Lakehead University...Lakehead University Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Fire Lab and Services...

Lakehead University

Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Fire Lab and Services 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario

Type of Document: Final

Project Number: THB-00014136-AG

exp Services Inc. 1142 Roland Street Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5M4 Canada

Date: July 22, 2014

Lakehead University Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Fire Lab and Services 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON

THB-00014136-AG July 22 2014

i

Legal Notification This report was prepared by exp Services Inc. for the account of Lakehead University. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Exp Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this project.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

ii

Table of Contents

Legal Notification ........................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

2 Site Description ................................................................................................. 2

3 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Field Work ........................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 3

4 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................... 4

4.1 Soil Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4 4.1.1 Asphalt ................................................................................................ 4 4.1.2 Gravelly Sand (Fill) .............................................................................. 4 4.1.3 Silty Sand ............................................................................................ 4 4.1.4 Silt ....................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Groundwater Table .............................................................................................. 5 4.3 Environmental Conditions .................................................................................... 5

5 Discussions and Recommendations ................................................................ 6

5.1 General ................................................................................................................ 6 5.2 Frost Protection ................................................................................................... 6 5.3 Excavation and Dewatering ................................................................................. 6 5.4 Site Preparation ................................................................................................... 7 5.5 Foundation Design – Conventional Spread and Strip Footings ............................ 8 5.6 Foundation Design – Stiffened Slab-on-Grade ................................................... 10 5.7 Backfill and Drainage ......................................................................................... 11 5.8 Earthquake Design Considerations .................................................................... 11 5.9 Buried Services ................................................................................................. 12 5.10 Soil Corrosivity ................................................................................................... 12 5.11 LRCA Considerations ........................................................................................ 12

6 Construction Quality Control .......................................................................... 13

7 Closing Comments .......................................................................................... 14



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

iii

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Borehole Location Plan Figure 3 – Grain Size Distribution – Fill Figure 4 – Grain Size Distribution – Native

Appendix B – Borehole Logs

Appendix C – LRCA – Application Form



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 1

1 Introduction Exp Services Inc. was authorized by Lakehead University to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the proposed fire testing lab and the associated services at 955 Oliver Road, in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1, in Appendix A, Site Location Plan.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soils and groundwater information to assist with the design and construction of the proposed building and the associated services. This report is intended solely for the project described above, and herein, and contains all our findings and recommendations based on our current understanding of the project.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 2

2 Site Description The project site is located on the Thunder Bay campus of Lakehead University, along the eastern bank of the McIntyre River about 110 m south of Oliver Road, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, as shown on Figures 1 and 2. According to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Map 5047, the native regional geology in the area consists of sand and silt glaciolacustrine plain deposits, with mainly low local relief and predominantly dry surface conditions.

The site is an asphalt paved parking / driving area. The proposed building location is bounded on the north, south and west by a steep slope covered with trees and vegetation, leading down to the McIntyre River. To the east of the proposed building are parking stalls with steel parking stanchions and the Lakehead University Research Building further east. The proposed location of the sanitary service runs southeast from the proposed building, along the edge of the pavement to an existing sanitary sewer manhole. The proposed location of the water service runs northeast from the proposed building, parallel to the north wall of the Lakehead University Research Building, after which the proposed route bends about 45o to the south and intersects the Lakehead University Centennial Building. The site topography is generally flat with a mild slope down towards the river.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 3

3 Methodology 3.1 Field Work

To assess the subsurface soil conditions at the site of the proposed building and services, exp geotechnical personnel attended the site and monitored the drilling of six (6) boreholes (BH1 to BH6), as shown on Figure 2. The drilling was performed on July 14, 2014.

The boreholes were advanced using a rubber tire mounted CME 750 drill rig equipped with solid and hollow stem continuous flight augers, a 50 mm outside diameter split spoon sampler and rock coring equipment. The boreholes, BH1 and BH2, were advanced to auger and/or SPT refusal at depths of about 5.0 m and about 5.3 m, respectively, below ground surface. As requested by the client, the boreholes BH3 and BH4 were advanced to about 3.0 m and the boreholes BH5 and BH6 were advanced to about 2.4 m.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs, split spoon samples) were performed at intervals of about 0.75 m in the upper 3.0 m and at 1.5 m intervals thereafter. The recovered soil samples were examined and logged in the field by exp geotechnical personnel.

