GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Highway...

SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc. www.solidearth.ca

Edmonton : Tel.: 780.577.1115 Fax: 780.669.7094 #230, 4808 87 St. Edmonton, AB, T6E 5W3

Cold Lake : Tel.: 780.545.3545 Fax: 780.669.7094 #105 - 4604 50 St. Cold Lake, AB, T9M 1S6

Lloydminster : Tel.: 780.875.2112 Fax: 780.669.7094 5406-52 Avenue Lloydminster, AB, T9V 2T5

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Proposed Highway 881 Intersection Improvement For the Proposed Meridian Camp Site Within a Portion of SE¼ 17-74-8 W4M

South of Conklin, Alberta

Prepared for:

SE Design and Consulting Inc. Cold Lake, Alberta

Date:

14 May 2015

Project File #: PG15-1210

http://www.solidearth.ca/

PG15-1210 - Meridian Highway 881 Intersection Improvement -Final Report Page i

Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Highway 881 Intersection Improvement

For the Proposed Meridian Camp Site Within a Portion of SE¼ 17-74-8 W4M

Table of Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INVESTIGATION SCOPE ............................................ 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................................................ 2

4.1 GROUND DISTURBANCE AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE ............................... 2 4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 2 4.3 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 3

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 5.1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS .................................................................................. 4

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 5 6.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 5

6.1.1 Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation ................................................... 5 6.1.2 Placement of Engineered Grade Raising Fill ............................................ 6 6.1.3 New Embankment Side Slopes ................................................................ 7 6.1.4 Site Grading and Drainage ....................................................................... 7 6.1.5 Frost Susceptibility of the Native Soils ...................................................... 7

6.2 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE .................................................................................. 8 7.0 TESTING AND INSPECTION ........................................................................................ 11 8.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................... 12 Tables:

Table 1: Measured Groundwater Levels Table 2: Recommended Minimum Pavement Structure for New Lanes Table 3: ESAL Criteria for Selection of Mix Design Table 4: Selection of Convectional Asphalt Grades

Figures:

Figure 1: Project Location on a 2013 Aerial Photograph Figure 2: Borehole Location Plan Figure 3: Proposed Configuration of Embankment Key

Appendix A: Site Photographs Taken During the Field Investigation

Appendix B: Borehole Logs Explanation of Terms and Symbols

PG15-1210 - Meridian Highway 881 Intersection Improvement -Final Report Page 1



1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the proposed improvement at the intersection of Highway 881 and the access road to the proposed Meridian Camp Site, located within a portion of SE¼ 17-74-8 W4M, south of Conklin, Alberta. The geotechnical investigation was carried out by SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc. (SolidEarth) at the request of Mr. Mario Gagnon, P.Eng. of SE Design and Consulting Inc. (SE Design). 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INVESTIGATION SCOPE Based on information provided to SolidEarth by SE Design, it was understood that Altalink is proposing to build a new camp along Highway 881. This will necessitate to improve the intersection of the Highway and the access road that will lead to the new camp site. The intersection improvement project will involve the construction of an additional traffic lane for both directions of the intersection along the highway. The new lanes will extend for a distance of approximately 225 m in both directions from the intersection along the highway, beyond which they will be tied to the existing highway. The proposed new intersection will be a Type IIIb intersection. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to:

• assess the existing subsurface conditions at selected locations within the proposed alignment section of the new additional traffic lanes along the highway,

• evaluate the competency of the subgrade to support the new earthen embankment structure,

• determine required subgrade improvement (if any),

• establish embankment construction and fill placement requirements to minimize differential settlement between existing and new traffic lanes, and

• determine the required gravel base course and asphaltic concrete pavement structures. The scope of work completed by SolidEarth included drilling nine boreholes, conducting laboratory review and testing on recovered soil samples, undertaking geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of this report. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project area was located within a portion of SE¼ 17-74-8 W4M. The project area was along Highway 881 and included approximately 225 m in both directions from the intersection of Highway 881 and the existing Margie Yard access road near kilometer marker 146. The general area surrounding the project site was predominantly undeveloped land covered by trees. Standing water was observed within the eastern ditch near the intersection.




