1527072 (2000) REP 2016'10'18 Geotechnical Investigation ...

October 2016

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment Oakville, Ontario

REPO

RT

Submitted to:Clublink Corporation ULC & Clublink Holdings Limited 15675 Dufferin Street King City, ON L4M 6Y1

Report Number: 1527072 (2000)

Distribution:

1 e-Copy - Clublink Corporation ULC 1 e-Copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GLEN ABBEY GOLF CLUB REDEVELOPMENT

October 2016 Report No. 1527072 (2000) i

Table of Contents

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

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................................... 1

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

4.1 General Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 2

4.1.1 Topsoil ................................................................................................................................................ 3

4.1.2 Fill ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.1.3 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay Till .................................................................................................................. 3

4.1.4 Shale Bedrock ..................................................................................................................................... 4

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

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 5

5.1 Subsurface Conditions Summary ............................................................................................................. 6

5.2 General Site Grading ................................................................................................................................ 6

5.3 Site Preparation and Engineered Fill ........................................................................................................ 6

5.4 Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 7

5.5 Lateral Earth Pressure on Walls ............................................................................................................... 8

5.6 Site Servicing ............................................................................................................................................ 9

5.6.1 Excavations ......................................................................................................................................... 9

5.6.2 Pipe Bedding and Cover ................................................................................................................... 10

5.6.3 Trench Backfill .................................................................................................................................. 10

5.8 Preliminary Geotechnical Input to Storm Water Management Ponds ..................................................... 11

5.8.1 SWM Pond Liners ............................................................................................................................. 12

5.8.2 SWM Pond Berm Construction and Inspection and Maintenance ..................................................... 12

5.9 Preliminary Pavement Design ................................................................................................................ 13

5.10 Erosion Hazard Limits ............................................................................................................................. 14

5.10.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 14

5.10.2 Methodology and Parameter Selection ............................................................................................. 14

5.10.3 Slope Stability Results ...................................................................................................................... 15


October 2016 Report No. 1527072 (2000) ii

5.10.4 Erosion Hazard Limit Analysis .......................................................................................................... 15

6.0 ADDITIONAL WORK, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING ....................................................................................... 16

ATTACHMENTS:

Important Information and Limitations of This Report Method of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits List of Symbols TABLES:

Table 1: Fill Depths and Elevations Table 2: Till Depths and Elevations Table 3: Shale Bedrock Depths and Elevations LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site and Borehole Location Plan Figure 2: Slope A – Slop Stability Analysis (Static) Figure 3: Slope B – Slop Stability Analysis (Static) Figure 4: Slope C – Slop Stability Analysis (Static) Figure 5: Slope D – Slop Stability Analysis (Static) Figure 6: Slope Setback Analysis APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Record of Borehole Sheets

APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX C Previously Provided Slope Letter - Golder Associates Ltd.


October 2016 Report No. 1527072 (2000) 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Clublink Corporation ULC & Clublink Holdings Limited (Clublink)

to provide geotechnical engineering services in support of the design of a mixed use development including

residential and commercial uses within the existing Glen Abbey Golf Course lands, in the Town of Oakville, Ontario.

The location of the site is shown on Figure 1.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the geotechnical information (soil, bedrock, and groundwater)

encountered in this area and to provide preliminary recommendations and comments on the geotechnical aspects

of the design and construction of the proposed development.

This report primarily addresses the geotechnical (physical) aspects of the subsurface conditions as encountered

at this site. Select soil samples were submitted for analytical testing to assess the environmental quality of the

subsurface soil conditions; the results of this testing are provided within the Phase II Environmental Site

Assessment (ESA) report, which is also being prepared by Golder under separate cover.

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

The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information, as it is essential for the proper use and interpretation

of this report.

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND The site is located at 1333 Dorval Drive, in the Town of Oakville, Ontario. The site is bounded by Dorval Drive to

the south, Upper Middle Road to the west and existing residential properties to the north and east. The site slopes

generally from south to north. The Sixteen Mile Creek Valley crosses the north portion of the site flowing from

northwest to southeast. The existing southern slope at the site ranges in height from about 24 metres to 31 metres;

the current slope profiles range from 0.7 horizontal to 1 vertical (0.7H:1V) to 1.9H:1V. Flatter slopes are present

at the northeastern portion of the site. Sixteen Mile Creek meanders along the base of the slope, within the valley

lands. The location and layout of the proposed development is shown on Figure 1.

Based on the site plan provided to our office titled “Glen Abbey Concept Master Plan” dated October 2016, the

proposed redevelopment of the Glen Abbey Golf Club will include the construction of detached residential units,

townhouse and stacked townhouse units, mid-rise apartment units, and mixed use (residential / retail / office)

space.

The proposed redevelopment will also consist of open space, parks, buffer blocks, and natural heritage system

blocks, as well as driveways and the associated municipal road network.

It is noted that the development is limited to the table land south of the valley and no development is planned

within the valley lands portion of the site or the Raydor Estate which is located at 1313 Dorval Drive.

3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

3.1 Field Investigation The field investigation was completed between January 18 and February 10, 2016, during which time a total of

twenty boreholes were advanced at the site; the boreholes are designated as Boreholes BH1 to BH 20. A total of

nine environmental boreholes were advanced in the parking areas surrounding the maintenance area of the golf

club between January 25 and January 27, 2016. One of the boreholes (Borehole ESA-7) has been included in



this report. The borehole locations are indicated on Figure 1. The Record of Borehole sheets for all of the

boreholes can be found in Appendix A.

The boreholes were drilled using both truck and track-mounted drill rigs supplied and operated by a specialist

drilling company. Standard penetration testing (ASTM D1586) and sampling were carried out at regular intervals

of depth in the boreholes using conventional 38 mm internal diameter split spoon sampling equipment in the

overburden soils. Bedrock coring was carried out in one of the boreholes.

Shallow groundwater conditions were noted in the open boreholes during drilling. Fourteen monitoring wells were

installed in selected boreholes and were equipped with flush mount steel casing access covers to allow for

subsequent monitoring of the groundwater levels at the site.

The field work was observed by members of Golder’s technical staff, who located the boreholes, arranged for the

clearance of underground utility services, observed the drilling, sampling and in situ testing operations, logged the

boreholes, and examined and cared for the recovered soil and rock samples. The samples were identified in the

field, placed in appropriate containers, labelled and transported to Golder’s Mississauga geotechnical laboratory

for further examination and laboratory testing. Index and classification tests, consisting of water content

determinations, grain size distribution tests, and Atterberg limits testing were carried out on selected soil samples.

The borehole locations were staked out in the field by Golder personnel prior to the drilling operations. Following

the drilling, the borehole and monitoring well locations were surveyed by Fiddes Clipsham Inc. The ground surface

elevations (referenced to Geodetic Datum) at the borehole locations were also surveyed at that time.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The detailed subsurface soil/bedrock and groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes advanced at this

site along with the results of geotechnical laboratory testing, are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets in

Appendix A. Methods of Soil Classification, Symbols and Terms used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits are

provided to assist in the interpretation of the Record of Borehole sheets. The detailed results of geotechnical

laboratory testing on selected soil samples are presented in Appendix B.

The Record of Borehole sheets indicate the subsurface conditions at the borehole locations only. The stratigraphic

boundaries shown on the borehole records are inferred from non-continuous sampling, observations of drilling

progress as well as results of Standard Penetration Tests and, therefore, represent transitions between soil types

rather than exact planes of geological change. Subsurface soil conditions will vary between and beyond the

borehole locations.

The following sections of this report provide an overview of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site

followed by more detailed descriptions of the major soil strata and shallow groundwater conditions encountered at

the borehole locations.

4.1 General Overview In general, the subsurface stratigraphy within the area of the investigation consists of topsoil overlying variable fill;

the fill is underlain by native cohesive till deposits. The till is underlain by shale bedrock which was encountered

at depths ranging from 0.9 m to 5.6 m below ground surface. Groundwater was measured in nine of the boreholes

at the time of drilling at depths of between 2.6 m and 25.6 m below ground surface. Boreholes BH1, BH4, BH8,

BH9, BH10, BH12, BH14, BH15, BH17, BH18 and BH19 were dry at the completion of drilling. Groundwater levels



were subsequently measured in the monitoring wells at depths of between 1.9 m and 26.9 m below ground surface

with a single monitoring well (BH17) being noted as dry. Additional comments regarding groundwater can be

found in Section 4.2 of this report.

4.1.1 Topsoil

Topsoil was encountered in each of the boreholes. The topsoil ranged in thickness between 50 mm and 610 mm.

The thickness of the topsoil at the site based on the borehole records should be considered preliminary only, and

a subsequent shallow test pit investigation should be completed to accurately ascertain the topsoil thickness

across the site.

4.1.2 Fill

Fill was encountered below the topsoil in eleven of the boreholes and ranged in thickness from about 0.3 m to

4.1 m. The fill was highly variable and ranged from silty clay to silt to silty sand fill and contained varying amounts

of gravel. The fill was reddish brown to grey; the water contents in the cohesive fill were variable from drier than

the plastic limit to at about the plastic limits; the non-cohesive fill was moist. Organics were noted in several of the

fill samples and a clayey topsoil layer was encountered underlying the fill at a depth of about 3.4 m in

Borehole BH17. The detailed depths and elevations of the fill at each of the borehole locations (if encountered) at

the site are provided in Table 1, following this report.

The measured SPT “N”-values in the cohesive fill ranged from 4 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to 25 blows per

0.3 m of penetration, indicating this fill is soft to very stiff. The measured SPT “N”-values in the non-cohesive fill

ranged from 7 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to 26 blows per 0.3 m of penetration indicating that these soils are

loose to compact.

The natural water contents measured on selected samples of the cohesive fill ranged between 7 percent and

13 percent. The natural water contents measured on selected samples of the non-cohesive fill ranged between

11 percent and 23 percent.

The results of grain size distribution tests completed on three selected samples of the silty clay fill are shown on

Figure B1. Atterberg Limits testing carried out on the three selected samples of the cohesive fill measured plastic

limits ranging between 14 and 20 percent, liquid limits ranging between 22 and 36 percent and plasticity indices

ranging between 8 and 16. These results, which are plotted on the plasticity chart on Figure B2, indicate that the

cohesive fill is comprised of silty clay of low plasticity.

The results of a grain size distribution test completed on one selected sample of the silt fill are shown on Figure B3.

Atterberg Limits testing carried out the selected sample of the silt fill measured a plastic limit of 19 percent, a liquid

limit of 22 percent and a plasticity index of 3. These results, which are plotted on the plasticity chart on Figure B4,

indicate that the fines portion of the fill are comprised of silt of slight plasticity.