Representative samples of the various soil strata encountered in the boreholes were taken to the exp laboratory in Thunder Bay for further examination by a geotechnical engineer and for completion of laboratory classification testing.

Groundwater level measurements were obtained using an interface meter, prior to backfilling the boreholes. The boreholes were backfilled to the original ground elevation with the drill cuttings prior to demobilization from the site. Cold patch was used to repair the asphalt surface damaged by the augers.

Following the fieldwork, ground surface elevations at the boreholes were surveyed. The ground surface elevations were referenced to a benchmark with a geodetic elevation of 208.085 m (nail in the first hydro pole east of the Oliver Road Bridge over the McIntyre River). The elevation and location of the benchmark are detailed on Figure 2.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Following the field investigation representative soil samples were selected for laboratory grain size analyses and natural moisture content determinations for soil type classification purposes, to allow estimation of the geotechnical properties. The results are discussed in the next section and presented in the appendices. Samples remaining after the testing will be stored for three months after which they may be discarded unless we are requested otherwise.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 4

4 Subsurface Conditions Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations are provided on the Borehole Logs included as Appendix B of this report. The general subsurface soil conditions are summarized in the following sections.

4.1 Soil Conditions

4.1.1 Asphalt

Asphalt was encountered surfacing all six borehole locations. The thickness of the asphalt ranged from about 40 mm to about 60 mm.

4.1.2 Gravelly Sand (Fill)

Gravelly sand fill was encountered underlying the asphalt at all borehole locations. The fill was generally described as compact, brown, moist and containing some silt. The fill extended to depths ranging from about 0.4 m to about 1.5 m below ground surface.

Two (2) grain size analyses were performed on representative samples of the fill (BH2–S1, BH5-S1); the results are presented on Figure 3. Based on gradation, the fill is within OPSS Granular “B” Type 1 gradation, except for slight exceedances of the fines.

4.1.3 Silty Sand

Silty sand was encountered underlying the fill at all borehole locations. The silty sand was generally described as loose, brown, moist to wet and fine grained. Some oxidation was noted at BH3 and BH6. The silty sand extended to depths ranging from about 1.5 m to about 3.0 m. The silty sand was present at the terminations depths of BH3, BH5 and BH6.

Three (3) grain size analyses were performed on representative samples of the silty sand (BH2-S3, BH2-S4, BH4-S2); the results are presented on Figure 4. Based on gradation, the native silty sand is considered to possess medium to high frost susceptibility.

4.1.4 Silt

Silt was encountered underlying the silty sand at BH1, BH2 and B4. The silt was generally described as very loose, grey, wet, containing trace gravel, some sand and trace clay. The silt extended to depths ranging from about 3.0 m to about 5.3 m below ground surface, i.e. the termination depths of BH1, BH2 and BH4.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 5

4.2 Groundwater Table

Groundwater measurements were taken prior to backfilling the boreholes on the day of their completion. Groundwater levels are shown on the Borehole Logs in Appendix B and are summarized in Table 1, below.

It must be noted that the depth to the groundwater table may fluctuate seasonally, or after periods of extended precipitation or drought, and as such may differ at other times.

Table 1: Groundwater Data1

Borehole Date Completed

Date Measured

Ground Surface

Elevation2 Depth to Water3

Groundwater Elevation

BH1 July 14/14 July 14/14 207.92 1.88 206.04

BH2 July 14/14 July 14/14 207.91 1.93 205.98

BH3 July 14/14 July 14/14 208.06 1.42 206.64

BH4 July 14/14 July 14/14 208.48 0.97 207.51

BH5 July 14/14 July 14/14 207.83 2.01 205.82

BH6 July 14/14 July 14/14 207.94 1.78 206.16

Notes: 1) All units in metres. 2) Elevations surveyed are referenced from the geodetic benchmark (nail) on the first

hydro pole east of the Oliver Road Bridge crossing the McIntyre River. 3) Depths are relative to ground surface.

4.3 Environmental Conditions

All of the recovered soil samples taken from the boreholes were inspected for visual and olfactory evidence of contamination. No evidence of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was observed.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 6

5 Discussions and Recommendations 5.1 General

Preliminary information provided by the client indicates that the proposed building will be a structural steel frame on a reinforced concrete shallow foundation. The building is understood to be insulated, but only heated to maintain above freezing conditions to maintain the services during the winter season. The dimensions of the building are to be approximately 8 m x 12 m x 7.8 m high. The building will contain a furnace located on a steel stand or loading frame. Fumes will be exhausted through a 12 m high stack located immediately outside the building. The stack is to be mounted on a shallow concrete foundation, attached to the building foundation. The dimension of the furnace is approximately 3 m x 4.8 m. There will be a 5 tonne bridge crane suspended from the structural steel or a 5 tonne floor mounted jib crane.