Photographs of the site taken during the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. The project location shown on a 2013 aerial photograph is presented as Figure 1. 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 4.1 GROUND DISTURBANCE AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE The borehole locations were selected and marked in the field by SolidEarth based on site access restrictions and the proposed development plan provided by SE Design. Prior to field drilling, a SolidEarth representative completed internal ground disturbance procedures, which included placing an Alberta One Call. Before starting onsite work a daily field level hazard assessment was conducted by the SolidEarth representative and was communicated with all workers involved during the tailgate meeting. SolidEarth retained Carillion Canada Inc. to provide the required traffic safety accommodations. Carillion contacted the appropriate authorities prior to initiation of the field work, provided traffic safety signage and vehicles, and flagging personnel. The field work was successfully completed without any near misses or incidents. 4.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION SolidEarth subcontracted Canadian Geological Drilling Inc. of Edmonton, Alberta to drill the boreholes. Drilling was completed using an all-terrain rubber-tired auger drill rig utilizing 150 mm solid-stem continuous flight augers. The field investigation was undertaken on 23 April 2015, and consisted of drilling a total of nine boreholes. Seven boreholes (BH15-1 through -7) were drilled to depths between 4.3 and 5.8 m below the existing ground surface within the east and west embankments of the existing highway. Two additional boreholes (BH15-8 and -9) were drilled to a depth of 4.3 m below the existing ground surface on each of the existing approaches. During drilling, soil samples were collected at approximately 0.75 m intervals along the depth of the boreholes. Pocket penetrometer testing was conducted on selected cohesive soil samples to obtain an indication of the unconfined compressive strength of disturbed soil samples from the auger. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted at selected depths to assess the in-situ strength of the soils encountered. The soil sampling and testing sequences are shown on the borehole logs attached to Appendix B. A SolidEarth geotechnical technologist monitored the drilling operations and logged the recovered soil samples from the auger cuttings and the SPT samples. The soils were logged according to the Modified Unified Soil Classification System, which is described in the Explanation of Terms and Symbols, Appendix B. Due to the method by which the soil cuttings




were returned to surface, the depths noted on the borehole logs may vary by ± 0.3 m from those recorded. Groundwater seepage conditions were monitored during and immediately following the completion of drilling. Slotted standpipe piezometers were also installed in the seven boreholes advanced within the east and west embankments/side ditches to allow for short term monitoring of the groundwater levels. Following completion of drilling, the coordinates (northing, easting, and elevation) of the ground surface at the borehole locations were surveyed by SE Design and provided to SolidEarth. These coordinates are shown on the borehole logs. The borehole location plan as provided by SE design is presented as Figure 2. 4.3 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION All collected samples were submitted to the laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory testing conducted included visual examination and determination of the natural moisture content on all collected samples, as well as Atterbergs limits and grain size distribution analysis on selected soil samples. The results of the laboratory testing are presented on the borehole logs. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A brief summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations is presented below. A detailed description of the subsurface condition encountered at each borehole location is provided on the corresponding borehole log. Clay Fill and Organics Clay fill with organics was encountered at the surface at all borehole locations and extended to depths ranging between approximately 0.3 and 0.9 m below the ground surface (thicker fill in the order of 1.4 m was encountered at the location of BH15-09). The clay fill was generally classified as “clay, sandy, and silt, trace gravel”, was mixed with organics, low plastic, and generally very moist. Very moist to wet conditions were encountered within clay fill where organic mixture was higher. Peat was encountered below the clay fill at the locations of BH15-01 and -09, and was approximately 0.3 to 0.5 m thick. The peat was moderately decomposed, black, and wet. Liquid and plastic limits of samples of the clay fill were in range of 22 to 26 percent and 10 to 13 percent, respectively. Moisture content of the clay fill generally ranged between 13 and 27 percent with an average of 20 percent. Moisture content in the order of 56 percent was measured where high concentration of organics was present in the fill. In general, it is expected




that the moisture content of the clay fill ranged between approximately 2 and 10 percent wet of its optimum moisture content. Wet pockets of clay fill should be expected at some locations. Clay Till Clay till was encountered below the clay fill at all borehole locations and extended to below the exploration depths. The clay till was generally classified as “clay, and sand, silty, trace gravel”, was low plastic, and was moist to very moist. Liquid and plastic limits of samples of clay till were in range of 26 to 29 percent and 10 to 11 percent, respectively. Moisture content of the clay till samples generally ranged between 13 and 19 percent with an average of 16 percent. Based on the comparison with the soils’ plastic limit, it is expected that the average moisture content of the clay till was approximately 6 percent wetter than its optimum moisture content. The SPT “N” values within the clay till ranged between 4 and 27 blows per 300 mm penetration, with majority of the values falling between 5 and 10 indicating firm to stiff consistency. 5.1 GROUNDWATER LEVELS The measured groundwater levels in the boreholes following completion of drilling and on 1 May 2015 are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Measured Groundwater Levels

Borehole ID

Ground Elevation (m) Note 1

Depth of Borehole

(mbgs) note 2

Standpipe Installation

Depth (mbgs)