The results of grain size distribution tests completed on two selected samples of the non-cohesive fill are shown

on Figure B5.

4.1.3 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay Till

A cohesive clayey silt to silty clay till deposit was encountered in the all of the boreholes with the exception of

BH17, underlying the topsoil or the fill, and directly overlying the shale bedrock. The clayey silt to silty clay till is

reddish brown to grey and contains variable sand gravel content, although typically the till is sandy. Upper portions



of the till across the site were noted to be reworked. The till was observed to also contain shale fragments. The

water content of the till was noted to be generally at or below the estimated plastic limit. Till deposits in Ontario

are known to contain cobbles and boulders; as such, these materials are anticipated to be present throughout the

till deposits at this site. The till material ranged in thickness from 0.3 m to 3.5 m. The depths and elevations of the

clayey silt to silty clay till encountered at the site are provided in the Table 2, following this report.

The measured SPT “N”-values within the cohesive till deposit range from 10 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to

greater than 50 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, suggestive of a stiff to hard consistency. The SPT “N”-values

generally increase with depth.

The natural water content measured in samples of the cohesive till ranged from 6 percent to 22 percent.

The results of grain size distribution tests completed on nine selected samples of the cohesive till deposits are

shown on Figures B6 and B7. Atterberg Limits testing carried out on nine selected samples of the cohesive till

deposit measured plastic limits ranging between 15 and 18 percent, liquid limits ranging between 20 and

32 percent and plasticity indices ranging between 2 and 15. These results, which are plotted on the plasticity

charts on Figures B8 and B9, indicate that the till is comprised of clayey silt to silty clay of low plasticity.

4.1.4 Shale Bedrock

Red shale bedrock was encountered in each of the boreholes across the site, and as noted above, one of the

boreholes was cored to provide input to the bedrock. All of the boreholes were terminated in shale bedrock with

the exception of Borehole ESA-7. The shale was encountered underlying the native till deposits in each of the

boreholes excluding Borehole BH17, where it was encountered underlying the fill. The bedrock was encountered

at depths ranging from 0.7 m to 5.6 m below ground surface. The depth and elevation at which bedrock was

encountered in each of the boreholes across the site is provided in Table 3, following this report.

Several of the boreholes were advanced to their termination depths through the shale via augering and air rotary

methods. Samples of the shale bedrock were able to be recovered from the boreholes via the standard penetration

testing method; measured SPT “N”-values in the shale bedrock were greater than 50 blows per 0.3 m of

penetration.

Borehole BH7 was cored to a depth of about 29.4 m below existing grades. The HQ core recovery also indicated

that the shale bedrock contains limestone interbeds and is thinly bedded.

The Total Core Recovery (TCR) of the cored bedrock was between 95 percent to 100 percent and the Rock Quality

Designation (RQD) ranged from 85 percent to 100 percent.

4.2 Groundwater Conditions The shallow groundwater conditions encountered during this investigation and monitoring well installation details

are presented on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A. Groundwater was measured in nine of the

boreholes at the time of drilling at depths of between 2.6 m and 25.6 m below ground surface. Boreholes BH1,

BH4, BH8, BH9, BH10, BH12, BH14, BH15, BH17, BH18 and BH19 were dry at the completion of drilling.

Groundwater levels were subsequently measured in the monitoring wells at depths of between 0.9 m and 26.9 m

below ground surface with a two monitoring wells (BH13 Deep and BH17) being noted as dry initially. The detailed

groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells installed at the site, are summarized in the following table:



Groundwater Levels

Well ID Ground

Elevation (masl)

Well depth

(m)

Groundwater Levels

Lithology February 16 and 22, 2016

March 22, 2016 April 13, 2016

Depth (mbgs)

Elevation (masl)

Depth (mbgs)

Elevation (masl)

Depth (mbgs)

Elevation (masl)

BH1 134.74 4.67 2.69 132.05 1.76 132.98 1.56 133.18 Shale

BH2 133.22 6.1 1.88 131.34 21.06 112.16 1.16 132.06 Silty clay to clayey silt, shale

BH3 127.04 26.2 21.23 105.81 - - 20.93 106.11 Shale

BH5 130.5 28.04 25.06 105.44 - - 23.18 107.32 Shale

BH7 127.01 29.41 26.94 100.07 - - 26.55 100.46 Shale

BH8 127.36 4.6 3.89 123.47 3.59 123.77 2.93 124.44 Silty clay, shale

BH9 133.16 4.57 3.08 130.08 2.20 130.97 2.14 131.03 Shale

BH11 137.09 12.19 3.81 133.28 2.19 134.90 2.75 134.34 Shale

BH13 - Shallow

134.37 1.5 1.31 133.06 - - 1.02 133.35 Silty clay

BH13 - Deep

134.37 14.6 DRY DRY - - 4.64 129.73 Shale

BH16 129.49 4.57 1.94 127.55 1.45 128.04 2.33 127.16 Shale

BH17 136.79 6.2 DRY DRY - - 4.75 132.04 Silty clay, shale

BH18 135.17 4.57 3.39 131.78 - - 2.06 133.11 Shale

BH19 132.41 4.55 2.17 130.24 1.94 130.47 1.81 130.60 Shale

BH20 130.27 10.67 1.04 129.23 - - 0.90 129.37 Shale

It should be noted that the groundwater levels at the site are anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal variations in

precipitation and runoff. A more detailed Hydrogeological Assessment of the site is reported under separate cover

in our report entitled “Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment, Proposed Residential Development, Glen Abbey

Golf Course, Oakville, Ontario”, Ref. No. 1527072, dated July 2016.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report provides preliminary engineering information regarding geotechnical aspects of the

proposed redevelopment at the Glen Abbey Golf Club, based on interpretation of the factual data obtained from

the boreholes advanced at the site and our understanding of the project requirements. The preliminary information

in this portion of the report is provided for the guidance of the design engineers and professionals. Where

comments are made on construction, they are provided in order to highlight those aspects which could affect the

design of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results

of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own

interpretation of the factual information provided as it may affect equipment selection, proposed construction

methods, scheduling and the like.

This report primarily addresses the geotechnical (physical) aspects of the subsurface conditions as encountered

at this site. Select soil samples were submitted for analytical testing to assess the environmental quality of the



subsurface soil conditions; the results of this testing are provided within the Phase II Environmental Site

Assessment (ESA) report, which is also being prepared by Golder under separate cover.

5.1 Subsurface Conditions Summary As noted above, the surficial conditions at the site typically consist of surficial topsoil overlying fill; the fill materials

were noted to contain organic matter in some areas, and in particular, a buried topsoil layer was encountered in

Borehole BH17. The fill materials are generally underlain by stiff to hard cohesive clayey silt to silty clay till

deposits, which are underlain by shale bedrock. Stabilized groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells

at the site ranged from about 1.9 m and 26.9 m below ground surface.

Overall from a geotechnical perspective, the site is considered suitable to support the development as currently

proposed. Once the concept is finalized a more detailed site specific investigation will likely be required to address

the specific needs of the various components of the development.

5.2 General Site Grading Based on the conceptual plan referenced above and dated September 2015, the proposed redevelopment of the

Glen Abbey Golf Club will consist of residential structures comprising detached residential units, townhomes, mid-

rise apartment units, as well as mixed use (Residential / Retail / Office space).

At the time of this investigation the details of site grading were not yet available; however, it is anticipated that the

site will require some regrading as part of the redevelopment of the site. As indicated above, the near surface

soils encountered in several of the boreholes at the site consist of variable, soft to very stiff cohesive fill and loose

to compact fill materials containing organics.

The existing fill materials are not considered suitable for the subgrade support of shallow foundations. In areas

where these soils will be required to support settlement sensitive structures they should be removed followed by

placement of engineered fill materials to raise the grade back up to the proposed final grades as necessary. In

areas of deeper fill where fill removal is required in accordance with the final design, it is recommended that a

more detailed review of the fill in those areas is undertaken prior to earthworks to better assess the fill quality and

thickness specific to those areas. The fill depths and thicknesses encountered in the boreholes are provided in

Table 2.

5.3 Site Preparation and Engineered Fill As noted above, the fill present on site is not considered suitable to support settlement sensitive structures and as

such it is recommended that the fill be removed and replaced in these areas with engineered fill materials. The

following provides recommendations regarding site preparation and the placement of engineered fill within the site.

The existing topsoil layer should be stripped from the site prior to site grading and fill placement activities.

Following stripping of unsuitable surficial soils to expose the competent native till deposits and prior to placement

of engineered fill, the prepared native subgrade should be heavily compacted and proofrolled under the

supervision of the geotechnical engineer. Any softened or poorly performing areas of the native subgrade soils

must be subexcavated and replaced with engineered fill as directed by the geotechnical engineer.

The existing topsoil materials or other soils containing significant amounts of organic matter are not considered

suitable for reuse as engineered fill. Based on the results of the investigation, the organic content in the fill was



variable; i.e., some of the fill samples contained organic content, whereas organics was not noted in several of the

of the fill samples. It is recommended that experienced Golder geotechnical personnel be present on site during

the removal of the fill to provide input into which soils could be stockpiled and later reused as engineered fill, and

which soils contain organic matter and thus should not be used as structural engineered fill.

The native till soils are considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill across the site provided the moisture

contents are within +/- 3% of the optimum moisture content.

Weathered shale that is excavated is not recommended to be used as engineered fill. However, consideration

could be given to mixing the weathered shale with native till soils prior to using the native till soils as engineered

fill. The shale must be broken down and / or pulverized prior to mixing with the till soils. It is recommended that

Golder personnel be on site full time to monitor any mixing of shale with native soils to confirm a suitable amount

of effort is being undertaken to fully break down the shale.

It is noted that, in order to mitigate damage to the golf course, the boreholes advanced as part of this project were

advanced in the immediate vicinity of cart paths or wooded areas. The existing golf course includes numerous

raised mounds along the fairways and rough areas that were unable to be investigated at this stage; however, it

is anticipated that the majority of these mounds and raised areas are comprised of fill. As noted above, it is

recommended that all fill be stripped prior to engineered fill placement. As such, Golder personnel should be on

site during the excavation of any raised areas as part of the grading works to provide input into the potential reuse

of the material as engineered fill.

The engineered fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness, and should be uniformly

compacted to 100% of the materials Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). The existing fill soils may

be below their optimum water compaction and therefore water may need to be added during fill placement.

Full-time inspection by Golder’s geotechnical personnel is recommended during fill subexcavation and

engineered fill placement.