The discussions to follow are presented in general terms, and the recommendations are based on the above information and the findings of the investigation.

5.2 Frost Protection

In the Thunder Bay area, the frost penetration in unprotected areas such as roadways and parking areas can be as deep as 2.4 m. Accordingly, the minimum soil cover for perimeter shallow foundations of unheated structures placed on soil and for services is 2.4 m. For heated structures (maintained at or above about 20O C), the cover can be reduced to 1.8 m for the perimeter footings. Alternatively, the foundations or underground structures can be founded at shallower depths if insulation is provided around the structure. Interior footings of heated buildings can be placed at higher elevations.

5.3 Excavation and Dewatering

All work associated with design and construction relative to excavations must be in accordance with Part III of O.Reg. 213/91 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation and in accordance with Section 226 of O.Reg. 213/91, the soils encountered at this site are classified as Type 3 soils.

For excavations carried out above the groundwater table in soil, the sidewalls can be sloped back to a slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). Sidewalls of slopes below the water table should stand at a 2H:1V slope. Should groundwater or surface water inflow loosen the above soils, it may be necessary to provide flatter slopes. Dewatering of the soils, however, may allow steeper slopes.

Alternatively, braced excavations can be considered for excavations in excess of 1.2 m or where space limitations do not allow grading of excavation sidewalls to the required slope. If



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 7

shoring and bracing is required, an active coefficient of earth pressure (Ka) of 0.33 can be used for the native soil, along with a total unit weight of 20 kN/m3.

Trenched excavations will be required for buried services. A trench is defined as an excavation in which the width of the base of the excavation is less than the excavation depth, and conformance with the above noted regulation is required. Regardless of the excavation method undertaken, surface loads from construction equipment and stockpiled materials must be included in the design. Additionally, when excavating, care should be taken to not undermine or damage any existing buried utilities or structures.

Based on conditions observed during the investigation and based on our experience in the area, groundwater infiltration is anticipated below depths of about 1.0 m and possibly at shallower depths. Pumping from strategically placed sumps should be sufficient to dewater the excavations. The collected water should be discharged a sufficient distance away from the excavated area to prevent the discharge water from returning to the excavation. Sediment control measures should be provided at the discharge point of the dewatering system. Caution should also be taken to avoid any adverse impacts to the environment.

Note that pumping of greater than 50,000 litres per day will require a Permit to Take Water from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, as well as approvals for discharge.

5.4 Site Preparation Prior to construction, the building footprint should be stripped of all fill, organics, and other deleterious material. This may result in the excavation and removal of up to about 0.8 m of fill, based on the findings in BH1 and BH2. Deeper excavations may be required in other parts of the building area not investigated.

At the design subgrade elevation, the exposed surface should be inspected to ensure all soft and/or otherwise deleterious materials are removed. These should be excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.

The native soils encountered below the fill during the geotechnical investigation may loosen when exposed to excessive construction traffic, moisture or compaction, or when left exposed for extended periods of time. Care should be taken to avoid these conditions. A smooth (flat) blade excavator may need to be used to reduce the chance of disturbing the soils. Small areas should be excavated at a time and these should be covered with a lift of structural fill, as described below, very soon after to minimize loosening of the subgrade.

The material used as structural fill should be a well graded, free-draining granular fill such as OPSS Granular B. Select existing gravelly sand fill can be used as structural fill, based on the grain size analysis, but should not contain any deleterious material. The native silty sand and/or silt should not be used as structural fill as it is considered frost susceptible based on the grain size analyses, and it will be difficult to compact to the required standard. The fill should



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 8

generally be placed in lifts of not greater than 300 mm in thickness and compacted to at least 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). Select fill must be approved by a geotechnical engineer for use. Fill or concrete must not be placed on frozen soil and the fill itself must not contain frozen chunks of soil or ice.