Groundwater Levels

23 April 2015 (At Drilling Completion) 1 May 2015

Depth (mbgs) Elevation (m)

Depth (mbgs)

Elevation (m)

BH15-01( TH1*) 764.7 4.3 3.9 2.1 762.6 0.3 764.4

BH15-02(TH2) 767.5 4.3 4.3 1.2 766.3 0.8 766.7

BH15-03(TH3) 766.5 4.3 4.3 1.2 765.3 2.2 764.3

BH15-04(TH4) 766.1 4.3 4.0 2.4 763.7 0.9 765.2

BH15-05(TH5) 766.9 5.8 5.3 4.6 762.3 0.7 766.2

BH15-06(TH6) 766.9 4.3 4.3 2.4 764.5 0.3 766.6

BH15-07(TH7) 766.9 4.3 4.3 1.7 765.2 2.6 764.3

BH15-08(TH8) 768.0 4.3 No Standpipe installed

2.3 765.7 No Standpipe installed BH15-09(TH9) 768.3 4.3 4.0 764.3

*Borehole ID as shown in Borehole Location Plan prepared by SE Design & Consulting Inc. Note 1: Based on survey elevation provided by SE Design & Consulting Inc. Note 2: mbgs – metres below existing ground surface




In general, the depth of the groundwater table as measured in the boreholes was near the natural ground level (in the side ditches). The depth of the groundwater table is expected to fluctuate seasonally depending upon several factors that include the local geology, hydrogeology, and surface infiltration. 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Grade raising fill will be required for the construction of the additional traffic lanes. The source of the new fill has not been identified at the time of the investigation, and thus no assessment of this material was made in the report. Preliminary cross sectional profile drawings showing the existing and the proposed addition as provided to SolidEarth are attached in Appendix C. Based on these preliminary cross sectional drawings, it was understood that the slope of the existing embankment was approximately 4 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (4H:1V). The existing slope configuration indicated that the new traffic lanes will be located within the footprint of the existing embankment. It is expected that the thickness of the grade raising fill required along the proposed traffic lanes will be in the order of 1 to 1.5 m. The key geotechnical concern during the construction of any additional lanes for a roadway is the differential settlement between the existing and the new pavement, and the stability of the new embankment slope. Settlement of the native clay fill and clay till subgrade below the new traffic lanes (due to the addition of fill to construct the new lanes) is expected to be low, but may induce cracks in the joints where the old and new pavements meet (as no additional settlement is anticipated in the existing roadway alignment). These joints should be avoided as much as possible in the wheel paths. Measures to be implemented during construction to limit the differential settlements between the existing and the new pavement sections are discussed in the following sections. 6.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 6.1.1 Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation The near surface soil as encountered at the borehole locations within the existing embankment slopes and side ditches were observed to be generally moist to very moist with some locations being wet. Varying degree of organic inclusions was also noted in the upper approximately 1 m of the clay fill soils. All topsoil/organics and weak and wet soil should be removed from the development area. Organic materials should not be mixed with mineral soils nor used as engineered fill material. Topsoil may be stockpiled at an approved location for future landscaping use.




All exposed subgrade, following cut (in areas under cut) and prior to placement of engineered fill (in areas under fill) should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer. The inspection may include a proof-roll test to confirm that deflections from construction traffic are minimal. This is particularly important in areas where subgrade support will be required (i.e., new driving lanes). Soft and weak areas identified during inspection, should be strengthened and improved. Soft and wet subgrade conditions should be expected at some locations. Where soft and wet subgrade conditions are encountered, the subgrade should be strengthened or improved. Subgrade strengthening/improvement would include scarifying and re-compacting the subgrade as engineered fill with strict control of moisture content and density (if good weather conditions prevail), the soft wet material removed and replaced with drier or granular material, or using cement stabilization. Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that the upper 300 mm of the exposed subgrade be scarified and re-compacted as engineered fill with strict control of moisture content and density. To help improve the bonding between the existing fill and the new fill required for the new lanes, it is recommended that a key be created in the existing embankment. A recommended configuration of this key is presented as Figure 3. 6.1.2 Placement of Engineered Grade Raising Fill All fill placed on site (from scarifying and re-compacting or imported material) should be placed as engineered fill. Engineered fill should consist of low to medium plastic clay or a well-graded granular material. Silt or sand which is uniformly graded, or which contains more than 10 percent passing the 0.080 mm sieve are not recommended as these materials are generally frost susceptible and are difficult to compact (require strict control of moisture content). All fill soils should be free from any organic materials, contamination, deleterious construction debris, and stones greater than 75 mm in diameter. Engineered fill should be placed during non-frozen conditions. If winter construction is proposed, SolidEarth can provide additional recommendations, once the overall development plan has been finalized. All engineered fill should be unfrozen when placed, and should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD) under the new pavement section and to a minimum of 95 percent of SPMDD for the new embankment slope. The standard of compaction should be increased to 100 percent of SPMDD for the upper 300 mm of the subgrade soil (below the underside of the granular sub-base of new pavement). This will help reduce the differential settlement between the existing road and the new proposed lanes. All engineered fill should be compacted in maximum lift thickness of 150 mm (corresponding to approximately 200 to 250 mm loose), and within 2 percent of the soils’ optimum moisture content. Fill placement should be in accordance with the Alberta Transportation “Standard Specification for Highway Construction”. Fill placement procedures and quality of the fill soils