Care will be required to ensure that the prepared area extends far enough to encompass the limits of the

engineered fill. The engineered fill limits are defined such that the fill extends downward and outward from the

outside edge of the founding level of any footing/slab or other settlement sensitive area at a slope of one horizontal

to one vertical provided the fill extends a minimum of at least one metre beyond the perimeter of all structures.

Groundwater across the site was measured at a depth as high as 1.0 m below existing site grades; as noted

above, excavations to the native material may extend as deep as 4.4 m below existing grade. Groundwater levels

can fluctuate due to seasonal variations, and as such, to minimize the potential for dewatering, excavations for the

foundations, and/or engineered fill operations, should be conducted in the summer or fall months when

groundwater levels are typically at their lowest level.

Engineered fill materials should not be placed during winter/periods of freezing weather.

5.4 Foundation Recommendations For preliminary assessment purposes, conventional spread and strip footings foundations for lightly loaded to

moderately loaded structures on either the competent native till soils or bedrock may be designed using a factored

geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 300 kPa and a geotechnical resistance at Serviceability

Limit States (SLS) of 200 kPa (assuming 25 mm of settlement). In areas where structures are to be constructed



which could exert higher loads onto the soils and bedrock (including the mid-rise apartments and the mixed use

structures), higher geotechnical resistances may be available on the fresh bedrock. In this regard, once these

areas are determined, an additional investigation should be completed, prior to detailed design, to provide

additional input toward the soil / bedrock interface and potentially increased geotechnical resistance values.

All exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas must be provided with at least 1.2 m of earth cover for

frost protection purposes. In addition, the bearing soil and fresh concrete must be protected from freezing during

cold weather construction. All founding subgrade soils should be inspected by Golder prior to the

foundation construction. Any soft, loose or disturbed soils encountered at the founding level should be removed

and backfilled with compacted granular materials. Concrete for the foundations should be placed immediately

following the cleaning and inspection of the foundation subgrade (i.e., engineered fill or native soils). If concrete

cannot be placed immediately following preparation and cleaning of the subgrade, the integrity of the bearing

stratum should be protected by placement of a layer of lean concrete immediately following inspection of the

foundation subgrade by Golder.

If stepped spread footings are constructed, the difference in elevation between individual footings should not be

greater than one half the clear distance between the footings. In addition, the lower footings should be constructed

first so that if it is necessary to construct the lower footings at a greater depth than anticipated, the elevations of

the upper footings can be adjusted accordingly. Stepped strip footings should be constructed in accordance with

OBC Section 9.15.3.9.

For preliminary design assessment purposes, a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of

250 kPa and a geotechnical resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 150 kPa (assuming 25 mm of

settlement) may be used in the design of shallow foundations founded within engineered fill materials.

The maximum total and differential settlements are expected to be less than 25 mm and 20 mm, respectively, for

foundations designed, constructed and inspected as outlined above.

5.5 Lateral Earth Pressure on Walls The exterior foundation walls, as well as any retaining structures, should be backfilled with compacted granular fill

materials. A suitable drainage system should be incorporated into the design to allow for the collection and

discharge of water that may enter the backfill zone. As a minimum requirement, the granular backfill should be

placed in the wedge-shaped zone defined by a 60 degree line extending up and back from the base of the

structures. All granular backfill should be placed in maximum 200 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at

least 98 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Heavy compaction

equipment should not be used within the lateral distance behind any structure equal to the current height of the fill

above the base of the structure.

The structures should be designed to withstand both lateral earth and groundwater pressures. Provided that the

excavation is backfilled as described above, the structures may be designed using a triangular earth pressure

distribution, an at-rest earth pressure coefficient of 0.5 and a soil unit weight of 19 kN/m3.



5.6 Site Servicing 5.6.1 Excavations

Based on the information provided to our office by SCS Consulting Group Ltd. (SCS), excavations of up to 10 m

depth are required for installation of services.

The founding soils for site services at depths of up to 10 m are anticipated to consist primarily of the cohesive

clayey silt to silty clay till deposits, as well as shale bedrock. We note that extensive engineered fill operations will

likely be required at the site and excavations will also be completed through previously placed engineered fill.

Temporary excavations may be carried out using open cut methods. Excavation can be carried out using a large

excavator equipped with a rock breaker; ripping teeth may be required to loosen the upper portions of the shale.

All excavation work should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and

Regulations (OHSA) and with local regulations. In general, temporary open cuts of 1H:1V are considered feasible.

Stockpiles of excavated material should be set back from the edge of the excavation by a distance at least equal

to the excavation depth.

An adequate temporary shoring system should be provided to protect existing structures, services and other

facilities located adjacent to the excavations and at all locations where space limitations prevent construction of

sufficiently shallow excavation side slopes. Either a driven, interlocking sheet pile system or a soldier pile and

timber lagging system would be suitable for the temporary excavation support based on the subsurface soil and

groundwater conditions. The temporary excavation support system should be designed and constructed in

accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS) 539 (Construction Specification for

Temporary Protection Systems). The lateral movement of the temporary shoring system should meet

Performance Level 2 as specified in OPSS 539. As the presence of boulders within the till deposit should be

anticipated, sheet pile walls may encounter difficulties if considered to support this excavation.

It is noted that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has implemented new regulations

for construction dewatering. If construction dewatering will be more than 50,000 L/day but less than 400,000 L/day

an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) will be required. If dewatering will be greater than

400,000 L/day, a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) will be required.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the borehole investigation, although high groundwater

levels were encountered in some of the boreholes, it is anticipated that actual flow into the excavations would be

relatively slow and controllable by conventional sumps and pumps.

The dewatering requirements also need to take into account the rate of removal of the storage volume as well as

removal of water that might accumulate in the open excavation during rainfall events. Based on the water level

depths, and the estimated hydraulic conductivity of the rock, it is likely that the dewatering requirement will exceed

50,000 L/day. It is recommended that once the excavation depths are finalized across the site, an assessment be

completed to determine the requirements for either an EASR or a PTTW.

The groundwater levels can fluctuate due to seasonal variations, and as such, to minimize the potential for

dewatering, if possible, excavations for the foundations should be conducted in the summer or fall months when

groundwater levels are typically at their lowest levels.



5.6.2 Pipe Bedding and Cover

The native cohesive till soils and shale bedrock are considered to be suitable for supporting sewers and

watermains provided that the integrity of the base of the trench excavations can be maintained during construction.

Where variable fill materials, or other deleterious materials are encountered at the base of excavations for

settlement-sensitive services, these materials should be subexcavated and replaced with compacted bedding

materials approved by Golder.

The pipe bedding, embedment and cover soils should be compatible with the sizes, type and class of pipe(s) and

the surrounding subsoil. The design should be in accordance with the applicable OPSD standards (1100 series),

OPSS 441, OPSS 501 and the Town’s standards. If granular bedding is used, OPSS 1010 Granular “A” may be

used from at least 150 mm below invert to springline of the pipe. From springline to 300 mm above the obvert of

the pipe, sand cover could be used. Backfill above the embedment/cover soils could consist of suitable approved

native soils.

In regard to wet trench bases, the use of clear stone materials for use as pipe bedding materials is not

recommended due to the high potential for soil migration into the clear stone.

5.6.3 Trench Backfill

The excavated materials from trenches for servicing will consist of native cohesive till soils and shale bedrock. In

regard to the till, these materials are considered suitable for use as trench backfill provided their water contents at

the time of construction are at or near their optimum water content for compaction. Any boulders or cobbles

greater than 150 mm in size should be removed from the trench backfill.

Excavated highly weathered shale is expected to be suitable for trench backfill, provided that it is broken down or

pulverized and can be compacted to the required density using mechanical compaction equipment. During

compaction, the shale will require frequent wetting in order to achieve the desired degree of

compaction. Additional details on construction procedures and requirements for the excavation, backfilling and

compaction of shale are provided in the Town of Oakville’s Development Engineering Procedures and Guidelines

Manual.

If required an approved imported material such as OPSS 1010 Select Subgrade Material (SSM) should be used

for trench backfill in lieu of native materials.

The trench backfill should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lift thickness and uniformly compacted to at least

95 percent of its SPMDD. Due to the high frost-susceptibility of the cohesive till materials, cold weather work

should not be completed; however, if cold weather backfill placement is necessary, it should be carried out so that

frozen lumps of material, snow and ice are not present in the fill and so that the placed material is not allowed to

freeze after placement and compaction. Any such backfilling work should be carried out under the fulltime

inspection by Golder with the understanding that work may have to be suspended if temperatures are too

low and some material might have to be removed and replaced if it is allowed to freeze after placement.

It is anticipated that the majority of the compacted backfill will comprise the native cohesive till soils; as such,

post-construction settlement of the compacted backfill may occur, with the majority of such settlement taking place

within about three to six months following the completion of the backfilling operations. This settlement would be

reflected at the ground surface. To provide a more uniform transition of the ground surface from the undisturbed



native material to the trench backfill as applicable, the sides of the excavation should be sloped at an inclination

no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, outwards and upwards from the base of the excavation.

As noted above, a hydrogeological assessment of the site is currently being undertaken by Golder. Additional

information regarding trench dewatering requirements and recommendations will be provided once the

hydrogeological assessment is complete.

5.7 Bulking Factors Soil / rock bulking is the increase in total volume of soil / rock over the volume of the same material in the

undisturbed state. Bulking of native materials occurs when they are excavated from undisturbed ground. For

initial design purposes and considering the predominant native till soils and shale bedrock, bulking of about

20 per cent (increase in total volume) for the till and 35% for the shale bedrock would be expected after excavation

and prior to re-compaction. After re-compaction, bulking of about 5 to 10 per cent would be expected.

5.8 Preliminary Geotechnical Input to Storm Water Management Ponds As discussed above, based on the latest site plans three Storm Water Management (SWM) Ponds) will be

constructed at the site. Preliminary design details for the SWM Ponds are indicated in the table below; we have

also provided the boreholes which are in close vicinity to the SWM Pond.

SWM Pond Borehole

No. Normal Water

Level Elevation (m)

Base of Pond Elevation

(m)

Maximum Side Slope (H:V)

A (Block 188) BH2, BH3 126.00 123.00 4H:1V

B (Block 190) BH19, BH20 127.50 124.50 4H:1V

C (Block 189) BH7, BH8 126.00 121.75 4H:1V

The subsurface conditions at the site generally comprise varying amounts of fill overlying native cohesive till

deposits. The till is underlain by weathered shale bedrock. Given the proposed depths of the ponds it is anticipated

that the base of the ponds will be located within the weathered shale bedrock. Therefore, it is recommended that

a liner be installed over the entirety of each of the ponds to eliminate the potential for stormwater seepage into the

bedrock. Discussion regarding potential liner types is provided in the following section of this report.

