

2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

Based on the Conceptual Design Report and Drawings provided by MoTI, dated September and October 2019, as

well as the 50% Detailed Design Drawings dated 15 November 2019, Golder understands that traffic will be

temporarily detoured along Highway 95/93 during planned improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway between

Golden and the Alberta border. With this temporary significant increase in traffic, three sites along Highway 95

have been identified as priorities for safety and capacity upgrades.

The proposed improvements to these sites have been summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Highway 95 Improvement Details

Site Distance South

of Golden (km)

Existing Infrastructure Proposed Development

Harrogate 52 Historic borrow area located northeast

of the highway used as a gravel pull-

out

Develop a commercial vehicle inspection

facility near the existing pull-out including

improved turning lanes

Edgewater

North

92 Existing intersection with Columbia

Road, north of Edgewater

Improve the intersection and turning lanes

Edgewater

South

94 Existing intersection with Columbia

Road (Riverview Road), south of

Edgewater

Improve the intersection and turning lanes

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

2

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 Desktop Study

Prior to undertaking the investigation program, Golder reviewed available technical literature pertaining to the

general site conditions and depositional environment of the sites. The sites span an approximately 42 km section

of Highway 95 which runs north-south adjacent to the Anastomosing upper Columbia River along the east side of

the Columbia Valley region of the Rocky Mountain Trench, which separates the Columbia Mountains (west) from

the Rocky Mountains (east). The Columbia Valley was primarily formed by geological faulting, however, has also

been considerably shaped by each Pleistocene glaciation.1

Based on the geomorphological environment, Golder anticipates that the subsurface stratigraphy primarily

comprises layers of glacial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits overlain by high and low energy alluvial

deposits. Due to the proximity of the highway to the base of the Rocky Mountains isolated coarse-grained colluvial

deposits may be encountered.

3.2 Site Reconnaissance

A site reconnaissance was carried out by a member of Golder’s geotechnical team on 7 November 2019. The

purpose of the site visit was to examine each site for any significant features/areas and determine appropriate test

locations.


Golder understands that potential widening of Highway 95 south of the intersection with Columbia Road South is

proposed (Edgewater South). As such Golder completed a reconnaissance of the embankment adjacent to the

northbound lane of Highway 5 in this area. The embankment was measured to be about 6 m high with a slope of

35 to 40 degrees. Surficial soil conditions comprise SAND and GRAVEL fill overlying native gravelly CLAYEY

SILT. The embankment was lightly vegetated with grasses. No water flow was observed from the embankment

face.


Golder understands that improvement of the intersection of Highway 95 and Columbia Road North is proposed

(Edgewater North). As such, Golder completed a reconnaissance of the proposed drillhole locations and soil

embankments in the area. A soil cut observed in the area was comprised of gravelly CLAYEY SILT. The

embankment was measured at about 8 m high with a slope of 30 to 40 degrees. The highway surface at the

corner of Columbia Road North and Highway 95 appeared to have been recently paved.

1 Clague, J (1975). Late Quaternary Sediments and Geomorphic History of the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench, British Columbia. Department of Geological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia Canada V6T 1W5. Canadian Journal of Earth Science, 12, 595-605.

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

3

3.2.3 Harrogate

Golder understands that two addition traffic lanes to the east side of the highway is being proposed as part of the

planned commercial vehicle inspection facility in Harrogate. As such Golder reviewed the cut slopes adjacent the

highway at the proposed site of the commercial vehicle inspection facility in Harrogate, immediately north of the

historic borrow area. The embankment was noted to be approximately 10 m in height with a slope of 35 to 40

degrees. The surficial soil conditions comprised non-cohesive sandy SILT, some gravel to silty SANDY GRAVEL.

The embankment was lightly vegetated with grasses. No water flow was observed from the embankment face.

Water was noted intermittently along both sides of Highway 95 in the Harrogate area; but is most significant at the

bottom of the Salisbury Road property adjacent to AH19-13 (as emphasised by the property owner). The water is

shallow and signs of flow/movement were noted amongst the organic deposits associated with this wet area.

Golder were asked to review an area of potential water infiltration adjacent to the Highway 95/Bens Hynes Loop

Road intersection (Harrogate). No significant water or indications of infiltration were noted. A culvert was identified

beneath the highway running west from the southeast corner of Highway 95/Ben Hynes Loop Road, adjacent to

AH19-08.

3.3 Drilling Program

Prior to commencing the subsurface investigation program Golder engaged Locates Unlimited Services Ltd. to

carry out a BC One Call and assess the proposed borehole locations for potential underground utilities.

The borehole drilling program was carried out from 12 November 2019 to 19 November 2019 to assess the

existing pavement structure and soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed sites. Geotech Drilling Services

Ltd. (Geotech) were engaged to advance 12 boreholes using auger drilling techniques to depths of between 2.7

and 6.7 metres below ground surface (mbgs). D&B Flagging Ltd. were contracted to provide traffic management

services. The test locations are presented in Figure 1.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was carried out at 1.5 metre intervals in the boreholes using a 50 millimetre-

diameter spilt spoon sampler. The sampler was advanced using a 63.5-kilogram automatic trip hammer dropped

from a height of 760 millimetres. The number of blows required to advance the sampler 450 millimetres was

recorded and used to determine the uncorrected SPT “N” value. Upon completion of each SPT, the split spoon

sampler was retrieved, opened and the recovered soil was photographed, classified and stored in a sealed,

labelled sample bag. Shelby Tube samples were also collected in fine-grained soils in the Edgewater South area,

and disturbed “grab” samples were collected from auger cuttings as necessary.