should be monitored by geotechnical personnel on a full time basis. Field monitoring should include compaction testing at regular frequencies. The exposed subgrade under the proposed pavement, prior to the placement of granular base or sub-base material should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer. The inspection may include a proof-roll test to confirm that deflections from construction traffic are minimal. Soft and weak areas identified during inspection, should be strengthened and improved. 6.1.3 New Embankment Side Slopes Based on the cross sectional profile drawings provided to SolidEarth, it was understood that the slope of the new embankment will be similar to the existing slope which is approximately 4H:1V. The subgrade conditions encountered were generally competent to support the new embankments (which will be less than 3 m in height and with a slope inclination of 4H:1V), provided that the subgrade has been prepared and inspected as recommended above. 6.1.4 Site Grading and Drainage Provision of uniform and adequate grades for surface water drainage is potentially the most important design element for establishing long term stable pavement structures for roads. To minimize the potential for water ponding and seepage leading to saturation and degradation of the subgrade (during and following construction), a minimum grade of two percent is recommended at the subgrade level. The final pavement grade should also be adequately sloped to accommodate surface water runoff. It is recommended that the pavement gravel base be allowed to drain (day-lighted) into the side ditches so that any accumulated water within the base gravel will be allowed to drain away and not pond on top of the subgrade. It is further recommended that the underside of the granular base be elevated at least 0.5 m above bottom of the side ditches. This will reduce the potential of saturation and softening of the subgrade soils. Positive surface drainage should be provided in the early stages of construction to prevent ponding of water and softening of the subgrade. 6.1.5 Frost Susceptibility of the Native Soils As discussed above, the source of imported fill has not been identified at the time of completion of this investigation. Once secured, the soils from the proposed borrow sources should be assessed for their frost susceptibility. Some guidelines are provided below based on the existing soil and groundwater table at the site. Frost heave of the subgrade soils and formation of ice lenses are generally related to the particle size distribution of the soils, moisture content, and the presence of a relatively shallow groundwater table.




The near surface clayey soils encountered in the upper 2 m at the borehole locations were generally of low plasticity. The grain size distribution of these soils generally consisted of approximately 13 to 20 percent by weight of clay size particles with the remaining portions as silt and sand size particles. These soils were generally considered to be moderately to highly susceptible to frost heaving and formation of ice lenses in the presence of water. The moisture contents of the near surface clay fill and clay till encountered at the borehole locations were relatively higher than the soils’ optimum moisture content. Also the groundwater table as measured at the borehole locations was near the bottom of ditch level, corresponding to approximately 1.5 to 2 m lower the existing road surface. Following the recommendations presented above, and with proper drainage and surface water management, the risk of frost heaving was considered to be moderate. It is to be noted that poor surface drainage leading to water inundating the subgrade soils will significantly increase the risk level. Due to the general variability in the soil makeup and groundwater seepage paths in clay soil deposits, it is not possible to predict with certainty the magnitude of frost heaving at specific locations. It is generally recommended that an observational approach be adopted over the first two winter seasons to identify problematic areas. Frequently, areas exhibiting the formation of ice lenses and frost heaving during one winter season will generally exhibit the same behavior during subsequent winter seasons. If areas with problematic frost conditions are observed, then remedial measures may be implemented. The most suitable remedial measure will have to be assessed on a case by case basis as it depends on the severity of the problem, service/use interruption of the affected area, and the sensitivity of the affected area to frost heaving. Remedial measures may include soil replacement or ground insulation. 6.2 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE The soils encountered at the borehole locations were considered to be fair to support the pavement structure. Recommendations presented in Section 6.1 “Site Development Consideration” regarding subgrade preparation, inspection, and drainage should be followed to establish stable pavement structure at this site. Based on correspondence with Alberta Transportation, it was understood that the existing pavement section consists of 180 mm of asphaltic concrete and 300 mm of granular base course. The minimum recommended asphalt pavement structure for the additional lanes of the highway is provided in Table 2. The proposed pavement structure was based on a design traffic loading of 7x106 Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL). The ESAL design number was obtained using:




• Current traffic statistics as published by Alberta Transportation, Planning Branch- Strategic and Network Planning “Alberta Highways 1 to 986, Traffic Volume, Vehicle Classification, Travel and ESAL Statistics, 2014”. The traffic data for the section of Highway 881:21 identified as “19th Baseline to NW SEC2 TWP77 R8 W4” were used in the design calculation.