Because of the likelihood of a soft or loosened subgrade, adequate compaction of the first lift of Granular B may not be possible and consideration may be given to using a bottom layer of 20 mm crushed, clear stone rather than Granular B. A medium grade non-woven filter fabric should first be placed on the excavated subgrade sand or silt and up the sides, followed by about 400 mm of stone. The stone should be compacted with a few passes of a small to medium sized vibratory compactor. Excessive compaction energy applied to the clear stone may cause additional disturbance of the subgrade. Another layer of filter fabric should be placed over the compacted stone, prior to placing and compacting Granular B structural fill, in lifts, as described above.

5.5 Foundation Design – Conventional Spread and Strip Footings

The Limit State Design (LSD) factored geotechnical resistance (ultimate limit state – ULS) and reaction (serviceability limit state – SLS, for a total settlement of 25 mm) values, for footing widths between 0.6 m and 1.8 m, and placed at depths between 0.6 m and 2.4 m, are as given in Tables 2A and 2B, below.

All spread and strip footing should be excavated into the native soils and founded on a new structural fill, described in the previous subsection, of at least 300 mm thick. Footings should not be constructed on the existing fill in order to prevent settlements due to the possible presence of deleterious materials, such as compressible organics. The structural fill should extend beyond the footing edges by a distance at least equal to the structural fill thickness.

Table 2A. ULS and SLS Values for SQUARE Footings

Factored ULS Bearing Resistance for Square Footings (kPa), with Depth (m)

Footing Width (m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.4

0.6 400 370 360 410 460 520 0.9 320 360 350 390 430 500 1.2 290 330 350 370 410 480 1.5 270 310 330 380 400 470 1.8 260 300 320 360 410 470



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 9

SLS Bearing Reaction for Square Footings (kPa), with Depth (m), for 25 mm

Footing Width

(m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.4

0.6 350 265 255 225 165 120 0.9 190 160 140 120 100 85 1.2 125 105 95 80 75 75 1.5 85 75 70 65 60 70 1.8 65 60 60 55 60 65

Table 2B. ULS and SLS Values for STRIP Footings

Factored ULS Bearing Resistance for Strip Footings (kPa), with Depth (m)

Footing Width (m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.4

0.6 300 270 270 300 330 370 0.9 250 270 260 290 310 360 1.2 240 250 270 280 310 360 1.5 230 240 250 290 300 360 1.8 220 240 250 280 310 350

SLS Bearing Reaction for Strip Footings (kPa), with Depth (m), for 25 mm

Footing Width

(m) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.4

0.6 220 180 165 130 105 90 0.9 125 100 85 75 70 70 1.2 70 60 60 55 55 65 1.5 50 50 50 50 50 65 1.8 40 40 45 50 50 65



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 10

The total and differential settlements are expected to be within 25 mm and 20 mm, respectively. Most of the settlement will be completed during and soon after the construction and application of loads.

For conventional spread and strip footings, described above, it is expected that the floors will be independent slabs-on-grade. Structural fill will be required beneath the concrete floor slab after the removal of existing fill and/or otherwise deleterious materials, as discussed previously. The structural fill requirements are given in the previous Section 5.4. The top of any grade slab should be at least 200 mm above perimeter grade and a vapour barrier or poly sheet should be provided beneath the slab. For design, the modulus of subgrade reaction can be taken as 38 MN/m3 for a minimum of 300 mm structural fill constructed as specified.

Construction of this type at a depth of less than 1.8 m for a heated structure will require insulation to provide against frost action. The thickness and lateral extent of the insulation will depend upon the inside temperature and configuration of the proposed structure, as well as the amount of soil cover. Typically, for a heated building and a foundation edge depth of 600 mm, 50 mm of rigid board extruded polystyrene, such as DOW SM™, placed at a depth of 300 mm with a 1.8 m lateral extension can be used.

5.6 Foundation Design – Stiffened Slab-on-Grade

If a stiffened slab-on-grade is considered, the LSD values provided in Tables 2A and 2B, above, may be used to design the thickened sections. We recommend that the stiffened slab be placed on a minimum 300 mm thickness of Granular B structural fill. The top of the stiffened slab should be at least 200 mm above perimeter grade and a vapour barrier consisting of 150 mm of compacted crushed clear stone or a poly sheet should be provided beneath the slab. For slab design, the modulus of subgrade reaction can be taken as 38 MN/m3.

The structural fill should also extend laterally beyond the edges of the slab for a distance equal to the thickness of the structural fill. Requirements for the structural fill are given in the previous Section 5.4.