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes drilled at the site, groundwater was measured

at a depth as high as 0.9 m below existing site grades in Borehole BH20. The depth of the groundwater

increases northward, toward the slope. Depending on the final SWM Pond(s) location and configuration,

significant dewatering could be required to facilitate the excavation and construction of the ponds. Additional

investigation and analysis should be completed during the detail design stage to provide input toward the

potential need for a Permit to Take Water.

The sideslope geometry of the SWM Ponds ranges between 7H:1V to 4H:1V. A global stability analysis

should be completed at each SWM Pond location to confirm that there is a suitable factor of safety against

global instability of any containment berms to be constructed, provided that the berm is properly constructed

using appropriate engineered fill materials and that a suitable liner is properly installed. Additional stability

features, such as shear keys, may be required depending on the results of the analysis. As discussed in

greater detail below, full-time supervision by experienced/senior Golder geotechnical personnel should be



carried out during the berm construction (if required) and liner installation as unacceptable seepage and/or

instability could occur if the berm and liner is not properly constructed.

5.8.1 SWM Pond Liners

As a portion of the SWM Ponds will be constructed within the weathered shale bedrock, a low-permeability liner

will need to be installed to limit seepage out of the ponds through the weathered shale. This will help to maintain

the normal operating water level/permanent pool elevation within the ponds.

Consideration could be given to the installation of a liner comprised of clayey soils (i.e., a clay liner) at the site.

Reuse of the silty clay to clayey silt till as a clay liner could be considered provided any oversized particles

(boulders and cobbles) are removed from the material prior to placement and compaction. As an alternative to a

clay liner, consideration could be given to installing a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) such as a Bentofix geosynthetic

liner or equivalent material. The use of a GCL is also recommended for ease of construction in comparison to a

liner comprised of clayey soils. The GCL is considered suitable for providing a low-permeability barrier in order to

reduce seepage out of the pond which would otherwise occur due to the presence of weathered shale bedrock

encountered during the investigation.

A review of any potential buoyancy issues should be completed once the final SWM Pond(s) configurations are

known. Specifically, Boreholes BH19 and BH20 were advanced in proximity to the southern SWM Pond

(Block 162); the groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells in these two boreholes were 1.8 m and 0.9 m

respectively, below existing site grades. Under normal operating conditions, there will likely be sufficient resistance

to buoyancy of the liner under normal operating conditions (i.e., a water level within the ponds at the normal water

level). However, the SWM Ponds should be designed such that there is also sufficient resistance to uplift during

maintenance activities (i.e., if / when the pond is drained). In this regard, the liner will need to be covered with

sufficient soil weight to counteract the upward seepage pressures based on the water levels at the site.

Alternatively, a subdrain system could be installed beneath the liner to allow for water levels to be lowered either

on a permanent basis (if permitted) or at the time that maintenance activities are to be carried out.

5.8.2 SWM Pond Berm Construction and Inspection and Maintenance

As indicated on the engineering plans provided to our office, the northern portion of the SWM Pond A will require

construction of a new containment berm to be constructed using engineered fill. The SWM Pond should have an

external slope not steeper than 3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical.

It is anticipated that at least portions of the berm will be constructed from cut materials removed from within the

SWM Pond footprint, including the native till. It is noted that shale bedrock was encountered underlying the till

deposits; consideration could be given to mixing of the weathered shale with the native till materials provided that

the operations are completed with the mixing recommendations provided above in Section 5.3. Importing of

material may also be required to supplement the native material. If imported materials are required, they should

consist of well-graded glacial till materials or well-graded granular materials which should be approved prior to

importation.

Any existing topsoil materials, or other soils containing significant amounts of organic and deleterious matter, are

not considered suitable as subgrade soils for berm construction or for reuse as engineered fill materials within the

berm. It is also recommended to remove all previously placed fill prior to construction of the berm. Following

stripping of the topsoil and fill, and prior to placement of engineered fill for construction of the containment berm,



the prepared subgrade should be heavily compacted and proofrolled under the supervision of the geotechnical

engineer. Any softened or poorly performing areas of the subgrade soils must be subexcavated and replaced with

engineered fill as directed by the geotechnical engineer.

A review of the subsurface conditions in Borehole BH2 indicate that silty clay fill was encountered up to a depth of

about 4.0 m below site grades; the fill is underlain by about 1.5 m of native silty clay to clayey silt till. Organics

were noted in portions of the fill materials; as such, monitoring of this material during excavation and stockpiling is

recommended to determine the potential for reuse as engineered fill for the berm construction. All materials

proposed for berm construction should be approved by qualified geotechnical personnel prior to use.

The containment berm engineered fill materials should be placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness, and

should be uniformly compacted to 100% of the materials Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Given

the potential for poor performance including potential for instability if the berm is not properly constructed,

confirming that the berm is properly constructed is of utmost importance and, as such, full-time observation and in

situ density testing by experienced Golder geotechnical personnel should be carried out during engineered fill

placement/berm construction and liner installation.

The installation of pond liner materials and appropriate erosion protection measures is recommended to be

incorporated into the design of the pond to limit the potential for internal erosion and seepage out of the pond.

Additionally, to reduce erosion of the exterior embankment side slopes due to surface water runoff, installation of

erosion control mats in conjunction with topsoil placement and seeding or pegged sod is recommended as soon

as practicable after construction of the embankments.

5.9 Preliminary Pavement Design Based on the borehole results, the subgrade for the pavement structure will generally comprise very stiff to hard

native till soils and engineered fill. Prior to placing any granular material, the exposed subgrade should be

prepared and heavily proof-rolled under the supervision of the geotechnical engineer. Remedial work should be

carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by the geotechnical engineer. The

recommended preliminary pavement design for this proposed redevelopment is outlined below and is consistent

with Town of Oakville Standards.

Material Thickness of Pavement Elements (mm)

Minor Collector Local Residential

Asphaltic Material (OPSS 1150)

HL3 Surface 50 40

HL8 Binder 80 50

Granular Material (OPSS 1010

Granular A Base 150 150

Granular B Subbase 350 350

Total Pavement Thickness (mm) 630 590

Over Prepared And Approved Subgrade

Granular materials should be uniformly compacted to 100 percent of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(SPMDD). The asphalt materials should be compacted to between 92.0 and 96.5 percent of their Marshall

Maximum Relative Densities (MRDs), as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge.



It should be noted that the pavement structure provided above is not intended to support heavy construction traffic.

In this regard, heavy construction traffic, including triaxials, graders, etc., should be limited to areas of the site

where suitable temporary access roads have been constructed so that disturbance to the native soils will be

minimized. The contractor should be responsible for determining the locations of, and constructing, these

temporary access roads.

Golder should provide additional design recommendations regarding the pavement design once final grades have

been determined and traffic data is provided.

5.10 Erosion Hazard Limits 5.10.1 Background

Golder previously provided a letter entitled “Preliminary Stable Slope Setback Analysis” dated April 13, 2015; the

letter can be found in Appendix C. The criteria which govern the evaluation of the setbacks required for valley

lands in this area are defined in document titled “Determining Regulatory Limits in the Conservation Halton’s

Jurisdiction” dated August 2015.

As noted above, a natural slope is located along the northern-central portion of the site and runs in an east-west

direction from Dorval Drive to Upper Middle Road; Sixteen Mile Creek runs along or near the base of the existing

slope. The creek meanders throughout the valley lands and is generally more than 15 metres away from the toe

of the slope in most areas. However it is noted that an approximately 250 metre section of the slope exists where

the creek and slope are close or are in direct contact.

The existing slope at the site ranges in height from about 24 metres to 31 metres; the current slope profiles range

from 0.7 horizontal to 1 vertical (0.7H:1V) to 1.9H:1V. Flatter slopes are present at the northeastern portion of the

site.

As part of the geotechnical investigation, four boreholes were advanced near the crest of the slope to provide input

toward the stable slope allowance (Boreholes BH3, BH5, BH6 and BH7). The bedrock in Borehole BH7 was cored

to provide input toward Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and Total Core Recovery (TCR). In general, each of

these four boreholes encountered shallow fill underlain by clayey silt to silty clay till deposits. The overburden

thickness at the four borehole locations was about 4 m to 5 m; the overburden soils were underlain by shale

bedrock of Queenston Formation.

5.10.2 Methodology and Parameter Selection

A slope analysis was completed on the steepest slope in the vicinity of each of the four boreholes noted above.

These four areas are designated below as Slope A, Slope B, Slope C and Slope D. The slope stability analyses

were carried out using SLOPE/W Version 7.23, a commercially available software package by Geo-Slope

International for limit equilibrium stability analyses. Subsurface conditions from the closest borehole to each of

the slope sites were used to provide soil parameters at each of the areas.

Factors of safety are not indicated in the document provided by Halton Conservation; in this regard, an appropriate

factor of safety has been taken from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Technical Guide – River and Stream

Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (Technical Guide). As per Table 4.3 in the Technical Guide, based on the

anticipated land use, a Factor of Safety of 1.5 was used to calculate the stable slope line.



The soil parameters were estimated from empirical correlations using the results of in situ Standard Penetration

Tests (SPT), undrained shear strength values, visual classification and the results of laboratory testing. Deep

seated failures through the shale bedrock are not considered to be probable and as such, only shallow

rotational / sliding failures were analyzed at the four locations.

The simplified soil stratigraphy and the associated strengths and unit weights employed for the different soil types

for Slope A, Slope B, Slope C, and Slope D is shown below.

Slope Borehole No. Soil Layer Overburden Thickness

(m)

Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Effective Friction Angle

(degrees)

Slope A 3 Fill, firm to stiff

Till, very stiff to hard 4.8

18 20

28 35

Slope B 5

Fill, very stiff Fill, compact

Fill, loose Reworked Till, stiff

Till, hard

3.9

19 19 18 20 20

30 28 26 32 35

Slope C 6 Fill, firm

Fill, loose Till, very stiff

4.6 19 19 20

28 26 34

Slope D 7 Fill, firm

Till, very stiff 2.7

19 20

28 35

5.10.3 Slope Stability Results

A review of the analyses completed at the four sites noted above indicate stable slope lines in the overburden soils

ranging between 2.2H:1V to 2.6H:1V for a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5 to be achieved. The results of the

analyses at each of the four sites can be found on Figures 2 to 5.

In regard to the stable slope angle for the shale bedrock, based on the Rock Quality Designation of the recovered

bedrock core in Borehole 7, and our past experience, a stable slope angle of 1.6H:1V is considered appropriate.