• An additional 110 ESAL/day/direction on the mainline Highway 881:21 were also considered to account for overload permit traffic on this section of the highway (as per instructions from Alberta Transportation).

• Traffic growth of 5 percent per year (as per direction from Alberta Transportation) and a design pavement life of 20 years.

• Expected subgrade Resilient Modulus of 30 MPa.

Table 2: Recommended Minimum Pavement Structure for New Lanes

Material Recommended Minimum Thickness (mm)

Option 1 Option 2

Hot Mix Asphalt 180 200

20 mm Crushed Granular Base Course (AT Designation 2 Class 20) 500 450

Total Structure Depth (mm) 680 650

Other gravel gradation may be acceptable and should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for review and approval. Fill placement should be in accordance with the Alberta Transportation “Standard Specification for Highway Construction”. At a minimum, the granular base course (20 mm material) should be placed in maximum 200 mm thick lifts and uniformly compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of SPMDD within 2 percent of the soils’ optimum moisture content. Reduced lift thickness may be required depending on the ability of the compaction equipment available to achieve the required densities. The asphalt mix was selected based on the type of construction, design ESAL, and geographic location. The location of the proposed construction was within Zone 3 as per Alberta Transportation department classification map. The type of traffic was considered to be high with design ESAL of 7x106. Accordingly, Type H2 asphalt mix is recommended for the asphalt pavement construction as outlined in Table 1, Bulletin-13, published on June 2012, as a revision of the Alberta asphalt pavement design manual, reproduced below as Table 3.




Table 3: ESAL Criteria for Selection of Mix Design

Zone Design ESAL (Millions)

< 1.0 1.0 to <3.0 3.0 to < 6.0 6.0 to < 10.0 ≥ 10.0

1 L1 H2 H2 H1 H1

2 L1 M1 H2 H1 H1

3 L1 M1 M1 H2 H2

Adopted from Bulletin 13, published on June 2012 as a revision of Alberta Pavement Design Manual Asphalt grade selection is based upon geographic location, traffic loading, type of construction, and consideration for enhanced resistance to low temperature transverse cracking and/or wheel path rutting. The proposed project location was considered a northern highway, and the type of traffic was considered to be high with a design ESAL of 7 x 106. As recommended in Table 3, Bulletin-13, published on June 2012, as a revision of the Alberta asphalt pavement design manual, reproduced below as Table 4, asphalt grade to be used for asphalt mix design for the proposed pavement construction should be Type PG 58-34.

Table 4: Selection of Modified Asphalt Grades for new Construction (Design ESAL Greater Than 6 million)

Traffic Loading (ESAL)

>6 and ≤ 20 million > 20 million 4

First Stage Final First Stage Final

South 1 PG 58-34 PG 64-34

North PG 58-34 PG 58-37 2 PG 64-34 PG 64-37P 2,3

Notes: 1 - All highways south of and including Highway 11 west of Nevis and Highway 12 east of Nevis. 2 - For non-staged new construction or thick pavement structures use a PGxx-37 in the upper 100 mm and a PGxx-34 for material

greater than 100 mm in depth from pavement surface. 3 - “P” indicates binder to be modified using polymer additives. 4 – In certain special applications where resistance to wheel path rutting is paramount use a PG 70-28 in all lifts as per Section

3.1.3 Special Applications.

Adopted from Bulletin 13, published on June 2012 as a revision of Alberta Pavement Design Manual




7.0 TESTING AND INSPECTION Recommendations presented in this report may not be valid if adequate engineering inspection and testing programs during construction are not implemented. Testing and inspection programs would consist of:

• Full time monitoring and compaction testing during site grading and fill placement.

• Testing of the gravel and asphalt concrete as per the Alberta Transportation guidelines.