The drilling program was completed under the full-time supervision of a member of Golder’s geotechnical team

who located the boreholes, logged the subsurface geotechnical conditions, and collected representative soil

samples for visual review and subsequent laboratory testing. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were

backfilled and sealed with cold patch asphalt. Geotechnical samples collected during the investigation were

transported to Golder’s Laboratory in Burnaby, BC. Records of the boreholes are provided in Appendix B.

A summary of the borehole locations is provided in Table 2 below. The coordinates of each borehole were

obtained using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device with an accuracy of approximately ±5 metres.

Coordinates are recorded using UTM NAD83 Zone 11. It should be noted that AH19-03 was not drilled during the

investigation due to access restrictions.

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

4

Table 2: Borehole Summary

Site Test ID Northing (m) Easting (m) Final Depth (mbgs)

Edgewater South AH19-01A 0562275 5615808 5.2

Edgewater South AH19-01B 0562264 5615793 2.1

Edgewater South AH19-02 0562242 5615948 5.2

Edgewater South AH19-03 Not drilled

Edgewater South AH19-04 0562288 5616033 5.2

Edgewater North AH19-05 0561294 5617612 5.2

Edgewater North AH19-06 0561307 5617697 5.2

Harrogate AH19-07 0538021 5648164 2.7

Harrogate AH19-08 0537929 5648315 5.2

Harrogate AH19-09 0537903 5648401 4.0

Harrogate AH19-10 0537828 5648431 5.2

Harrogate AH19-11 0537767 5648513 6.7

Harrogate AH19-12 0537676 5648636 5.2

Harrogate AH19-13 0537622 5648707 6.7

Note: m = metres; masl = metres above sea level; mbgs = metres below ground surface

Borehole AH19-01B was drilled next to AH19-01 to obtain a Shelby Tube sample of the fine-grained soil

encountered in AH19-01A between 1.5 and 2.1 mbgs.


The following laboratory tests were carried out on disturbed and undisturbed samples collected during the drilling

program:

Water Content Determination (ASTM D2216) – 18 tests

Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D6913) – 8 tests

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) – 10 tests

Laboratory Hand Vane Test (ASTM D4648/D4648M-16) – 1 test

All soil testing was conducted at Golder’s material testing laboratory in Burnaby, BC. Each soil test was

carried out in accordance with their respective American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards. When

interpreting the results, it is important to note that there is likely a sampling bias in the sieve analysis results due

to the drilling and sample recovery method; and as such, these results should be interpreted with that bias in

mind. Specifically, the drilling method will not provide suitable representation of any cobbles and boulders

encountered in the subsurface.

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

5

Results of the laboratory testing are provided in Appendix C and are summarised in Section 4.3. The results are

also included in the Record of Boreholes summary sheets in Appendix B.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the time of the field investigation are

presented in the Record of Borehole log sheets in Appendix B along with a description of the soil classification

system used and a list of symbols and abbreviations for the proper interpretation of the soil information. The soil

descriptions are based on commonly accepted methods of classification and identification employed in

geotechnical practice.

Classification and identification of soil requires judgement and Golder does not guarantee descriptions as exact

but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice. The depths of stratigraphic

changes are generally approximate and inferred since there is often a gradual transition between soil types. It

should be noted that it is expected that variations in the subsurface conditions may occur between and beyond

the location of the boreholes.

The subsurface conditions encountered during the geotechnical investigation are summarised in the following

sections.

4.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions


Asphalt

The asphalt thickness on the shoulder of Highway 95 (AH19-01A, AH19-01B, and AH19-04) was measured to be

0.18 metres. The asphalt thickness on Columbia Road/Riverside Road (AH19-02) was 0.08 metres.

Fill Material

Fill material at Edgewater South was generally described as dark brown SILTY SAND and GRAVEL. The soil was

dry and has an inferred density of compact. Fill material was encountered below asphalt to a maximum depth of

approximately 1.5 mbgs in AH19-01A, 1.2 mbgs in AH19-04, and 0.8 mbgs in AH19-02.

Native Soils

Native soil at Edgewater South was generally described as light brown to greyish brown, SILTY CLAY to SILT.

Based on SPT results, the consistency of the soil ranges from soft to very stiff, generally becoming stiffer with

depth. The moisture content ranges from below to equal to the plastic limit. A layer of brown, stiff gravelly

CLAYEY SILT was also encountered in AH19-04 between 1.2 mbgs and 2.9 mbgs.


Asphalt

The asphalt thickness at the Highway 95/Columbia Road intersection (AH19-05) was measured to be 0.25

metres. The asphalt thickness on the shoulder of Highway 95 (AH19-06) was 0.08 metres.

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

6

Fill Material

Fill material at Edgewater North generally ranges from dark brown gravelly SILTY SAND to SILTY SAND and

GRAVEL. The soil was dry and has an inferred density of compact. Fill material was encountered below asphalt to

a maximum depth of approximately 0.9 mbgs.

Native Soils

The native soil encountered at Edgewater North was variable and generally comprised the following units:

Brown, moist gravelly SILTY SAND to sandy SILTY GRAVEL was encountered from 0.9 mbgs to 1.4 mbgs.

The density of this soil was inferred as compact.

Light brown, cohesive gravelly/sandy CLAYEY SILT and SILTY CLAY was encountered from 1.4 mbgs to

maximum depth of 5.2 mbgs. Based on SPT results, the consistency of this soil was determined to be soft to

very stiff, with a moisture content ranging between less than and equal to the plastic limit.

Brown to greyish brown, dry to moist SAND and GRAVEL was encountered from 4.4 mbgs to termination

depth of 5.2 mbgs in AH19-06. Based on SPT results, the density of this soil was determined to be dense.

4.1.3 Harrogate

Asphalt

The asphalt along the shoulder of Highway 95 in Harrogate was consistently 0.08 metres thick.