Some minor settlement will occur, but if the slab is sufficiently rigid, the total and differential settlements should be less than 25 mm and 20 mm, respectively, at the SLS reaction values. Most of the settlement should be completed during and soon after the construction and application of loads.

Construction of this type at a depth of less than 1.8 m for a heated structure, as previously defined, will require perimeter insulation to provide against frost action. The thickness and lateral extent of the insulation will depend upon the inside temperature and configuration of the proposed structure, as well as the amount of soil cover. Typically, for a heated building and a foundation edge depth of 600 mm, 50 mm of rigid board extruded polystyrene, such as DOW SM™, placed at a depth of 300 mm with a 1.8 m lateral extension can be used. A minimum soil cover of 300 mm is required over the insulation.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 11

5.7 Backfill and Drainage

Backfill against the foundations should be a clean, free draining, non-frost susceptible granular material, such as OPSS Granular B, to reduce the effects of adfreeze. The native sand and/or till is not recommended for use as backfill as they are considered frost susceptible.

The fill should be placed in lifts not greater than 300 mm in thickness and compacted to not less than 95% SPMDD. Smaller lifts and lighter compaction equipment should be used adjacent to foundation walls and subsurface structures to prevent over-stressing and damage. Care should be taken to place and compact fill simultaneously on both sides of any subwalls.

To reduce problems associated with adfreeze, it is recommended that concrete block walls be avoided below grade and that cast-in-place concrete foundation walls be connected to footings with re-bar.

For the design of buried walls, the unit weight of free-draining, granular soil backfill should be taken as 20 kN/m3 and the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (K0) taken as 0.50. If sufficient wall movement is to be permitted, a coefficient of active earth pressure (KA) of 0.33 may be used.

For basement structures, the walls should be damp-proofed and a foundation drainage system should be incorporated and placed at the base of footings. A sub-slab drainage system will also likely be required, considering the likely level of the groundwater table. Water stops should be incorporated between the footings and walls.

The fill surface around the perimeter of the structure should be sloped in such a way that the surface run-off water does not accumulate around the structure. It is recommended that an impermeable seal, such as clay, asphalt or concrete, be provided on the surface to minimize water infiltration.

5.8 Earthquake Design Considerations

The 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC) specifies requirements for Seismic Design Consideration. The earthquake/seismic design parameters should be reviewed by a structural engineer and incorporated into the design as required. In this regard, the following information regarding the geotechnical site properties is provided.

Based on soil conditions observed during the geotechnical investigation, and our experience with the soils of the area, the governing subgrade soils within the upper 30 m are, in accordance with the 2012 OBC, generally characterized as soft soils (Ñ60 <15) or (Su < 50 kPa). In this regard, the Site Classification for Seismic Site Response is Site Class E, as shown on Table 4.1.8.4.A in the 2012 OBC.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 12

Consideration can be given to performing in situ site testing which may result in a higher (i.e. Site Class D) site classification.

As mentioned above, the structural engineer should ensure that the structural design incorporates deflections and specified loading resulting from potential earthquake effects.

5.9 Buried Services

As noted in Section 5.2, frost penetration in unprotected areas can be as deep as 2.4 m. As such, potential services such as the water and sewer lines should be constructed below the depth of frost penetration or be insulated or heat traced.

Due to the nature of the soils encountered during this investigation, it is recommended that the services be placed on a minimum of OPSS Class ‘B’ bedding. Backfill around the services, to a level of 300 mm above the pipe, should be a granular (sand) material free of particles larger than 37 mm and lightly tamped.

Excavations for the construction of underground services should be as recommended in Section 5.3 of this report.

5.10 Soil Corrosivity

Based on our experience with the soils in the Thunder Bay area, the gravel, sand and silt soils have low to medium resistivity. Accordingly, buried metallic pipes and appurtenances would be susceptible to corrosion, unless protected.

The soil sulphate content is generally low and does not indicate a requirement for sulphate resistant concrete. Normal Type 10 Portland cement can be used in concrete.

5.11 LRCA Considerations

The proposed work is located beyond the Regional Floodline as established by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA). However, the proposed building and much of the proposed infrastructure (waterline and sewer) work are located in the Fill Zone (the area between the Floodline and the Fill Line), as shown on Figure 2. Accordingly, the LRCA has jurisdiction over construction in this area, in accordance with O.Reg. 180/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act.