5.10.4 Erosion Hazard Limit Analysis

Based on the subsurface conditions noted from our field investigation, information detailed in the Halton Document

and the Technical Guide, as well as the slope stability analyses noted above, the table below provides a summary

of the recommended erosion allowances. We also note that Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon) completed

a site reconnaissance at the watercourse and confirmed that where Sixteen Mile Creek is within 15 m of the toe

of the slope, a 5 m toe erosion allowance is required. This toe erosion allowance is applicable in Slope C, noted

below.



Area Toe Erosion Allowance (m)

Stable Slope Angle (Bedrock)

Stable Slope Angle (Soil)

Slope A N/A 1.6H:1V 2.4H:1V

Slope B N/A 1.6H:1V 2.6H:1V

Slope C 5 m 1.6H:1V 2.2H:1V

Slope D N/A 1.6H:1V 2.3H:1V

Based on these values, Golder has provided a drawing which incorporates a 1.6H:1V stable slope angle through

the shale portion of the slope, with the varying soil stable slope angles noted in the table above. This drawing is

designated as Figure 6.

The composite Stable Slope Angle for the four slope locations analysed is about 1.7H:1V. This angle was applied

to develop the current Stable Top of Slope line indicated on Figure 6. Figure 6 also includes the toe erosion

allowance, where applicable. In the vicinity of Slope A, as the existing slope is shallower than 1.7H:1V, the stable

top of bank has been taken as the top of the existing slope.

It is noted that the erosion hazard for major valley systems, as defined by Conservation Halton, also includes an

Access Allowance of 15 m beyond the stable top of bank. We understand that a 10 m Access Allowance has been

applied by the development team, and that no private land uses will be proposed within 15m of the Stable top of

Bank. In this regard, from a geotechnical perspective, a 10 m Access Allowance, may be considered and is

consistent with recommendations in the MNR Technical Guide as well as those of many other Conservation

Authorities in Southern Ontario.

6.0 ADDITIONAL WORK, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING As noted above, prior to completing the proposed residential and mixed use subdivision design, further site specific

geotechnical assessment will be required. Prior to tendering, the geotechnical aspects of the final design drawings

and specifications and the proposed geo-related construction methodology should be reviewed by Golder to

confirm that the various aspects outlined in this report have been met.

During construction, sufficient subgrade monitoring, in-situ density tests, and materials tests should be carried out

to confirm that the ground conditions encountered are consistent with those encountered in the boreholes, and to

monitor conformance with the pertinent project specifications. Full-time geo-monitoring should be performed by

Golder geotechnical personnel during construction.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

2013 1 of 2

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 o f 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 Ground water 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.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

2013 2 of 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.

METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

January 2013 G-1

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group

Type of Soil Gradation

or Plasticity 𝑪𝒖 =

𝑫𝟔𝟎

𝑫𝟏𝟎 𝑪𝒄 =

(𝑫𝟑𝟎)𝟐

𝑫𝟏𝟎𝒙𝑫𝟔𝟎

Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Group Name

INO

RG

AN

IC

(Org

an

ic C

onte

nt

≤30

% b

y m

ass

)

CO

AR

SE

-GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(˃

50

% b

y m

ass

is la

rge

r th

an

0.0

75

mm

)

GR

AV

EL

S

(>5

0%

by

ma

ss o

f co

ars

e f

ract

ion

is

larg

er

tha

n 4

.75

mm

)

Gravels with

≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded

<4 ≤1 or ≥3

≤30%

GP GRAVEL

Well Graded ≥4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL

Gravels with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line

n/a GM SILTY

GRAVEL

Above A Line

n/a GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

SA

ND

S

(≥5

0%

by

ma

ss o

f co

ars

e f

ract

ion

is

sma

ller

than

4.7

5 m

m) Sands

with ≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded

<6 ≤1 or ≥3 SP SAND

Well Graded ≥6 1 to 3 SW SAND

Sands with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line

n/a SM SILTY SAND

Above A Line

n/a SC CLAYEY

SAND

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group

Type of Soil Laboratory

Tests

Field Indicators Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Primary Name Dilatancy

Dry Strength

Shine Test

Thread Diameter

Toughness (of 3 mm thread)

INO

RG

AN

IC

(Org

an

ic C

onte

nt

≤30

% b

y m

ass

)

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

(≥5

0%

by

ma

ss is

sm

alle

r th

an 0

.07

5 m

m)

SIL

TS

(N

on

-Pla

stic

or

PI

and

LL

plo

t b

elo

w A

-Lin

e

on

Pla

stic

ity

Ch

art

b

elo

w)

Liquid Limit

<50

Rapid None None >6 mm N/A (can’t roll 3 mm thread)

<5% ML SILT

Slow None to

Low Dull

3mm to 6 mm

None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Dull to slight

3mm to 6 mm

Low 5% to 30%

OL ORGANIC

SILT

Liquid Limit ≥50

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Slight 3mm to 6 mm

Low to medium

<5% MH CLAYEY SILT

None Medium to high

Dull to slight

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium to high

5% to 30%

OH ORGANIC

SILT

CL

AY

S

(P

I a

nd

LL

plo

t a

bo

ve A

-Lin

e o

n

Pla

stic

ity C

ha

rt

be

low

)

Liquid Limit <30

None Low to

medium Slight

to shiny ~ 3 mm

Low to medium 0%

to 30%

(see

Note 2)

CL SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit 30 to 50

None Medium to high

Slight to shiny

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium

CI SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit ≥50

None High Shiny <1 mm High CH CLAY

HIG

HL

Y

OR

GA

NIC

S

OIL

S

(Org

an

ic

Co

nte

nt

>3

0%

b

y m

ass

)

Peat and mineral soil mixtures

30%

to 75%

PT

SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT

Predominantly peat, may contain some

mineral soil, fibrous or amorphous peat

75%

to 100%

PEAT

Note 1 – Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 – For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor “trace organics” for soils with between 5% and 30% organic content include the prefix “organic” before the Primary name.

Dual Symbol — A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC and CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between “clean” and “dirty” sand or gravel. For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left). Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to or indicates a range of similar soil types within a stratum.

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS

January 2013 G-2

PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS

Soil Constituent

Particle Size Description

Millimetres Inches

(US Std. Sieve Size)

BOULDERS Not

Applicable >300 >12

COBBLES Not

Applicable 75 to 300 3 to 12

GRAVEL Coarse

Fine 19 to 75

4.75 to 19 0.75 to 3

(4) to 0.75

SAND Coarse Medium

Fine

2.00 to 4.75 0.425 to 2.00 0.075 to 0.425

(10) to (4) (40) to (10) (200) to (40)

SILT/CLAY Classified by

plasticity <0.075 < (200)

SAMPLES

AS Auger sample

BS Block sample

CS Chunk sample

DO or DP Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube sampler – note size

DS Denison type sample

FS Foil sample

RC Rock core

SC Soil core

SS Split spoon sampler – note size

ST Slotted tube

TO Thin-walled, open – note size

TP Thin-walled, piston – note size

WS Wash sample

MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS

Percentage by Mass

Modifier

>35 Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY)

> 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable

> 5 to 12 some

≤ 5 trace

SOIL TESTS

w water content

PL , wp plastic limit

LL , wL liquid limit

C consolidation (oedometer) test

CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text)

CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1

CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement1

DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs)

DS direct shear test

GS specific gravity

M sieve analysis for particle size

MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis

MPC Modified Proctor compaction test

SPC Standard Proctor compaction test

OC organic content test

SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates

UC unconfined compression test

UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test

V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test)

γ unit weight

1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU.

PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod

NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

Compactness2 Consistency

Term SPT ‘N’ (blows/0.3m)1 Very Loose 0 - 4

Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50

Very Dense >50 1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden

pressure effects. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT ‘N’ ranges from

Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average N60 values.

Term Undrained Shear

Strength (kPa) SPT ‘N’1

(blows/0.3m) Very Soft <12 0 to 2

Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15

Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 Hard >200 >30

1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects; approximate only.

Field Moisture Condition Water Content Term Description

Dry Soil flows freely through fingers.

Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool.

Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled.

Term Description

w < PL Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit.

w ~ PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit.

w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit.

LIST OF SYMBOLS

January 2013 G-3

Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows:

I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content π 3.1416 wl or LL liquid limit ln x natural logarithm of x wp or PL plastic limit log10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 lp or PI plasticity index = (wl – wp) g acceleration due to gravity ws shrinkage limit t time IL liquidity index = (w – wp) / Ip IC consistency index = (wl – w) / Ip emax void ratio in loosest state emin void ratio in densest state ID density index = (emax – e) / (emax - emin) II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) γ shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties ∆ change in, e.g. in stress: ∆ σ h hydraulic head or potential ε linear strain q rate of flow εv volumetric strain v velocity of flow η coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient υ Poisson’s ratio k hydraulic conductivity σ total stress (coefficient of permeability) σ′ effective stress (σ′ = σ - u) j seepage force per unit volume σ′vo initial effective overburden stress σ1, σ2, σ3

principal stress (major, intermediate, minor)

(c) Consolidation (one-dimensional)

Cc compression index σoct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 Cr recompression index τ shear stress (over-consolidated range) u porewater pressure Cs swelling index E modulus of deformation Cα secondary compression index G shear modulus of deformation mv coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility cv coefficient of consolidation (vertical

direction) ch coefficient of consolidation (horizontal

direction) Tv time factor (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation σ′p pre-consolidation stress (a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ′p / σ′vo ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* ρd(γd) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength ρw(γw) density (unit weight) of water τp, τr peak and residual shear strength ρs(γs) density (unit weight) of solid particles φ′ effective angle of internal friction γ′ unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction (γ′ = γ - γw) µ coefficient of friction = tan δ DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid c′ effective cohesion particles (DR = ρs / ρw) (formerly Gs) cu, su undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress (σ1 + σ3)/2 n porosity p′ mean effective stress (σ′1 + σ′3)/2 S degree of saturation q (σ1 - σ3)/2 or (σ′1 - σ′3)/2 qu compressive strength (σ1 - σ3) St sensitivity * Density symbol is ρ. Unit weight symbol is γ

where γ = ρg (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity)

Notes: 1 2

τ = c′ + σ′ tan φ′ shear strength = (compressive strength)/2


October 2016 Report No. 1527072 (2000)

TABLES



Table 1: Fill Depths and Elevations

Borehole No. Depth to Top

of Fill (m)*

Elevation of Top of Fill

(m)

Depth to Base of Fill (m)*

Elevation of Base of Fill

(m)

Fill Thickness (m)