Fill Material

Fill material at Harrogate generally ranges from dark brown to brown, gravelly SILTY SAND to SILTY SAND and

GRAVEL. The soil was dry and has an inferred density of compact. Fill material was encountered to a maximum

depth of 0.9 mbgs along the shoulder of Highway 95, and to 2.7 mbgs at the Highway 95/Ben Hynes Loop Road

intersection (AH19-08). Within the existing gravel pull-out, the fill depth was approximately 2.4 metres (AH19-09).

Native Soils

The native soil encountered at Harrogate was relatively consistent across the site and generally comprised the

following units:

Brown to greyish brown, gravelly SILTY SAND to SAND and GRAVEL was encountered in all Harrogate

boreholes with depth ranging between 1.1 mbgs and 5.2 mbgs. Based on SPT results, the density of this soil

was determined to be compact to very dense, with a moisture content ranging from dry to saturated. Cobbles

and boulders were also noted in some boreholes.

This unit is underlain by light brown to grey CLAYEY SILT to SILTY CLAY, as identified in AH19-08, AH19-

10 and AH19-13. This soil was encountered at depth of between 4.4 mbgs to maximum termination depth of

6.7 mbgs. Based on SPT results, the consistency of this soil was determined to be firm to very stiff, with a

moisture content ranging equal to/greater than the plastic limit.

In the most southern boreholes (AH19-07 and AH19-08), brown to light brown CLAYEY SILT was noted

below fill material between 0.9 mbgs and 3.2 mbgs. Based on SPT results, the consistency of this soil was

very stiff and moisture content equal to the plastic limit.

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

7

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at Harrogate in AH19-10 at 2.9 mbgs, AH19-11 at 3.0 mbgs, and at AH19-13 at

4.8 mbgs. Groundwater was not encountered at Edgewater North or Edgewater South.


Soil testing was carried out on 18 representative samples collected during the field investigation and have been

used to confirm field soil descriptions. The results of the laboratory tests are summarised in Table 3 below. A

complete set of laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix C.

A Laboratory Hand Vane Test was carried out on the undisturbed soil sample from AH19-01B at 1.6 mbgs. The

results indicate that the soil is stiff with an undrained shear strength of 60 kPa and moisture content of 26.8%.

Table 3: Laboratory Testing Results Summary

Borehole

ID

Depth

(mbgs)

Water

Content

(%)

Sieve Analysis Plasticity

Index

Soil Description

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Fines

(%)

AH19-01A 1.52-2.13 27.7 - - - 10.0 SILTY CLAY (CI)

AH19-01A 4.57-5.18 28.4 0.0 1.1 98.9 13.0 SILTY CLAY (CI)

AH19-02 0.91-1.22 23.0 - - - 10.0 SILTY CLAY (CI)

AH19-02 1.52-2.13 23.7 - - - 7.0 SILTY CLAY (CL)

AH19-02 3.05-3.66 14.7 - - - 0.0 SILT (ML)

AH19-04 1.52-2.13 13.8 35.9 16.3 47.8 - gravelly CLAYEY SILT (ML)

AH19-06 1.52-2.13 27.8 - - - 12.0 SILTY CLAY (CI)

AH19-06 3.05-3.66 17.4 0.5 33.6 65.9 3.0 sandy SILT (ML)

AH19-06 4.57-5.18 2.0 48.4 43.6 8.0 - SAND and GRAVEL (SW/GW)

AH19-07 0.91-1.52 30.0 - - - 11.0 CLAYEY SILT (ML)



AH19-10 1.52-2.13 2.2 - - - - gravelly SILTY SAND (SM)



AH19-13 4.57-5.18 10.4 - - - - gravelly SILTY SAND (SM)

AH19-13 6.10-6.71 27.0 - - - 6.0 SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT

(CL-ML)

830

840

850

840

840

850

830

840

RIVE

RVIE

W R

OAD



AH19-01A

AH19-02

AH19-04

AH19-01B

HIGHWAY 95

SPUR VALLEY

RADIUM HOT SPRINGS

5 616 000 N5 616 000 N

562 300 E 562 300 E

5 615 900 N5 615 900 N

5 615 800 N5 615 800 N

562 200 E 562 200 E

101+100

101+200

101+300

300+

100

AH19-01A

AH19-02

AH19-04

AH19-01B

025

mm

19115216PHASE/TASK4000/4030

FIGURE

1A0

2020-01-13

A. WANG

A. MORPETH

G. RUTHERFORD

G. RUTHERFORD



TEST HOLE LOCATIONS - EDGEWATER SOUTH TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\M

inis

try_o

f_Tr

ansp

orta

tion\

Hw

y95_

Rad

ium

Hot

Spr

ings

_BC

\99_

PRO

JEC

TS\1

8112

195\

4000

\403

0\D

OC

_XXX

\02_

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

1219

5-40

00-4

030-

EDG

EWAT

ER.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: xin

wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-09

Tim

e:9:

57:0

2 AM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:10

:09:

36 A

M

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

NOTES


REFERENCE



SITE BOUNDARY




PROPOSED ROAD TOES

LEGEND

0

1:800

20 40

METRES


840


870

860

85088

0

890

890

880

890

900

COLUMBIA ROAD

HIGHWAY 95

HIGHWAY 95

AH19-05

AH19-06

SPUR VALLEY

RADIUM HOT SPRINGS

5 617 700 N

5 617 700 N

561 300 E

561 300 E

5 617 800 N

5 617 800 N

5 617 600 N

5 617 600 N

5 617 500 N

5 617 500 N

561 200 E

561 200 E

561 400 E

561 400 E

103+200

103+300

103+400200+400 200+500

AH19-05

AH19-06

025

mm

19115216PHASE/TASK4000/4030

FIGURE

1B0

2020-01-13

A. WANG

A. MORPETH

G. RUTHERFORD

G. RUTHERFORD



TEST HOLE LOCATIONS - EDGEWATER NORTH TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\M

inis

try_o

f_Tr

ansp

orta

tion\

Hw

y95_

Rad

ium

Hot

Spr

ings

_BC

\99_

PRO

JEC

TS\1

8112

195\

4000

\403

0\D

OC

_XXX

\02_

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

1219

5-40

00-4

030-

EDG

EWAT

ER.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: xin

wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-09

Tim

e:9:

57:0

2 AM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:10

:27:

40 A

M

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

0

1:800

20 40

METRES



LEGEND

840

SITE BOUNDARY




PROPOSED ROAD TOES

PROPOSED ROAD SHOULDERNOTES


REFERENCE


HIGHWAY 95

COLUMBIA RIVER

BENHYNES LOOP ROAD

850

840

830

820

810

800

790

790

790

PARSON

SPILLIMACHEEN

PROPERSED PAVEMENT EDGE

PROPERSED PAVEMENT EDGE

5 648

600

N

5 648

600

N

538 000 E

538 000 E

5 648

800

N

5 648

800

N

5 648

400

N

5 648

400

N

5 648

200

N

5 648

200

N

537 800 E

537 800 E

537 600 E

537 600 E

538 200 E

APPROXIMATE EXTENTS OFOBSERVED SANDY SILTOUTCROP

100+900101+000 101+100 101+200 101+300 101+400 101+500 101+600

AH19-07

AH19-08

AH19-09

AH19-10 AH19-11 AH19-12 AH19-13

025

mm

19115216PHASE/TASK4000/4030

FIGURE

1C0

2020-01-13

A. WANG

A. MORPETH

G. RUTHERFORD

G. RUTHERFORD



TEST HOLE LOCATIONS - HARROGATE TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\M

inis

try_o

f_Tr

ansp

orta

tion\

Hw

y95_

Rad

ium

Hot

Spr

ings

_BC

\99_

PRO

JEC

TS\1

8112

195\

4000

\403

0\D

OC

_XXX

\02_

PRO

DU

CTI

ON

\DW

G\

| Fi

le N

ame:

181

1219

5-40

00-4

030-

HAR

RO

GAT

E.dw

g |

Las

t Edi

ted

By: x

inw

ang

Dat

e: 2

020-

01-1

3 T

ime:

10:4

8:39

AM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

202

0-01

-13

Tim

e:10

:49:

21 A

M

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

1:2,000

1000

METRES

50


NOTES


REFERENCE


EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY CONTOURSLEGEND

860

SITE BOUNDARY




PROPOSED ROAD TOES


13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

APPENDIX A

Important Information and

Limitations of this Report

1

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that

level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently

practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits

and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.

Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development

and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to

a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any

change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of

the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder can not be responsible for use of this report, or

portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report.

The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No

other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent. If the

report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of

the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for

the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others

is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as

well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the

copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but

only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and

Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any

other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is

susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client can not rely

upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.

The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to

Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by

Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the

suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the

report. Golder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report.

Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only

for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations,

including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect

construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding

on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the

factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not

limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.

Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units

have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and

related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves

judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than

abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions.

2

Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and

even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface

conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder

interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil

variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on

adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical

aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the

report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from

previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site

sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.

Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions

at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the

recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and

can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and

groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering,

pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to

wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during

construction.

Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of

this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client’s

expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be

present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal.

Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of

Golder’s report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to

construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder’s report.

During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered

conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted

conditions considered in the preparation of Golder’s report and to confirm and document that construction

activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder’s report.

Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide

letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this

recommendation is not followed, Golder’s responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information

encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the

preparation of the Report.

Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those

anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a

condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or

revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires

experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if

conditions have changed significantly.

Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project.

Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no

responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction

monitoring of the system.

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

APPENDIX B

Record of Boreholes

Sample Type 2. Soil Group (Organic Soils) 2. Soil Group continued (Fine and Coarse Grained Soils)

Soil Type/ Description Order

3. Description of Primary Components 7. Structure 11. Moisture

1. Classification

12. Compactness (Non-Cohesive)

4. Description of Secondary Components5. Description of Minor Components 12. Consistency (Cohesive)

6. Colour 8. Contamination if applicable; note staining and/or odour

9. Additional ObservationsSee note in Soil Type/Decsription order table

10. Behaviour

Non-Cohesive or Cohesive

Notes for Completion of Soil Field Logs

Fin

e G

rain

ed

So

ils

Silt

s an

d C

lays

LL

<50

Gra

vel a

nd

Gra

velly

Soi

lsS

and

and

S

andy

Soi

ls

Co

ars

e G

rain

ed S

oil

s

Silt

s an

d C

lays

LL

>5

0

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

FIN

E G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

OR

GA

NIC

SO

ILS

0.18m

1.45m

2.44m

5.18m

1

2

3A

4

5

67

71

75

AP

SM-GM

CI

CI

ASPHALT, 180 mm thick

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,angular to sub-rounded gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

SILTY CLAY, light brown, cohesive,w~PL, firm, NATIVE - inferred.

SILTY CLAY, trace gravel, light brown,red-brown staining, cohesive, w~PL, firm.

Augerhole terminated at target depth.

Atterberg (Sa#3A):PL:23% LL:33%

Atterberg (Sa#5):PL:24% LL:37%Sieve (Sa#5)G:0% S:1% F:99%

Driller: Wayne

Drill Make/Model: Moble Drill Truck

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Edgewater South, B.C.