An application (see Appendix C) for work in the LRCA Fill Zone will need to be submitted for review and approval by the LRCA.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 13

6 Construction Quality Control Construction quality control of the earthworks should be provided by experienced geotechnical personnel. This includes inspection of the excavation and subgrade prior to the placement of the structural fill, pipe bedding, site grading fill or backfill, to ensure that any and all deleterious materials have been removed and to ensure that the actual conditions are not markedly different than those on which the recommendations made herein are based. Compaction control of structural fill is also recommended as standard practice, as is sampling and testing of aggregates, concrete and asphalt.

If winter construction is undertaken, care should be taken to ensure that structural fill, concrete or bedding material is not placed on ground that is frozen and that the fill does not itself contain frozen soil or ice chunks. Freezing of the subgrade, structural fill, pipe bedding and concrete should also be prevented as appropriate.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 14

7 Closing Comments The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project and are provided solely for Lakehead University, and the team responsible for the design of the proposed new structure at the site investigated and described herein.

We recommend that we be retained to review our recommendations as the design nears completion to ensure that the final design is in agreement with the assumptions on which our recommendations are based and that our recommendations have been interpreted as intended. If not accorded this review, exp will assume no responsibility for the interpretation and use of the recommendations in this report.

A subsurface investigation is a limited sampling of a site and the subsurface conditions have been established only at the test hole locations. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those reported at the test locations, we require that we be notified immediately in order to allow reassessment of our recommendations. It may then be necessary to carry out additional fieldwork and analyses.

It should be recognized that unanticipated conditions might be encountered during construction. It is therefore recommended that exp be retained to observe construction and perform testing relative to the geotechnical issues, as discussed in previous sections of this report. Such observation and testing is intended to minimize the risk of problems occurring during and following construction. It is not insurance however, nor does it constitute a warranty or guarantee of any type. In all cases, contractors et al retain responsibility for the quality of their work and for adhering to plans and specifications. Should exp not be retained to provide such observations and testing, exp would not have had the ability to perform a complete service and therefore assumes no responsibility for problems during or after construction that allegedly result from findings, conclusions, recommendations, plans or specifications developed by exp.

Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should, relative to the subsurface conditions, decide on their own investigations, if deemed necessary, as well as their own interpretations of the factual results provided herein, so they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them. As part of the tendering process, it is recommended that test pits be excavated to allow bidding contractors to view the actual excavation and groundwater conditions.



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Page 15

We trust that this report is satisfactory to your present requirements and we look forward to assisting you in the completion of this project. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Yours truly,

exp Services Inc.

Robert Moen, B.Eng., EIT Demetri N. Georgiou, MASc., P.Eng.

Engineering Technician Principal Engineer/Branch Manager



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Appendix A – Figures



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Appendix B – Borehole Logs



THB-00014136-AG July 22, 2014

Appendix C – LRCA – Application Form

Application Form Development, Interference with Wetlands and

Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, O. Reg. 180/06 Lakehead Region Conservation Authority

130 Conservation Road, P.O. Box 10427, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 6T8 Telephone 344-5857, Fax 345-9156, Email: [email protected], www.lakeheadca.com

1

Office Use Only Permit # Fee $ Cheque Cash Visa

SECTION 1- Applicant Information/Project Location Applicant Information: Name: Organization/Company (if applicable) Address: Postal code:

Fax: Email: Telephone: Property Owner Information: Same as above : Name: Address: Postal code:

Fax: Email: Telephone: Correspondence will be sent to the owner and copied to the applicant (if different). Subject Property: Municipal Address:

Fire Number

Municipality:

Legal Address: Lot: Concession: Registered Plan:

Notes:

1. If the applicant is not the owner (i.e. agent, consultant, etc.) of the property, Schedule A – Letter of Authorization must be submitted with the application.

2. If work is to be carried out on land owned by a Campers Association, a letter authorizing the work must be provided that is signed by the legal representative of the Association.

3. If work is to be carried out on a Municipal right-of-way, a letter authorizing the work must be provided that is signed by a representative of the Municipality.