8.0 CLOSURE The recommendations presented in this report were based on the results of soil sampling and testing at nine borehole locations advanced at the site during this investigation and based on information provided to SolidEarth. Soil conditions by nature can vary across any given site. If different soil conditions are encountered at subsequent phases of this project, SolidEarth should be notified immediately and given the opportunity to evaluate the situation and provide additional recommendations as necessary. The recommendations presented in this report should not be used for another site or for a different application at the same site. If the intended application of the site is changed or if the assumptions outlined in this report became invalid, SolidEarth should be notified and given the opportunity to assess if the recommendations presented should be modified. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SE Design and Consulting Inc. and their authorized users for the specific application outlined in this report. No other warranties expressed or implied are provided. This report has been prepared within generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. Respectfully submitted, SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc. Indranil (Neel) Deysarkar, M.Sc., P.Eng. Jay Jaber, M.Sc., P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Managing Director APEGA Permit to Practice # 11884



Figures

Figure 1: Project Site Location on a 2011 Aerial Photograph Figure 2: Borehole Location Plan Figure 3: Proposed Configuration of Embankment Key

SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc.

#230- 4808 87 St., Edmonton, AB, T6E 5W3

FIGURE No.:

1

May 2015

DATE:PROJECT No.:

PG15-1210

XXX

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE:

NTSND

Meridian Lodge Intersection - KM146 on HWY 881


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NAME:

2013 Aerial Photograph Showing Approximate Project Location

CLIENT:

Approximate Highway

Improvement Alignment

MAY 05, 2015

MCMA

101

TEST HOLE LOCATION

1 1

1:2500

713 LAKESHORE DRIVE PHONE:780-594-5380

COLD LAKE, ALBERTA FAX: 780-594-4486

T9M 1N1 www.sedesign.ca

LODGE ACCESS ROAD

HIGHWAY 881 & MERIDIAN

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT

MISC-0029

NW17 74-8-4

SW17 74-8-4 SE17 74-8-4

NE17 74-8-4

POINT TABLE

DESCRIPTION

TH 1

TH 2

TH 3

TH 4

TH 5

TH 6

TH 7

TH 8

TH 9

ELEVATION

(m)

764.788

767.455

766.553

766.065

766.912

766.941

766.952

767.982

768.298

NORTHING

(m)

6140602.8470

6140403.4230

6140223.6990

6140523.0330

6140443.9630

6140399.1200

6140305.5240

6140441.8400

6140411.8040

EASTING

(m)

487539.9410

487472.9770

487425.7250

487479.0580

487461.1490

487448.4450

487420.8560

487344.4260

487503.4020

New Granular Base and Sub-base

New Engineered Clay Fill

New ACPExisting ACP

0.3 m

0.3 m of Existing Subgrade to be

Scarified and Re-compacted

Existing Granular Base and Sub-base

Existing Embankment Face (to be Removed)

Overlay New and Existing ASP (over 1 Layer)

SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc.

#230- 4808 87 St., Edmonton, AB, T6E 5W3

FIGURE No.:

3

May 2015

DATE:PROJECT No.:

PG15-1210

XXX

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

SCALE:

NTSND

Meridian Lodge Intersection - KM146 on HWY 881


DRAWING TITLE:

PROJECT NAME:

Proposed Configuration of Embankment Key

CLIENT:



Appendix A

Site Photographs Taken During the Field Investigation



Photograph 1: East Ditch – near BH15-1 looking south

Photograph 2: East Ditch – near BH15-3 looking north



Photograph 3: West Ditch – near BH15-7 looking north

Photograph 4: West Ditch – near BH15-4 looking south



Photograph 5: West Access Road – near BH15-8 looking east



Appendix B

Borehole Logs Explanation of Terms and Symbols

FILL (CLAY), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, low plastic,grey-brown, very moistPEAT, moderately decomposed, black, wet

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, trace oxides, sand lenses, very moist

- seepage

- becoming sandy

COMPLETION DEPTH: 4.3 m below ground surface

At CompletionAccumulation of water at 2.1 m below ground surface.No accumulation of slough material.Slotted standpipe installed to 3.9 m below ground surface.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings and a bentonite plug.

Water Level:0.3 m below ground surfaceon 1 May, 2015

6

5

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

FILL

PT

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

764

763

762

761

760

759

758

757

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Additional Data &Notes

M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)

SandPea Gravel GroutSlough Drill CuttingsBentonite

Borehole #: BH15-01

Project #: PG15-1210

No Recovery Grab SampleSPT Test (N) CoreSplit-PenShelby Tube

Logged By: JW / Reviewed By: TF

Completion Date: 23/4/15Driller: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd.

Drill Method: 150 mm Solid Stem Auger Page 1 of 1

Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol

Project Name: Meridian Lodge Intersection - km146 on Hwy 881

Client Name: SE Design and Consulting Inc.