Date(s) Drilled: 2019-11-17Project: Hwy95-Hwy93_Radium Hot Springs_BC

838

837

836

835

834

833

832

831

830

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: AH19-01A

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

Drilling Method: Auger

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0

Final Depth of Hole: 5.2 mDepth to Top of Rock: N/A

COMMENTSTESTING

Drillers Estimate{G % S % F %}

SUMMARY LOG

Company: Geotech Drilling Ltd

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon

Northing/Easting: 5615808 , 562275

Elevation: 839.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Golder Associates Ltd.Datum: NAD 83 UTM ZONE 11Prepared by:

MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L

SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm)

100 200 300 400 Pocket Penetrometer Shear Strength (kPa)

6

5

5

27.7

28.4

0.18m

1.45m

2.13m

3B 100

AP

SM-GM

CI



SILTY CLAY, light brown, cohesive,w~PL, firm, NATIVE - inferred.


Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



838

837

836

835

834

833

832

831

830

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: AH19-01B

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 839.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



0.08m

0.76m

1.52m

3.05m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

92

83

92

AP

SM-GM

CI

CL

ML


SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, moist, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

SILTY CLAY, some gravel, trace sand,brown, cohesive, w<PL, stiff, NATIVE -inferred.

SILTY CLAY, brown, mottled grey-brown,cohesive, w~PL, stiff.

SILT, grey-brown, cohesive, w~PL, stiff.


Atterberg (Sa#2):PL:21% LL:31%


Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



836

835

834

833

832

831

830

829

828

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: AH19-02

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 837.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



12

14

16

23

23.7

14.7

0.18m

1.22m

2.9m

3.96m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

83

100

AP

GM

ML

ML

CI


sandy SILTY GRAVEL, well graded,angular to sub-angular gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

sandy CLAYEY SILT and GRAVEL, wellgraded sand, sub-angular to roundedgravel, brown, cohesive, w<PL to w~PL,stiff, NATIVE - inferred.

CLAYEY SILT, light brown, cohesive,w<PL to w~PL, stiff.

SILTY CLAY, light brown, cohesive,w~PL, stiff to very stiff.


Sieve (Sa#3)G:36% S:16% F:48%

Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



846

845

844

843

842

841

840

839

838

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 847.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



13

12

22

13.8

0.25m

0.91m

1.37m

2.74m

4.57m

4.88m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13

67

83

AP

SM

SM

ML

CI

CL-MLML


gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,angular to sub-rounded gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,non-cohesive, moist, inferred compact,NATIVE - inferred.

gravelly CLAYEY SILT, sub-angular torounded gravel, light brown, cohesive,w~PL, very stiff.

SILTY CLAY, some gravel, light brown,red-brown and dark brown bands, traceorganics, cohesive, w<PL to w~PL, stiff.

- some brown mottles

gravelly SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT,some sand, light brown, cohesive, w~PL,very stiff.

sandy CLAYEY SILT, fine to mediumsand, brown, cohesive, w~PL, very stiff.


Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Edgewater North, B.C.


876

875

874

873

872

871

870

869

868

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 877.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



17

12

19

0.08m

0.91m

1.37m

3.05m

4.12m

4.42m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

83

79

79

AP

SM-GM

GM

CI

ML

CI

GW-SW


SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,angular to sub-rounded gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, moist, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

sandy SILTY GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,brown, non-cohesive, moist, inferredcompact, NATIVE - inferred.

SILTY CLAY, light brown mottled brownto red-brown, trace organics, cohesive,w<PL to w~PL, firm.

- some sand, trace gravel from 2.74 m

sandy SILT, fine to medium sand, lightbrown, cohesive, w~PL, interbedded withSILTY SAND, fine to medium, light brown,non-cohesive, moist; sandy SILT is soft tofirm, SILT SAND is very loose to loose.

SILTY CLAY, some sand, some gravel,light brown, cohesive, w~PL, soft to firm.

GRAVEL and SAND, some non-plasticfines, well graded, sub-angular tosub-rounded gravel, brown to grey-brown,with iron oxide staining, non-cohesive, dryto moist, dense.



Atterberg (Sa#5):PL:15% LL:18%Sieve (Sa#5)G:0% S:34% F:66%

Sieve (Sa#7)G:48% S:44% F:8%

Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Edgewater North, B.C.


852

851

850

849

848

847

846

845

844

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 853.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



7

4

39

27.8

17.4

2

0.08m

0.91m

1.83m

2.44m

2.74m

1

2

3

4

88

AP

SM-GM

ML

SM-GM

ML


SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, sub-angulargravel, brown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

CLAYEY SILT, some gravel, dark brownto orange-brown, cohesive, w~PL, stiff tovery stiff, NATIVE - inferred.

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,brown, with iron oxide staining,non-cohesive, dry, compact.

gravelly CLAYEY SILT, well gradedgravel, sub-angular to sub-roundedgravel, brown to light brown, cohesive,w~PL, hard.

Augerhole terminated due to refusal inboulder/cobbles.


Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Harrogate, B.C.


798

797

796

795

794

793

792

791

790

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 799.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



23

30

0.18m

0.76m

2.74m

3.15m

3.96m

4.42m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

6

71

79

AP

SW-GW

SW-GW

ML

SM-GM

GC

ML


SAND and GRAVEL, trace non-plasticfines, fine to medium sand, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,brown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

SAND and GRAVEL, some non-plasticfines, well graded, sub-angular tosub-rounded gravel, brown,non-cohesive, dry, compact to dense,FILL.

CLAYEY SILT, some gravel, light brown,cohesive, w~PL, very stiff, NATIVE -inferred.