2

SECTION 2 – Description of Proposed Work Fill in all Sections that apply. Attach additional information (i.e. site plan (including lot and building/structure dimensions,

lot grading plan, drainage details, construction drawings, etc.) A - Construction, Renovation, Addition Construct a new building or structure Construct an addition to an existing building or structure Re-construct an existing building or structure – In Floodplain: Yes / No Proposed use of building/structure: Proposed floor area (m2): Existing floor area (m2): Lowest opening elevation (m): Ground elevation (m): B - Placement/Removal of Fill and Site Grading Re-grade Site Size of Area to be re-graded (ha): Place Fill on Site Type of fill material placed on site: Sand Gravel Crushed Stone Rip Rap Topsoil Other Quantity of Fill Placed on site (m3) Length of Area Filled (m) Width of Area Filled (m) Depth of Fill (m)

Remove Fill from Site Quantity of Fill Removed from site (m3) Location where removed fill will be deposited:

Proposed method of Erosion Protection (e.g. straw bales, silt fencing, etc.) Description of method:

C - Shoreline Alteration/Channel or Lake Bed Alteration

Boat Launch installation or repair

Boathouse installation or repair

Dock installation or repair

Length of Dock (m) Width of Dock (m) Elevation of top of Dock (m)

Groyne or breakwall installation or repair

Dredge lake or river bottom

Length of Dredged Area (m) Width of Dredged Area (m) Depth of Dredging (m)




3

Erosion control

Length of Erosion control (m)

Type of material used for erosion control

D – Infrastructure Installation, Repair and Replacement Include details of method of installation, description of materials used, grade of side slopes, etc. Culvert

Replace existing Repair existing New installation

Length of proposed pipe (m):

Diameter of proposed pipe (m): Diameter of existing pipe (m):

Bridge


Span/width of Bridge (m):

Other type of crossing – Describe:


Proposed method of Erosion Protection (e.g. straw bales, silt fencing, etc.) Description of method: E - Other

Specify proposed development or alteration not specified in A, B, C or D above:

Additional Details Dates when work will be carried out: Start date:

Completion Date:




4

SECTION 3 - Applicants Statement Permits are issued by the Conservation Authority Board that generally meets once per month on the third Wednesday. Applicants are advised to submit applications as early as possible to permit processing time for inclusion in the Authority Board Agenda. Applications received within two weeks of a Meeting date or are not complete may not be processed until the following meeting (six week format). The Authority may at any time withdraw any permission given under the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation, if in the opinion of the Authority, the condition(s) on the permit are not complied with. Any false or misleading statement or any changes to this application may result in withdrawal of any permission issued on the basis of this application. Be advised that other municipal (i.e. building permit, etc.), provincial (i.e. MNR Work Permit, etc.) or federal approvals or permits may also be required. By signing this application, consent is given to the LRCA, its employees and other persons as required by the LRCA, to access the property, for the purpose of inspection, obtaining information, and/or monitoring any and all works, activities and/or construction pertaining to the property in addition to the works as approved under cover of any permit issued by the LRCA. Permits issued by the LRCA are issued to the current owner of the property and are not transferrable. Pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the personal information contained in this form is collected under the authority of the Conservation Authorities Act. This information is used to assess applications and where approved, issue the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit. Information on this form may be disclosed to Government and Municipal agencies for review, comment, or to members of the public through the Freedom of Information process. Questions related to the collection of information should be directed to the General Manager/Secretary Treasurer, LRCA, 130 Conservation Road, P.O. Box 10427, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 6T8, 807-344-5857. I hereby declare that I have read the above statements and that the information I have provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the above information, plans and submission to be true, valid and current. I further accept the aforementioned inclusions, terms and conditions to be binding upon the registered owner(s) of the property and all assigned agents, contractors and/or constructors acting on my behalf. My signature authorizes the right to exercise binding authority. Signature of Owner:

Date:

Signature of Agent:

Date:

Internal Use Only Inspection Date: Floodplain Map Sheet No. Regulatory Flood Elevation: Fisheries Review Required Yes / No If HADD date referred to DFO: Resolution # Application Form Revision Date: June 1, 2011

Schedule A – Letter of Authorization

A - 1

Authorization to submit an Application for a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Permit by a Person other than the Legal Owner. I___________________________________, being the legal owner of the property described as Lot________________, Concession___________________, Plan___________________________, Parcel_______________ in the Municipality/Township of _________________________________, located at Municipal address_________________________________________________________ Authorize _______________________________________________________________________ to provide as my agent any required authorizations or consents, to submit the enclosed application to the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority, and to appear on my behalf at any hearing(s) of the application and to provide any information or material required by the LRCA Hearing Board relevant to the application for purposes of obtaining a permit to develop, interfere with a wetland or alter a shoreline or watercourse in the accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 180/06. Dated at ________________________________________________ City/Town Signature of Legal Owner ____________________________________ Date______________________________________________________