Site: South of Conklin, Alberta

Northing: 6140603 Easting: 487540

Elevation: 764.7 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

106

FILL (CLAY), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, organicinclusions, low plastic, brown, very moist

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, sand lenses, very moist

- becoming stiff

- trace seepage

- becoming grey-brown




6

10

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

767

766

765

764

763

762

761

760

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-02






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 767.5 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

FILL (CLAY), and sand, silty, trace gravel, loose, lowplastic, brown, very moist

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, stiff, low plastic,brown, very moist

- becoming firm

- becoming stiff



Liquid Limit: 22%Plastic Limit: 13%Grain Size DistributionGravel: 2%Sand: 51%Silt: 31%Clay: 16%


10

4

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

766

765

764

763

762

761

760

759

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-03






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 766.5 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

FILL (CLAY), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, organicinclusions, firm, low plastic, brown, sand lenses, very moist

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, trace oxides, sand lenses, very moist

- becoming moist

- seepage


At CompletionAccumulation of water at 2.4 m below ground surface.Accumulation of slough at 3.4 m below ground surface.Slotted standpipe installed to 4.0 m below ground surface.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings and a bentonite plug.


7

6

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

766

765

764

763

762

761

760

759

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-04






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 766.1 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

FILL (CLAY), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, traceorganics, low plastic, brown-black, sand lenses, moist

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, trace oxides, sand lenses, moist

- becoming stiff, trace seepage

- becoming very stiff


- becoming stiff



Liquid Limit: 22%Plastic Limit: 10%Grain Size DistributionSand: 48%Silt: 39%Clay: 13%



6

9

25

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

766

765

764

763

762

761

760

759

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-05






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 766.9 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

FILL (CLAY), and organics, and sand, and silt, tracegravel, low plastic, brown-black, sand lenses, very moist towet

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, stiff, low plastic,brown-orange, trace oxides, very moist


- becoming grey

- becoming firm




9

10

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

766

765

764

763

762

761

760

759

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-06






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 766.9 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

FILL (CLAY), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, organicinclusions, low plastic, brown, very moistCLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, trace oxides, sand lenses, very moist

- trace seepage





8

6

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

766

765

764

763

762

761

760

759

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-07






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 766.9 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

Pit Run Gravel ( approximately 150 mm thick)FILL (CLAY), and sand, silty, trace gravel, hard, low plastic,brown, moist

- organic smell

- becoming grey-brown, very stiff, trace seepage

CLAY (TILL), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, firm, low plastic,brown, trace oxides, sand pockets, moist- becoming very moist


At CompletionAccumulation of water at 2.3 m below ground surface.No accumulation slough material.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings and a bentonite plug.


Liquid Limit: 27%Plastic Limit: 11%

45

27

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

GP

FILL

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

767

766

765

764

763

762

761

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-08






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 768 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

Pit Run Gravel ( approximately 150 mm thick)FILL (CLAY), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, very stiff, lowplastic, brown, moist

PEAT, sandy, moderately decomposed, black, wet

SAND, fine grained, poorly graded, silty, some clay, brown,moistCLAY (TILL), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, stiff, low plastic,grey-brown, trace oxides, sand lenses, moist

- trace seepage


At CompletionAccumulation of water at 4 m below ground surface.No accumulation of slough material.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings and a bentonite plug.

Liquid Limit: 26%Plastic Limit: 10%19

11

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GP

FILL

PT

SP

CL

0

8

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

768

767

766

765

764

763

762

761

Elev

atio

n (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

\\NA

S01

-ED

M\S

EG

DA

TA

_ED

M\P

RO

JEC

TS

\GE

OT

EC

HN

ICA

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\201

5\P

G15

-121

0-S

E D

ES

IGN

-HW

881

INT

ER

SE

CT

ION

UP

GR

AD

E\P

G15

-121

0 H

IGH

WA

Y 8

81.G

PJ

15/

05/1

4 1

1:4

9 A

M (

SE

G-F

INA

L)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH15-09






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation: 768.3 m

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S


EXPLANATION OF TERMS & SYMBOLS

The terms and symbols used on the borehole logs to summarize the results of the field investigation and laboratory testing are described on the following two pages.