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,brown, with iron oxide staining,non-cohesive, dry, compact.

CLAYEY GRAVEL, well graded,sub-rounded to rounded, brown,non-cohesive, moist, compact.

CLAYEY SILT, light brown, cohesive,w~PL, firm.


Sieve (Sa#2)G:44% S:47% F:9%

Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



811

810

809

808

807

806

805

804

803

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 812.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



16

18

7

4

0.61m

2.44m

3.05m

3.96m

1

2

3

4

5

88

71

SM-GM

SW-GW

GM

SM-GM

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,angular to sub-angular gravel, darkbrown, trace rootlets, non-cohesive, dry,inferred dense, FILL - inferred.

SAND and GRAVEL, some non-plasticfines, well graded, angular tosub-rounded gravel, brown,non-cohesive, dry to moist, very dense,NATIVE - inferred.

sandy SILTY GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,brown, non-cohesive, moist, very dense.

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown togrey-brown, with iron oxide staining,non-cohesive, dry to moist, dense.

Augerhole terminated at 3.96 m due todifficult drilling conditions.

Sieve (Sa#3)G:38% S:50% F:12%

Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



798

797

796

795

794

793

792

791

790

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 799.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



77

31

2.8

0.08m

1.07m

2.9m

3.96m

4.65m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

6

79

63

88

AP

SM

SM

SM

SM

ML


gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,angular to sub-rounded gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,with iron oxide staining, non-cohesive, dryto moist, dense, NATIVE - inferred.

- cobbles and boulders between 2.13 mand 2.44 m

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,with iron oxide staining, non-cohesive,wet, compact.

SILTY SAND, some gravel, well graded,brown to grey-brown, non-cohesive, wet,compact.

CLAYEY SILT, light brown to brown, withiron oxide staining, cohesive, w>PL, verystiff. - grey, no staining from 4.93 m to EOH


Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



796

795

794

793

792

791

790

789

788

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 797.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



31

19

23

2.9m

2.2

0.08m

0.91m

3.05m

6.1m

6.71m

1

2

3

4

5

6

58

83

58

42

AP

SM-GM

SM

SM-GM

SM



gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,with iron oxide staining, with cobbles,non-cohesive, dry to moist, compact,NATIVE - inferred.

SILTY SAND and GRAVEL, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,with iron oxide staining, with cobbles andboulders, non-cohesive, wet, dense.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,brown, non-cohesive, wet, compact.


Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



791

790

789

788

787

786

785

784

783

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 792.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



15

41

34

28

3.0m

0.08m

0.91m

2.9m

5.18m

1

2

3

4

5

75

71

75

AP

GW-SW

SW-GW

SM


GRAVEL and SAND, trace non-plasticfines, well-graded, angular to sub-angulargravel, dark brown, non-cohesive, dry,inferred compact, FILL - inferred baseand sub-base gravels.

SAND and GRAVEL, some non-plasticfines, well graded, sub-angular torounded gravel, brown, with iron oxidestaining, non-cohesive, dry to moist,compact, NATIVE - inferred.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,with iron oxide staining, with cobbles andboulders, non-cohesive, moist to wet,compact.


Sieve (Sa#1)G:59% S:37% F:3%

Sieve (Sa#3)G:44% S:47% F:9%

Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



783

782

781

780

779

778

777

776

775

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 784.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



27

17

13

2.7

3.4

0.08m

0.91m

3.05m

4.57m

5.49m

6.71m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

63

58

75

88

AP

SM

SM

SM

SM

CL-ML


gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,angular to sub-angular gravel, darkbrown, non-cohesive, dry, inferredcompact, FILL - inferred base andsub-base gravels.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,non-cohesive, dry to moist, compact, FILL- inferred.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown,trace organics, non-cohesive, moist,compact, NATIVE - inferred.

gravelly SILTY SAND, well graded,sub-angular to rounded gravel, brown togrey-brown, with iron oxide staining, traceorganics, non-cohesive, wet, compact.

SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT, lightbrown, cohesive, w>PL, firm.



Driller: Wayne


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



789

788

787

786

785

784

783

782

781

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment:

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

19115216/4000/4030

Reviewed by: GR

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 790.0 m

Station/Offset:

Logged by: AM

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

9115

216-

4000

-403

0.G

PJ

MO

TI_

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E_R

EV

3.G

DT

1/1

3/2

0

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



16

13

23

7

4.8m10.4

27

13 January 2020 19115216-4000-006-R-Rev0

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Testing Results

AH19-01A SA3A 1.52 2.13 27.7

AH19-01A SA5 4.57 5.18 28.4

AH19-02 SA2 0.91 1.22 23.0

AH19-02 SA3 1.52 2.13 23.7

AH19-02 SA4 3.05 3.66 14.7

AH19-04 SA3 1.52 2.13 13.8

AH19-06 SA3 1.52 2.13 27.8

AH19-06 SA5 3.05 3.66 17.4

AH19-06 SA7 4.57 5.18 2.0

AH19-07 SA2 0.91 1.52 30.0

AH19-08 SA2 0.91 1.52 4.0

AH19-09 SA3 1.52 2.13 2.8

AH19-10 SA3 1.52 2.13 2.2

AH19-12 SA1 0.08 0.30 2.7

AH19-12 SA3 1.52 2.13 3.4

AH19-13 SA6 4.57 5.18 10.4

AH19-13 SA7 6.10 6.71 27.0

SampleLocation

WaterContent

(%)Depth

(m)Bottom

(m)

Depth IntervalSample

No.Specimen

No.