Schedule B – Schedule of Fees Development, Interference with Wetlands and

Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, O. Reg. 180/06

B - 1

Category Description of Activity Fee Small Works Accessory buildings and structures1 with a floor area less than 20 square

metres (215 ft2) $75 + HST = $84.75

Additions with a floor area less than or equal to 20 square metres (215 ft2) Infrastructure maintenance2 Fill activity3 of 25 to 100 cubic metres (approximately 2 to 6 tandem loads) Docks and boathouses - new construction, modifications or extensions, less than 15 square metres (161 ft2) in area

Standard Works

New buildings, reconstruction, accessory buildings and structures1 and additions with a total gross floor area of 20 to 100 square metres (226 - 1,076 ft2)

$150 + HST = $169.50

Fill activity3 of 101 to 500 cubic metres (7-33 tandem loads) or grading a property less than 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres) in size Shoreline alteration4/natural erosion control5 <50 metres in length Channel/lake bed alteration6 less than 200 metres in length or 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres) in area Infrastructure including but not limited to: culverts, bridges, clear span structures less than 3 metres in width/span Docks and boathouses - new construction, modifications or extensions, greater than 15 square metres (161 ft2) in area

Large Works New buildings, reconstruction, accessory buildings and structures1 with a total gross floor area of 101 to 450 square metres (1087 - 4,844 ft2)

$300+ HST = $339.00

Fill activity3 from 501 to 2000 cubic metres (34-134 tandem loads) or grading on property 0.5 - 1.0 hectare (1.2 - 2.7 acres) in size Infrastructure including but not limited to: culverts, bridges, clear span structures between 3 - 25 metres in width/span Channel/lake bed alteration6 greater than 200 metres in length or 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres) in area Shoreline alterations/natural erosion control 51 and 500 metres in length

Major Works Multiple unit projects or buildings greater than 450 square metres in area $500 + HST = $565.00 Reconstruction of a habitable structure in the floodplain

Fill activity3 greater than 2,000 cubic metres or grading on a property greater than 1.1 hectares (2.47 acres) in area Infrastructure including but not limited to: culverts, bridges, clear span structures greater than 25 metres in width/span Shoreline alterations/natural erosion control greater than 501 metres in length

Subdivision Review and approval of large subdivisions. $750+ HST = $847.50

Schedule B – Schedule of Fees Development, Interference with Wetlands and

Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, O. Reg. 180/06

B-2

Category Description of Activity Fee Permit Revisions

Minor Revisions $50 + HST = $56.50 Major Revisions ½ original Permit Fee

Permit Extensions

Permits are valid for two calendar years from date of issue. Permits may be extended for one additional year at a time to a maximum of five years prior to expiry of permit. Extensions beyond five years must re-apply for a new permit.

$50 + HST = $56.50

Violations Applications submitted after the proposed project has commenced.

Double the prescribed fee

Property Inquires (Legal/Real Estate)

Written response to legal, real estate, financial institution inquires on behalf of land-owners or others.

$75 + HST = $84.75

Clearance Letters

Written clearance letter indicating proposed development is outside regulated area and permit is not required.

$75 + HST = $84.75

Other Services Screening Map Copies

Colour printed copies of Screening Maps (full map size) $30 per sheet + HST = $33.90

Map Creation Services

Project specific. Consult with Staff for estimate.

Notes: 1 Accessory buildings and structures include sheds, retaining walls, gazebos, decks, etc. which are

non-habitable. 2 Maintenance means repair to a structure involving no change in size, location or shape. 3 Fill activity includes placement, removal and/or grading material originating on the site or

elsewhere. 4 Shoreline alteration includes boat launches, groynes, breakwalls, etc. 5 Natural erosion control means measures to control erosion using live plants, natural and native rock

(i.e. rip-rap/blast rock, etc.). 6 Channel/lake bed alteration means dredging, channel diversion or re-alignments, etc. 7 The Lakehead Region Conservation Authority reserves the right to revise the Fee Schedule at any

time without notice, subject to Board approval. 8 Permit fees are considered a processing fee and are non-refundable. Effective Date of Fee Schedule: June 1, 2011 Board Resolution No. 42/11

Lakehead University...Lakehead University Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Fire Lab and Services...

Documents

Transcript of Lakehead University...Lakehead University Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Fire Lab and Services...