BH2 0.3 132.9 4.0 129.2 3.8

BH3 0.1 127.0 1.4 125.7 1.3

BH5 0.6 129.9 2.9 127.6 2.3

BH6 0.3 131.1 2.7 128.7 2.4

BH7 0.1 126.9 2.1 124.9 2.1

BH9 0.6 132.6 1.4 131.8 0.8

BH13 0.2 134.2 1.4 133.0 1.2

BH15 0.1 130.3 0.7 129.6 0.6

BH16 0.4 129.1 0.7 128.8 0.3

BH17 0.4 136.4 4.4 132.4 4.1

BH20 0.4 129.9 0.7 129.6 0.3

ESA-7 0.1 132.1 4.1 128.1 4.0

* Depths measured from below existing grades



Table 2: Till Depths and Elevations

Borehole No. Depth to Top

of Till (m)*

Elevation of Top of Till

(m)

Depth to Base of Till (m)*

Elevation of Base of Till

(m)

Till Thickness (m)

BH1 0.2 134.5 1.2 133.6 1.0

BH2 4.0 129.2 5.6 127.6 1.6

BH3 1.4 125.7 4.9 122.2 3.5

BH4 0.6 130.7 2.1 129.2 1.5

BH5 2.9 127.6 3.7 126.8 0.8

BH6 2.7 128.7 4.2 127.3 1.5

BH7 2.1 124.9 2.7 124.3 0.6

BH8 0.4 127.0 1.8 125.6 1.4

BH9 1.4 131.8 2.5 130.6 1.2

BH10 0.6 133.6 0.9 133.3 0.3

BH11 0.6 136.5 1.3 135.8 0.7

BH12 0.6 134.0 0.9 133.7 0.3

BH13 1.4 133.0 1.7 132.6 0.4

BH14 0.1 132.8 1.4 131.5 1.3

BH15 0.7 129.6 1.2 129.1 0.5

BH16 0.7 128.8 1.4 128.1 0.7

BH18 0.3 134.9 0.7 134.5 0.4

BH19 0.5 131.9 2.1 130.3 1.6

BH20 0.7 129.6 1.4 128.9 0.7

ESA-7 4.1 128.1 4.4 Below 127.7** > 0.3**


**Borehole ESA-7 was terminated in the till deposit



Table 3: Shale Bedrock Depths and Elevations

Borehole No. Depth to Shale

Surface (m)*

Elevation of Shale Surface

(m)

BH1 1.2 133.6

BH2 5.6 127.7

BH3 4.9 122.2

BH4 2.1 129.2

BH5 4.0 126.5

BH6 4.2 127.3

BH7 2.7 124.3

BH8 1.8 125.6

BH9 2.5 130.6

BH10 0.9 133.3

BH11 1.3 135.8

BH12 0.9 133.7

BH13 1.7 132.6

BH14 1.4 131.5

BH15 1.2 129.1

BH16 1.4 128.1

BH17 4.4 132.4

BH18 0.7 134.5

BH19 2.1 130.3

BH20 1.4 128.9




FIGURES

DORVAL DRIVE

UPPE

R M

IDDL

E RO

AD

STREET 'A'

STREET 'B'STREET 'C' STREET 'D'

ST. '

E'

STREET 'F'

ST. '

G'

STR

EET

'H'ST

REET

'I'

STREET 'J'

STREET 'J'

ST. 'K

'

ST. 'M

'

ST. 'N'

ST. 'O' ST. 'P'

STREET '

Q'

ST. 'R'

STREET 'S'

STREET 'S'

STR

EET

'T'

STREET 'T'

ST. '

V'

STREET 'U'STREET 'X'

STR

EET

'W'

LANE 'B'

LANE 'C'

LN. 'D'

LANE 'E

'

LANE 'F

'

LANE 'G'

GOLFVIEW C

T.

ABBEYDALE CT.

MASTERS GREEN

MASTERS GREEN

THE LINKS DR.

FAIRWAY H

ILLS

BLVD.

GREENEAGLE D

R.GALL

ERY HILL

GREENEAGLE DR.

OLD

ABBEY LANE

ROYAL OAK CT.

RAMBLER CT.

ROYAL ALBERT CT.

LEEWOOD DRIVE

ODESSA CRESCENT

McCRANERY STREET W

ST. 'L

'

LANE 'H'

STREET 'F'

LANE 'A'

LANE 'H'

BH10

BH12

BH11

BH18

BH19

BH17

BH20

BH16

BH15

BH14

BH8

BH9

BH6

BH5

BH4

BH1 BH7

BH2

BH13

BH3

ESA-7

GLEN ABBEY GOLF CLUB REDEVELOPMENT

CLUBLINK CORPORATION ULC

CONSULTANT

DESIGN

PREPARED

REVIEW

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

PROJECT No. Rev.

Path

: ----

| F

ile N

ame:

152

7072

CA0

001.

dwg

025

mm

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

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

1527072Phase2000

Figure

1AA

2016-08-22

STB

SITE AND BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

REFERENCES

PLAN LEGEND

KEY PLAN

Plan Concept overlies ESRI Geography Network OBM Features. Concept Plan is approximated toorthographic Image and OBM features.Version Glen Abbey Concept Plan August 2016.

Borehole Locations Surveyed by Fiddes Clipsham Inc. on February 24, 2016.

1:5000

100 200 300 m0

Plotted 11x17" Tabloid Projection is UTM NAD 83 Zone 17

KEY PLAN 1:50000 m

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03

QUEEN E

LIZAB

ETH W

AY / 4

03DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

DORVAL DR.

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

UPPER

MID

DLE R

D. W / 3

8

NEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWANEYAGAWA BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.BLVD.

DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY

BOREHOLE LOCATION

svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment Slope A - Slope Stability Analysis (Static)

Figure 2

April 15, 2016 Analysis by: Rafael Abdulla Project No: 1527072 (2000) Reviewed by: Sarah Poot

Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment Slope B - Slope Stability Analysis (Static)

Figure 3


Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment Slope C - Slope Stability Analysis (Static)

Figure 4


Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment Slope D - Slope Stability Analysis (Static)

Figure 5


CONSULTANT

DESIGN

PREPARED

REVIEW

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD TITLE

PROJECT No. Rev.

PROJECTCLIENT

Path

: ----

| F

ile N

ame:

152

7072

_000

1_BG

_000

1.dw

g

025

mm

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

1527072PHASE FIGURE

62

2016-04-15

STB

NLP

SK

GLEN ABBEY GOLF CLUB REDEVELOPMENTOAKVILLE, ONTARIO


SLOPE SETBACK ANALYSIS

0

1:6,000 METRES

200100

TOP OF STABLE SLOPE

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

LEGEND

REFERENCE

BASE PLAN RECEIVED IN AN E-MAIL FROM SCS CONSULTING GROUP, DATED APRIL 10, 2015.

BOREHOLE LOCATION



APPENDIX A Record of Borehole Sheets

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

42

50/152mm

50/76

mm

50/76

mm

50/102mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand; reddishbrown to grey, (REWORKED TILL);cohesive, w<PL, firm

(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, reddishbrown, (TILL); cohesive, w<PL, hard

SHALE (BEDROCK)Thinly beddedFine grainedRed

End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling on January 26, 2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of2.7 m below existing grade on February22, 2016.

0.20

0.61

1.17

4.67

134.54

134.13

133.57

130.07

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 22, 2016

TY

PE

BORING DATE: January 26, 2016

NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR

STANDPIPEINSTALLATION

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s

Wp W

WATER CONTENT PERCENT

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1

SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm

RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH1

SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)

LOCATION: See Figure 1

CL

0.00134.74

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B

DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m

20 40 60 80

SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa

20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

12

26

14

8

11

10

43

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(SW) SAND, trace silt; brown;non-cohesive, moist, looseFILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand andgravel, organics, silt seams, shalefragments; reddish brown to greyishbrown to brown; cohesive, w<PL, firm tostiff to very stiff

FILL-(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, compact

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand,some gravel to gravelly, organics, sandseams, shale fragments; reddish brownto brown to grey; cohesive, w~PL tow<PL, stiff

(CL-MH) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT;grey to reddish brown, (TILL); cohesive,w<PL, stiff


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of2.3 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling on January 26, 2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of1.9 m below existing grade on February16, 2016.

0.280.38

1.73

2.13

4.04

5.56

6.55

132.94

131.49

131.09

129.18

127.66

126.67

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016T

YP

E


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00133.22

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

7

11

22

35

43

35

57

50/25

mm

50/51

mm

50/25

mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOILFILL-(ML) CLAYEY SILT, some sand;reddish brown; cohesive, w~PL, firm

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand andgravel, shale fragments; reddish brown;w<PL, stiff

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand to sandy,trace to some gravel, shale fragments,rootlets; reddish brown to grey, (TILL);cohesive, w<PL, very stiff to hard

SHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone interbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

0.08

0.69

1.37

4.85

126.35

125.67

122.19

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Cuttings / Plug

Holeplug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00127.04

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5T

rack

Mou

nt C

ME

55

DO

DO

DO

DO

11

12

13

14

50/25

mm

50/25

mm

50/76

mm

50/51

mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

Air

Rot

ary


Holeplug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

Air

Rot

ary


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of22.7 m in open borehole uponcompletion of drilling on January 18,2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of21.2 m below existing grade on February16, 2016.

26.21100.83

Holeplug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 3 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

14

45

71

50/76

mm

50/152mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, siltseams; mottled reddish brown grey,(REWORKED TILL); cohesive, w<PL,stiff(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace to some sand,shale fragments; reddish brown, (TILL);cohesive, w<PL, stiff to hard


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling on January 26, 2016.

0.61

1.09

2.13

4.72

130.70

130.22

129.18

126.59

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00131.31

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5T

rack

Mou

nt C

ME

55

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

17

14

7

11

54

50/102mm

M

MH

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

Air

Rot

ary

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, sand and gravelseam; brown; cohesive, w<PL, very stiff

FILL-(ML) SANDY SILT; brown;non-cohesive, moist, compact

FILL-(ML) SILT, trace sand, some plasticfines; reddish brown; non-cohesive,moist, loose

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand; reddishbrown to grey, (REWORKED TILL);cohesive, w~PL, stiff

(CL) SILTY CLAY and SAND, tracegravel, limestone fragments; reddishbrown, (TILL); cohesive, w<PL, hardSHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone interbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

0.61

1.37

2.13

2.90

3.66

3.99

129.89

129.13

128.37

127.60

126.84

126.51

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00130.50

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

Air

Rot

ary


Hole Plug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

Air

Rot

ary


End of Borehole

NOTE:


28.04102.46

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 3 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

5

7

8

19

24

50/25

mm

M

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand andgravel; reddish brown to grey; cohesive,w<PL to w~PL, stiff to firm

FILL-(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; brown; non-cohesive, moist,loose

(ML-CL) CLAYEY SILT to SILTY CLAY,trace to some sand; brown, (TILL);cohesive, w<PL, very stiff

SHALE (BEDROCK)Thinly beddedFine grainedRedEnd of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of2.6 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling on January 20, 2016.