Sheet 1 of 1

ASTM D 2216

WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION

SJ 12/9/2019

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

_WA

TE

R C

ON

TE

NT

(R

EP

OR

T)

2018

SJo

hn 9

/1/2

0

Lab Schedule No.:

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:

Highway 95/93 Improvements

Client: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Project No.:

Checked Date

300 - 3811 North Fraser Way, Burnaby, BC V5J 5J2 CANADATel: +1 (604) 412 6899 Fax: +1 (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019

Sample / SpecimenNumber

1.52 2.13

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND

LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT ANDPLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS

Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

NaturalWater Content

(%)

LiquidityIndex

NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED

1.52 to 2.13

AH19-01A 27.733 23 0.5 10.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG 12/2/2019 SJ

Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.

SA3A

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

/20

ID: AH19-01A

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA3A

N/A

Preparation Method:Test Method: A-Multi Point

Other Remarks:

Air Dried

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:

DateTech Checked Date



SILT (ML)SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML)

ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line

CLAYEY SILT (MH)ORGANIC SILT (OH)

CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


4.57 5.18

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

100


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


4.57 to 5.18

AH19-01A 28.437 24 0.3 13.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG 12/2/2019 SJ


SA5

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

/20

ID: AH19-01A

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA5

N/A


Other Remarks:

Air Dried

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


0.91 1.22

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


0.91 to 1.22

AH19-02 23.031 21 0.2 10.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG 12/2/2019 SJ


SA2

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-02

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA2

N/A


Other Remarks:

Air Dried

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


1.52 2.13

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


1.52 to 2.13

AH19-02 23.729 22 0.2 7.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG 11/29/2019 SJ


SA3

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-02

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA3

N/A


Other Remarks:

Wet

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


3.05 3.66

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


3.05 to 3.66

AH19-02 14.7NP NP NPNP

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG 12/2/2019 SJ


SA4

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-02

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA4

N/A


Other Remarks:

Wet

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


1.52 2.13

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


1.52 to 2.13

AH19-06 27.833 21 0.6 12.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG/FF 12/4/2019 SJ


SA3

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-06

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA3

N/A


Other Remarks:

Wet

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


3.05 3.66

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

91


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


3.05 to 3.66

AH19-06 17.418 15 0.8 3.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG/FF 11/28/2019 SJ


SA5

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-06

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA5

N/A


Other Remarks:

Air Dried

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


0.91 1.52

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


0.91 to 1.52

AH19-07 30.041 30 0.0 11.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

RG/FF 11/28/2019 SJ


SA2

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-07

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA2

N/A


Other Remarks:

Air Dried

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

12/9/2019


6.10 6.71

Bottom(m)

PercentPassing

#40 Sieve(%)

Sym.

ND


Depth Interval (m):

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex


(%)

LiquidityIndex


6.10 to 6.71

AH19-13 27.027 21 1.0 6.0

PLASTICITY CHART

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Liquid Limit

Depth(m)

SampleLocation

BM 12/2/2019 SJ


SA7

ASTM D 4318

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

AT

TE

RB

ER

G C

AS

AG

RA

ND

E (

SIN

GLE

) 20

18 S

John

9/1

2/19

ID: AH19-13

Lab Schedule No.:

Sample No.: SA7

N/A


Other Remarks:

Wet

19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020

Project:

Location:



Project No.:





ORGANIC SILT (OL)

A-Line


CLAY(CH)

SILTY CLAY(CI)

SILTY CLAY(CL)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

40201 1/2 4HydrometerU.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch)

Coarse

GRAVEL

200100603/81224 USCS Particle Size Scale

SJ

4.57 to 5.18

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019

Size of Opening (inches)103/436

Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND

Fine MediumCoarseBOULDER FINES (Silt, Clay)

Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)

SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing

ParticleSizeSieve Size

Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.8

99.6

99.4

99.2

99.0

98.9

Sample Location: AH19-01A

Sample No.: SA5

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913

National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:2415 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) 2018 SJohn 9/1/20

Tech Date Checked Date

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure


Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.: 19115216 Phase: 4000 Task: 4020



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

1.52 to 2.13

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

70.0

70.0

70.0

66.6

64.1

62.5

61.0

58.8

55.3

52.0

49.8

47.8

Sample Location: AH19-04

Sample No.: SA3

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

3.05 to 3.66

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.5

99.0

97.0

91.3

82.9

75.6

69.7

65.9


Sample No.: SA5

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

4.57 to 5.18

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.7

87.1

76.8

69.9

51.6

34.5

23.7

16.9

12.9

10.2

8.9

8.0


Sample No.: SA7

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

0.91 to 1.52

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

90.8

83.6

76.2

69.9

56.2

45.7

36.2

25.1

16.4

12.0

10.4

9.5


Sample No.: SA2

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

1.52 to 2.13

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.5

93.1

85.1

78.4

62.0

46.3

36.0

27.6

20.4

15.7

13.5

12.0


Sample No.: SA3

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

0.08 to 0.30

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

92.9

71.7

59.7

40.7

27.0

18.4

12.5

7.9

5.0

4.0

3.4


Sample No.: SA1

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


SJ

1.52 to 2.13

FF/BM 11/27/2019 12/9/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.3

92.9

82.3

76.6

56.5

41.1

31.8

23.5

16.3

12.1

10.3

9.1


Sample No.: SA3

Lab Schedule No.:

ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:




Miniature Vane Shear Test for SaturatedFine-Grained Clayey Soils

Project No.:

Project: Instrument ID: GEO839

Location: Lab ID No:

Client:

Pilcon Geotechnics Hand Shear Vane

* The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only. Interpretation of the data can be provided upon request.