1. VISUAL TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION ON MINERAL SOILS

CLASSIFICATION APPARENT PARTICLE SIZE VISUAL IDENTIFICATION Boulders > 200 mm > 200 mm Cobbles 75 mm to 200 mm 75 mm to 200 mm Gravel 4.75 mm to 75 mm 5 mm to 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm Visible particles to 5 mm Silt 0.002 mm to 0.075 mm Non-plastic particles, not visible to naked eye

Clay < 0.002 mm Plastic particles, not visible to naked eye

2. TERMS FOR CONSISTENCY & DENSITY OF SOILS

Cohesionless Soils

DESCRIPTIVE TERM APPROXIMATE SPT “N” VALUE Very Dense > 50

Dense 30 to 50 Compact 10 to 30

Loose 4 to 10 Very Loose < 4

Cohesive Soils

DESCRIPTIVE TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH APPROXIMATE SPT “N” VALUE Hard >200 kPa > 30

Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa 15 to 30 Stiff 50 to 100 kPa 8 to 15 Firm 25 to 50 kPa 4 to 8 Soft 10 to 25 kPa 2 to 4

Very Soft < 10 kPa < 2 * SPT “N” Values – Refers to the number of blows by a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 mm to drive a 50 mm diameter split spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm after an initial penetration of 150 mm.

3. SYMBOLS USED ON BOREHOLE LOGS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION N(■) Standard Penetration Test (CSA A119 1-60) SO4 Concentration of Water-Soluble Sulphate Nd Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Cu Undrained Shear Strength

pp (♦) Pocket Penetrometer Strength ɣ Unit Weight of Soil or Rock qu Unconfined Compressive Strength ɣd Dry Unit Weight of Soil or Rock

w (●) Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) ρ Density of Soil or Rock wL Liquid Limit (ASTM D 4318) ρd Dry Density of Soil or Rock wP Plastic Limit (ASTM D 4318) Short-Term Water Level IP Plastic Index Long-Term Water Level



MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

MAJOR DIVISION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY

CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

CO

AR

SE G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

(MO

RE

THAN

HAL

F BY

WEI

GH

T LA

RG

ER T

HAN

75 µm

)

GRAVELS

(MORE THAN HALF COARSE GRAINS

LARGER THAN 4.75mm)

CLEAN GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

Cu = D60/D10 > 4 Cc = (D30)2/(D10 x D60) = 1 to 3

GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS

GRAVELS

(WITH SOME FINES)

GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES CONTENT

OF FINES EXCEEDS

12%

ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW ‘A’ LINE Ip LESS THAN 4

GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE ‘A’ LINE Ip MORE THAN 7

SANDS

(MORE THAN HALF COARSE GRAINS

SMALLER THAN 4.75mm)

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SW WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

Cu = D60/D10 > 6 Cc = (D30)2/(D10 x D60) = 1 to 3

SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

NOT MEETING ALL GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SW

SANDS

(WITH SOME FINES)

SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CONTENT OF FINES EXCEEDS

12%

ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW ‘A’ LINE Ip LESS THAN 4

SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS

ABOVE ‘A’ LINE Ip MORE THAN 7

FIN

E G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

(MO

RE

THAN

HAL

F BY

WEI

GH

T SM

ALLE

R T

HAN

75 µm

) SILTS

(BELOW ‘A’ LINE NEGLIGIBLE ORGANIC

CONTENT)

WL < 50 % ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY

CLASSIFICATION IS BASED UPON PLASTICITY CHART

(SEE BELOW)

WL > 50 % MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS

CLAYS

(ABOVE ‘A’ LINE NEGLIGIBLE ORGANIC

CONTENT)

WL < 30 % CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

30 % < WL < 50 % CI INORGANIC CLAYS OR MEDIUM PLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS

WL > 50 % CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS & CLAYS

(BELOW ‘A’ LINE)

WL < 50 % OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

WL > 50 % OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE

BEDROCK BR SEE REPORT DESCRIPTION

Component Size Range (mm) Descriptor % by Weight

Cobbles > 76

Gravel 76 to 4.75

Coarse 76 to 19

Fine 19 to 4.75

Sand 4.75 to 0.075

Coarse 4.75 to 2

Medium 2 to 0.425

Fine 0.425 to 0.075

-y, -ey 35 to 20

some 20 to 10

trace 10 to 1

> 35

Soil Components

Fines (Silt or Clay)

< 0.075

and




Appendix C

Preliminary Cross Section of Existing and Proposed Road Profiles

OF

MCMA

MCMA

MAY 05, 2015

MCMA

05

MG

MISC-0029

04

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT

2015-05-0501

713 LAKESHORE DRIVE PH. (780) 594-5380

COLD LAKE, ALBERTA FAX. (780) 594-4486

T9M 0C4 www.sedesign.ca

04

HIGHWAY 881 & MERIDIAN

LODGE ACCESS ROAD

ISSUED FOR REVIEW

1:500

HIGHWAY 881 ROAD CROSS SECTIONS

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Highway...

Documents

Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Highway...