0.30

1.52

2.69

4.17

4.60

131.13

129.91

128.74

127.26

126.83

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00131.43

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5T

rack

Mou

nt C

ME

55

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

26

5

4

27

50/76

mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

HQ

Cor

ing

TOPSOILFILL-(SP/GP) SAND and GRAVEL;grey; non-cohesive, moist, compact

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand andgravel; reddish brown; cohesive, w<PL,firm

FILL-(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY, somegravel; reddish brown; cohesive, w<PL,firm

(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand; reddishbrown to brown, (REWORKED TILL);cohesive, w<PL, very stiff

SHALE (BEDROCK)Thinly beddedFine grainedRedFor Rock Core Details, see Record ofDrillhole BH7

0.08

0.64

1.37

2.13

2.72

3.12

126.37

125.64

124.88

124.29

123.89

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00127.01

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

HQ

Cor

ing

For Rock Core Details, see Record ofDrillhole BH7

Hole Plug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

HQ

Cor

ing

For Rock Core Details, see Record ofDrillhole BH7

NOTE:


End of Borehole 29.4197.60

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 3 OF 3



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

43

50/102mm

50/102mm

50/25

mm

50/127mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand; reddishbrown, (REWORKED TILL); cohesive,w<PL, firm(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, siltseams; reddish brown, (TILL); cohesive,w<PL, hard


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling on February 2, 2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of3.9 m below existing grade on February16, 2016.

0.41

0.69

1.78

4.85

126.95

126.67

125.58

122.51

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016

TY

PE

BORING DATE: February 2, 2016

NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00127.36

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

18

50/152mm

50/152mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand,shale fragments; reddish brown;cohesive, w<PL, firm

(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY, trace sand,trace organics, silt seams; reddishbrown, (REWORKED TILL); cohesive,w<PL, very stiff

(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand; reddishbrown, (TILL); cohesive, w<PL, hard


No recovery of sample at 4.6 m bgs

End of Borehole

NOTE:


0.56

1.37

2.13

2.54

4.57

132.60

131.79

131.03

130.62

128.59

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00133.16

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

24

50/76

mm

50/102mm

50/25

mm

50/152mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand andgravel; reddish brown, (TILL); cohesive,w<PL, very stiffSHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone InterbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

End of Borehole

NOTE:


0.61

0.91

4.72

133.60

133.30

129.49

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00134.21

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20

50/76

mm

50/102mm

50/152mm

50/51

mm

50/76

mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY, trace gravel,shale fragments; reddish brown,(REWORKED TILL); cohesive, w<PL,very stiff


0.61

1.30

136.48

135.79

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00137.09

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of9.0 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling on January 22, 2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of3.8 m below existing grade on February22, 2016.

12.19124.90

10 Slot PVC Screen

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

41

59

50/127mm

50/127mm

50/76

mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand andgravel; reddish brown, (TILL); cohesive,w<PL, hardSHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone interbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

End of Borehole

NOTE:


0.61

0.94

4.65

134.04

133.71

130.00

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00134.65

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

5

37

50/25

mm

50/102mm

50/102mm

50/25

mm

50/25

mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand tosandy, some gravel, shale fragments;reddish brown to grey; cohesive, w<PL,stiff to firm

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, somegravel; reddish brown to grey, (TILL);cohesive, w<PL, hardSHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone interbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

0.20

1.37

1.73

134.17

133.00

132.64

Hole Plug

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00134.37

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of13.8 m in open borehole uponcompletion of drilling on January 25,2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of14.6 m below existing grade in deepmonitoring on February 16, 2016.3. Groundwater measured at a depth of1.3 m below existing grade in shallowmonitoring on February 16, 2016.

15.24119.13

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

17

30

54

50/152mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand andgravel; reddish brown, (REWORKEDTILL); cohesive, w<PL, very stiff

(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, silt seam,shale fragments; reddish brown, (TILL);w<PL, hard

SHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone InterbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

No sample recovery at 3.2 m bgs

End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling on February 3, 2016.

0.08

0.69

1.37

3.20

132.19

131.51

129.68

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00132.88

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

21

57

50/127mm

50/51

mm

50/51

mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOILFILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand,mixed organics; reddish brown;cohesive, w~PL, firm

(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY, some gravel,silt seams, shale fragments; reddishbrown, (TILL); cohesive, w<PL, very stiff


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling on February 10, 2016.

0.05

0.69

1.22

4.62

129.64

129.11

125.71

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00130.33

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

5

21

45

50/152mm

50/76

mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, traceorganics and topsoil; reddish brown togrey; cohesive, w~PL, firm(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, shalefragments; reddish brown, (REWORKEDTILL); cohesive, w<PL, very stiff



End of Borehole

NOTE:


0.41

0.69

1.37

4.57

129.08

128.80

128.12

124.92

Casing

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 16, 2016T

YP

E


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00129.49

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

20

25

12

9

10

30

50/127mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace to somesand and gravel, shale and limestonefragments; reddish brown; cohesive,w<PL, stiff to very stiff

FILL-CLAYEY TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY, mixedorganics; reddish brown to grey;cohesive, w<PL, stiff

SHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone InterbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed

End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling on February 10, 2016.2. Monitoring well dry, measured onFebruary 22, 2016.

0.36

3.43

3.66

4.42

6.38

136.43

133.36

133.13

132.37

130.41

Casing

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00136.79

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

7

50/152mm

50/127mm

50/152mm

50/102mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, shalefragments; reddish brown, (REWORKEDTILL); cohesive, w<PL, hardSHALE (BEDROCK)Limestone interbedsThinly beddedFine grainedRed


End of Borehole

NOTE:


0.30

0.69

4.57

134.87

134.48

130.60

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00135.17

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13

42

50/127mm

50/127mm

50/102mm

MH

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY, trace gravel,shale fragments; reddish brown,(REWORKED TILL); cohesive, w~PL tow<PL, stiff

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand, limestonefragments; reddish brown, (TILL);cohesive, w<PL, hard


End of Borehole

NOTE:


0.51

1.37

2.13

4.67

131.90

131.04

130.28

127.74

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00132.41

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

DO

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

26

59

50/152mm

50/152mm

50/51

mm

6" O

/D S

oild

Ste

m A

uger

TOPSOIL

FILL-(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace sand,rootlets; reddish brown, (REWORKEDTILL), cohesive, w<PL, firm(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand; reddishbrown, (TILL); cohesive, w<PL, very stiff


0.38

0.69

1.37

129.89

129.58

128.90

Casing

#2 Silica Sand

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVC Screen

February 22, 2016February 22, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CL

0.00130.27

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.


End of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of5.2 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling on February 3, 2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of1.0 m below existing grade on February22, 2016.

10.67119.60

10 Slot PVC Screen

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 2 OF 2



SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

LOGGED:

CHECKED:


DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


CLDEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B


20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Q -U -

nat V.rem V.

Geo

prob

e 78

22 D

irect

Pus

h

50ST

50ST

50ST

50ST

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6A

6B

6C

23

5

3

2

4

11

50 M

M S

plit

Spo

on 5

0 M

M O

.D. 1

00 M

M S

olid

Ste

m A

uger

s

ASPHALTFILL (Crushed Limestone bedding);brown to grey(ML) FILL/REWORKED TILL - SANDYSILT, trace to some clay; brown; moist towet, very loose to compact

(CL) SILTY CLAY, trace to some gravel,some sand; red to grey, (TILL);cohesive, w~PL, stiffEnd of Borehole

NOTE:

1. Groundwater measured at a depth of2.1 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling on January 25, 2016.2. Groundwater measured at a depth of1.5 m below existing grade on January28, 2016.

0.100.18

4.11

4.42

128.05

127.74

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Concrete andCasing

Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand Filter

January 28, 2016

TY

PE


NU

MB

ER

Wl

PIEZOMETEROR



Wp W


BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

ELEV.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

SOIL PROFILE

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BLO

WS

/0.3

m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

10 20 30 40

SHEET 1 OF 1


RECORD OF BOREHOLE: ESA-7

SAMPLES

DEPTH(m)

DESCRIPTION

GROUND SURFACE

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DATUM: Geodetic

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


MG

0.00132.16

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 50

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NL

GT

A-B

HS

001

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

.GD

T 4

-19

-16

ST

B

HEADSPACE COMBUSTIBLEVAPOUR CONCENTRATIONS [PPM]ND = Not Detected

PHOTO IONIZATION DETECTOR [PPM]

1 2 3 4

20 40 60 80

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


HQ

Cor

ing

Hole Plug

SOLIDCORE %

- Joint- Fault- Shear- Vein- Conjugate

BDFOCOORCL

20406080

DEPTH(m) TOTAL

CORE %

ELEV.

R.Q.D.%

RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: BH7

NOTESWATER LEVELS

INSTRUMENTATIONDIP w.r.t.

COREAXIS

B Angle

- Polished- Slickensided- Smooth- Rough- Mechanical Break

POKSMRoMB

- Broken Rock

RECOVERY

JNFLTSHRVNCJ

FLU

SH

0 90 180

270

PLCUUNSTIR

RU

N N

o.

SY

MB

OLI

C L

OG

SHEET 1 OF 3

NOTE: For additionalabbreviations refer to listof abbreviations &symbols.

- Planar- Curved- Undulating- Stepped- Irregular

- Bedding- Foliation- Contact- Orthogonal- Cleavage C

OLO

UR

%

RE

TU

RN

DR

ILLI

NG

RE

CO

RD

20406080 5 10 15 20

DISCONTINUITY DATADESCRIPTION

0 30 60 90

TYPE AND SURFACEDESCRIPTION Jr JnJa

INCLINATION: -90° AZIMUTH: ---

FRACT.INDEXPER0.3 m

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RA

TE

min

/(m

)

DRILLING DATE: January 21, 2016

DRILL RIG: CME 55

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Davis Drilling

20406080

BR

DATUM: Geodetic

DEPTH SCALE

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

SEE RECORD OF BOREHOLE BH7

2.72

1 : 50

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

CL

124.29

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

NL

GT

A-R

CK

004

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

S.G

DT

4-

19-1

6 S

TB

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

K, cm/sec

DiametralPoint Load

Index(MPa)

2 4 6

RMC-Q'

AVG.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


HQ

Cor

ing

Hole Plug

SOLIDCORE %


BDFOCOORCL

20406080

DEPTH(m) TOTAL

CORE %

ELEV.

R.Q.D.%


NOTESWATER LEVELS


COREAXIS

B Angle


POKSMRoMB

- Broken Rock

RECOVERY

JNFLTSHRVNCJ

FLU

SH

0 90 180

270

PLCUUNSTIR

RU

N N

o.