Other InformationVANE TYPE

PEAK REMOULDED

SAMPLE DEPTH (m) TEST DEPTH Torque reading [lbf/ft²]

Vane shear strength [kPa]

1.52 - 2.13

Torque reading [lbf/ft²]

Vane shear strength [kPa]

Test @ 1.57 m Large 1250.0 59.93B 300.0 14.4 26.8% WC

Golder Associates Ltd.590 McKay Ave, Suite 300, Kelowna, BC V1Y 5A8

Tel: 250-860-8424 www.golder.com

ASTM D4648-D4648M

BOREHOLE

Jason Stotz November 29, 2019 Gavin Black January 9, 2020

TESTED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE

19115216 - 4000 - 4020 Vane Apparatus:


Radium, BC K19-123

MOTi

AH19-01B

golder.com

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

APPENDIX C

2015 NBCC Seismic Hazard

Calculation Reports

2015 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 français (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836

Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565

Site: 50.704N 116.130W User File Reference: Edgewater 2020-01-23 18:32 UT

Probability of exceedance per annum 0.000404 0.001 0.0021 0.01

Probability of exceedance in 50 years 2 % 5 % 10 % 40 %

Sa (0.05) 0.150 0.085 0.050 0.012

Sa (0.1) 0.225 0.128 0.075 0.018

Sa (0.2) 0.262 0.153 0.093 0.025

Sa (0.3) 0.233 0.140 0.087 0.026

Sa (0.5) 0.173 0.103 0.065 0.021

Sa (1.0) 0.095 0.059 0.039 0.014

Sa (2.0) 0.046 0.030 0.021 0.007

Sa (5.0) 0.017 0.011 0.007 0.002

Sa (10.0) 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.001

PGA (g) 0.120 0.069 0.041 0.010

PGV (m/s) 0.097 0.060 0.040 0.014

Notes: Spectral (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) values aregiven in units of g (9.81 m/s2). Peak ground velocity is given in m/s. Values are for "firm ground"(NBCC2015 Site Class C, average shear wave velocity 450 m/s). NBCC2015 and CSAS6-14 values arehighlighted in yellow. Three additional periods are provided - their use is discussed in the NBCC2015Commentary. Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a10-km-spaced grid of points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at thislocation calculated directly from the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent ofinterpolated values are within 2 percent of the directly calculated values.

References

National Building Code of Canada 2015 NRCC no. 56190; Appendix C: Table C-3, Seismic DesignData for Selected Locations in Canada

Structural Commentaries (User's Guide - NBC 2015: Part 4 of Division B)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects

Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7893 Fifth Generation Seismic Hazard Model for Canada: Gridvalues of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada

See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.ca and www.nationalcodes.ca for more information

http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca

http://www.nationalcodes.ca

2015 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 français (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836

Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565

Site: 50.985N 116.460W User File Reference: Harrogate, BC 2020-01-14 22:57 UT

Probability of exceedance per annum 0.000404 0.001 0.0021 0.01

Probability of exceedance in 50 years 2 % 5 % 10 % 40 %

Sa (0.05) 0.150 0.085 0.050 0.012

Sa (0.1) 0.226 0.129 0.076 0.018

Sa (0.2) 0.264 0.154 0.094 0.025

Sa (0.3) 0.235 0.141 0.088 0.026

Sa (0.5) 0.174 0.104 0.065 0.021

Sa (1.0) 0.095 0.058 0.038 0.013

Sa (2.0) 0.046 0.030 0.020 0.007

Sa (5.0) 0.017 0.011 0.007 0.002

Sa (10.0) 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.001

PGA (g) 0.121 0.069 0.041 0.010

PGV (m/s) 0.097 0.060 0.039 0.014

Notes: Spectral (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) values aregiven in units of g (9.81 m/s2). Peak ground velocity is given in m/s. Values are for "firm ground"(NBCC2015 Site Class C, average shear wave velocity 450 m/s). NBCC2015 and CSAS6-14 values arehighlighted in yellow. Three additional periods are provided - their use is discussed in the NBCC2015Commentary. Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a10-km-spaced grid of points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at thislocation calculated directly from the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent ofinterpolated values are within 2 percent of the directly calculated values.

References

National Building Code of Canada 2015 NRCC no. 56190; Appendix C: Table C-3, Seismic DesignData for Selected Locations in Canada

Structural Commentaries (User's Guide - NBC 2015: Part 4 of Division B)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects

Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7893 Fifth Generation Seismic Hazard Model for Canada: Gridvalues of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada

See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.ca and www.nationalcodes.ca for more information

http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca

http://www.nationalcodes.ca

2 March 2020 19115216-007-R-Rev0

APPENDIX D

Graphical Results of Slope Stability

Analyses

PROJECT No. TASK Rev FIGURE

19115216 4000/4030 0

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE BC

HIGHWAY 95 IMPROVEMENTS

RADIUM HOT SPRINGS, BC

CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

2019-12-19

C.H.

G.R. D1-1

Slope Stability Analysis – Edgewater

South Embankment Section AA’ 2.0H:1V


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

2019-12-19

C.H.

G.R. D1-2


South Embankment Section AA’ 2.25H:1V


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

2019-12-19

C.H.

G.R. D2-1


North Embankment Section BB’ 2.0H:1V


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-1

Slope Stability Analysis – Harrogate Cut

Slope Section CC’ 1.5H:1V - Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-2


Slope Section CC’ 1.5H:1V – Pseudo-

Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-3




19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-4



Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-5




19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-6



Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-7


Slope Section DD’ 1.5H:1V - Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-8


Slope Section DD’ 1.5H:1V – Pseudo-

Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-9




19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-10



Static


19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-11




19115216 4000/4030 0


INFRASTRUCTURE BC



CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

G.B.

G.B.

C.H.

2019-12-19

G.R. D3-12



Static

golder.com

report geotechnical design report · and the 50% detailed design drawings, dated 15 november 2019...

Documents