SY

MB

OLI

C L

OG

SHEET 2 OF 3




OLO

UR

%

RE

TU

RN

DR

ILLI

NG

RE

CO

RD

20406080 5 10 15 20


0 30 60 90



FRACT.INDEXPER0.3 m

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RA

TE

min

/(m

)


DRILL RIG: CME 55


20406080

BR

DATUM: Geodetic

DEPTH SCALE

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

1 : 50

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

CLLOGGED:

CHECKED:


PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

NL

GT

A-R

CK

004

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

S.G

DT

4-

19-1

6 S

TB

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3


K, cm/sec

DiametralPoint Load

Index(MPa)

2 4 6

RMC-Q'

AVG.

Tra

ck M

ount

CM

E 5

5

14

15

16

17

18


End of Drillhole

NOTE:


HQ

Cor

ing

97.6029.41

Hole Plug

#2 Silica Sand

10 Slot PVCScreen

February16,

2016

SOLIDCORE %


BDFOCOORCL

20406080

DEPTH(m) TOTAL

CORE %

ELEV.

R.Q.D.%


NOTESWATER LEVELS


COREAXIS

B Angle


POKSMRoMB

- Broken Rock

RECOVERY

JNFLTSHRVNCJ

FLU

SH

0 90 180

270

PLCUUNSTIR

RU

N N

o.

SY

MB

OLI

C L

OG

SHEET 3 OF 3




OLO

UR

%

RE

TU

RN

DR

ILLI

NG

RE

CO

RD

20406080 5 10 15 20


0 30 60 90



FRACT.INDEXPER0.3 m

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

RA

TE

min

/(m

)


DRILL RIG: CME 55


20406080

BR

DATUM: Geodetic

DEPTH SCALE

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1 : 50

CLLOGGED:

CHECKED:


PROJECT: 1527072 (2000)


DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

NL

GT

A-R

CK

004

S

:\CLI

EN

TS

\CLU

BLI

NK

\OA

KV

ILLE

_GLE

N_A

BB

EY

_GO

LF_C

OU

RS

E\0

2_D

AT

A\G

INT

\152

707

2-B

G-0

001.

GP

J G

AL-

MIS

S.G

DT

4-

19-1

6 S

TB

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3


K, cm/sec

DiametralPoint Load

Index(MPa)

2 4 6

RMC-Q'

AVG.



APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Silty Clay Fill FIGURE B1

Date: 01-Apr-16

Project Number: 1527072

Checked By: Golder Associates

LEGEND

BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m)

13 1B 2 4 2.29 - 2.7417 6

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch

COBBLE

SIZE

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES

GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED

svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

Figure No. B2

Project No. 1527072 PLASTICITY CHART

Silty Clay Fill

ML

ML or OL

MH or OH

CH

CL - ML

CI

SYMBOL

1B

LEGEND

BH SAMPLE

2 4

13

17 6

CL

Checked By:

svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Silt Fill FIGURE B3

Date: 01-Apr-16



LEGEND

BOREHOLE SAMPLE

5 4

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE



svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

Figure No. B4


Silt Fill

ML

ML or OL

MH or OH

CH

CL - ML

CI

SYMBOL

LEGEND

BH SAMPLE

5 4

CL

Checked By:

svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Silty Sand to Sandy Silt Fill FIGURE B5

Date: 01-Apr-16



LEGEND

BOREHOLE SAMPLE

5 36 4

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE



svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Silty Clay Till FIGURE B6

Date: 01-Apr-16



LEGEND

BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m)

1 2 7 4 3 5 3.05 - 3.515 6

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE



svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Clayey Silt to Silty Clay Till FIGURE B7

Date: 01-Apr-16



LEGEND

BOREHOLE SAMPLE

19 215 211 29 36 5

SYMBOL

0.00010.0010.010.11101000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |


COBBLE

SIZE



svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

Figure No. B8


Silty Clay Till

ML

ML or OL

MH or OH

CH

CL - ML

CI

SYMBOL

5

LEGEND

BH SAMPLE

1 2

3

5 6

7 4

9 3

11 2

15 2

19 2

CL

Checked By:

svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

Figure No. B9


Clayey Silt Till

ML

ML or OL

MH or OH

CH

CL - ML

CI

SYMBOL

LEGEND

BH SAMPLE

6 5

CL

Checked By:

svodden

Typewritten Text

NLP



APPENDIX C Previously Provided Slope Letter - Golder Associates Ltd.

Golder Associates Ltd.

100, Scotia Court, Whitby, Ontario, Canada L1N 8Y6 Tel: +1 (905) 723 2727 Fax: +1 (905) 723 2182 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

Dear Ms. Beckman,

As requested, Golder Associated Ltd. (Golder) has carried out a preliminary analysis of the setbacks required for

positioning the Top of Stable Slope line as part of the constraints mapping process for the site noted above.

As part of our review, Golder has reviewed currently available published geotechnical information and internal

geotechnical reports for the immediate area of the site, completed a site visit to assess the current condition of

the slopes and to observe any signs of active erosion present and reviewed the topographic mapping provided

by SCS Consulting Ltd. (SCS) which we understand was obtained by Malone Given Parsons (MGP) from the

Town of Oakville. In addition, we have relied upon previous information provided to ClubLink Properties Limited

in letter from Golder dated October 23, 1998.

Based on our review of the data noted above, our assessment of the current site conditions are as follows:

The site is primarily underlain by shale bedrock of the Queenston Formation which overlies the shale

bedrock of the Meaford-Dundas Formation. Local geotechnical information indicates that the shale is

overlain by 2 to 4 metres of a clay till material in the tableland area with the exception of the area of the site

adjacent to Upper Middle Road where up to 8 metres of soil was found overlying the bedrock. On the

valley slopes, the soils overlying the bedrock are typically comprised of completely weathered

shale/residual soil.

The slopes range in height from about 24 metres to 31 metres with the current slope profiles ranging from 1

horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) to 1.9H:1V but typically in the range of 1.3H:1V. Flatter slopes in the range

of 3H:1V and 5H:1V are present south and east of the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame.

April 13, 2015 Project No. 1527072

Ms. Kim Beckman Davies Howe Partners, LLP 99 Spadina Avenue, 5th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5R 2Z2

PRELIMINARY STABLE SLOPE SETBACK ANALYSIS CRV SITE OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

Ms. Kim Beckman 1527072

Davies Howe Partners, LLP April 13, 2015

2/2

The slopes are well treed or grassed and are exhibiting only minor signs of surficial erosion with the

exception of one section where the creek is in direct contact with the slope and the shale bedrock is

exposed for almost the full height of the slope as a consequence of ongoing toe erosion.

Toe erosion is not an issue for the majority of the slope, as Sixteen Mile Creek is more than 15 metres

away from the toe of the slope in most areas. An approximately 250 metre section of the slope where the

creek and slope are close or in direct contact will be affected by the need for a toe erosion setback.

Stable slope angles for fresh shale bedrock would typically be considered to be in the order of about

1.4H:1V; for weathered shale slopes the stable slope angle is shallower and up to about 1.7H:1V. For the

soils anticipated at this site, the stable slope angle would typically range from 2H:1V to 3H:1V.

Based on the conditions noted above a conservative setback allowance (Stable Top of Bank Line as shown on

Figure 1) was developed based on a 1.9H:1V stable slope angle taken over the full height of the slope (to

encompass the weathered shale with nominal soil cover) along with a 5 metre toe erosion allowance where

required. A flatter stable slope angle (2.3H:1V) was used in the areas adjacent to Upper Middle Road to allow

for the thicker soils known to exist in that area. A total of nine slope cross-sections were reviewed and analysed

to develop the line.

Prior to final design, the Stable Top of Bank Line can be refined by carrying out detailed analyses of the slopes

once boreholes are advanced as part of the geotechnical assessment of the overall site and surveyed slope

profiles are available. The boreholes would confirm the actual type and thickness of the soil cover over the shale

and provide confirmation of the condition of the upper zones of the shale. In addition, updated topographic

information for specific section of the slopes will be required.

We trust this letter and its attachments are suitable for your current needs, if any point requires clarification

please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Yours truly,

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Steven D. Keenan, C.E.T. Anne S. Poschmann, P.Eng. Prinicpal Principal SDK/ASP/sdk/js

CC: Ms. Sarah Kurtz – SCS Consulting Group Ltd.

Mr. Matthew James Cory – Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Attachments: Figure 1 – Stable Top of Slope Line, CRV Site, Oakville, Ontario

Figures 2 and 3 – Site Photographs

\\golder.gds\gal\barrie\active\2015\3 proj\1527072 geranium geotech hydrog oakville\correspondence\1527072 let 2015'04'13 preliminary stable slope setback analysis.docx

CONSULTANT

DESIGN

PREPARED

REVIEW

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD TITLE

PROJECT No. Rev.

PROJECTCLIENT

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\Mis

siss

auga

\SIM

\Clie

nts\

Ger

aniu

m\P

roje

ct_C

RV_

Oak

ville

\99_

PRO

J\15

2707

2\40

_PR

OD

\000

1_Sl

ope_

Anal

ysis

\ |

File

Nam

e: 1

5270

72_0

001_

BG_0

001.

dwg

025

mm

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

1527072CONTROL

FIGURE

1----

2015-04-13

MK

PROJECT CRVOAKVILLE, ONTARIO


TOP OF STABLE SLOPE ANALYSIS0

1:6,000 METRES

200100

TOP OF STABLE SLOPE

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

LEGEND

REFERENCE

BASE PLAN RECEIVED IN AN E-MAIL FROM SCS CONSULTING GROUP, DATED APRIL 10, 2015.SDK

Figure 2 - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Slope Stability Setback Analysis

Image 1: Active Erosion of Slope – Contact with Sixteen Mile Creek

Image 2: Typical Slope West of Clubhouse

Project No. 1527072 Golder Associates Ltd. Inputted by: JS Date: April 13, 2015 Checked by: SDK

Figure 3 - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Slope Stability Setback Analysis

Image 3: Slope Section where Toe Erosion Setback Required

Image 4: Flatter Slope Sections East of Canadian Golf Hall of Fame

Project No. 1527072 Golder Associates Ltd. Inputted by: JS Date: April 13, 2015 Checked by: SDK

Golder Associates Ltd.

121 Commerce Park Drive, Unit L

Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8X1

Canada

T: +1 (705) 722 4492

1527072 (2000) REP 2016'10'18 Geotechnical Investigation ...

Documents

Transcript of 1527072 (2000) REP 2016'10'18 Geotechnical Investigation ...