appendix a: geotechnical report - metro … a: geotechnical report ... gpth12-01 to -06 for the...

Sheep Paddocks Trail Alignment Analysis

LEES+Associates

-69-

APPENDIX A: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

July 22, 2013

Reference: 13-5916

[email protected]

LEES + Associates Landscape Architects 509 – 318 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2V2 Attn: Nalon Smith Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Report Sheep Paddocks Trail Alignment Selection Colony Farm Regional Park, Coquitlam, BC

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As requested, Braun Geotechnical Ltd. has carried out a geotechnical exploration and assessment for the above referenced project. The scope of services was limited to the evaluation of the geotechnical characteristics at the site and no consideration has been given to any environmental issues.

This report should be considered preliminary and subject to review and revision.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is understood that design and construction of a trail alignment to connect Pitt River Road to the Mundy Creek Trail in Colony Farm Regional Park is currently proposed by Metro Vancouver. The trail will extend through the portion of Colony Farm bordered by Mundy Creek to the south, Pitt River Road to the north, Lougheed Highway (and the CPR Rail line) to the west, and the Coquitlam River to the east. BC Hydro Transmission lines and a BC Hydro Right Of Way (ROW) are located along the west portion of the site.

At the time of the field exploration, the site was generally comprised of low-lying wetlands and low vegetation within the west portion of the site, and dense vegetation along the existing trail/Coquitlam River alignment.

The existing trail alignment through the site area generally follows the bank of the Coquitlam River. It is understood that the trail has been closed due to erosion issues and regular flooding.

Preliminary trail alignments for consideration by the project design tea, are included on the enclosed location plan (Dwg 13-5916-01). The routes were identified as follows:

Route 1 - River Route Option: 1A South Section, 1B North Section

Route 2 - Inland Route Option: 2A South Section; 2B North Section

Route 3B - Inland Route to River Route Connector

In general, the Route 1 would follow the existing decommissioned trail alignment with minor re-alignment as required to permit trail construction. Route 2 would

Foundations, Excavation & Shoring Specialists Braun Geotechnical 110 – 19188 94 Ave Surrey, BC V4N 4X8 Tel: 604-513-4190 Fax: 604-513-4195 [email protected]

www.braungeo.com Foundations Excavation & Shoring Slope Stability Natural Hazards Pavement Design and Management Reinforced Soil Walls and Slopes Rev. Sept 15, 2006

Sheep Paddocks Trail Alignment Selection Date: July 22, 2013Colony Farm Regional Park, Coquitlam, BC Project # 13-5916

2

provide for a new inland trail alignment adjacent to the CPR tracks. Route 3 would provide for a connector between Route 1B & 2B.

The existing trail (Route 1A & 1B) included sections constructed above natural surrounding grades (typically in the order of 1m), as well as some sections constructed near natural grades. A series of existing timber watercourse crossings were situated along the decommissioned alignment. Erosion of the existing over steepened river bank slopes, as well as sink hole expressions were observed where the existing alignment is in close proximity to the bank of the Coquitlam River.

The proposed inland trail (Route 2A, 2B & 3B) generally traverses through existing bog swamp area. An existing soil berm (approximately 250m length) is located within the south section of a potential 2A alignment of the trail.

3.0 DESK STUDY REVIEW

A desk study review of available published geological and geotechnical information was carried out and historical government aerial photographs were obtained and reviewed. Available information included:

Surficial Geology Maps by The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)

Historical Air Photo’s Dating Back to the 1930’s

Terrestrial and Aquatic Studies for Northwest Section of Colony Farm Regional Park, by Tera Planning Ltd. and Robertson Environmental Services Ltd., dated December 2010.

Environmental Inventory and Sensative Area Analysis of the Western Portion of Colony Farm Regional Park Coquitlam, BC, by Tera Planning Ltd., dated March 18, 2009.

Colony Farm Regional Park Biophysical Summary, by Metro Vancouver Parks, dated March 2009.

Conceptual Design Considerations for the Proposed Colony Farm Sheep Paddocks Trail, Colony Farm Regional Park, Coquitlam, BC, by Geopacific Consultants Ltd., dated October 24, 2012.

The surficial geology mapping by The GSC indicated that the study site area is underlain by lowland and mountain stream channel fill and overbank sediments comprised of marine deltaic medium to coarse gravel and minor sand up to 15m thick or more and sand and gravel up to 8m thick. Note that an area immediately southwest of the subject site is mapped as bog, swamp, and shallow lake deposits, including lowland peat up to 14m thick.

GSC Surficial Geology Map


3

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Seventeen test holes were advanced between June 26th and July 16th, 2013, including ten using a track mounted drill (TH13-01 to TH13-10), and seven using a hand auger (HA13-01 to HA13-07). The hand auger was utilized within areas not accessible by the tracked drill rig. The test holes were drilled to depths of up to 6.1m at the locations shown on the attached Location Plan. The soil conditions were logged in the field by a representative of Braun Geotechnical and representative disturbed samples were collected for further visual classification and routine moisture content testing.

5.0 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The findings of the geotechnical exploration are detailed on the attached Test Hole logs. Geotechnical test hole information obtained by GeoPacific Consultants (designated as GPTH12-01 to -06 for the northwest portion of the site is also included for report completeness.

A generalized subsoil profile based on the current geotechnical exploration and available test hole data for each of the trail alignments has been summarized below.

Route 1: River Route: TH13-01 to -09, HA13-01 to -03

FILL: Existing mineral fills typically comprising compact SAND with variable silt and gravel components were encountered at each of the test holes advanced along the River Route Alignment to depths varying from 0.8 to 2.3m, except at TH13-05 where the fill soils extended to 0.3m depth. Organic rich SILT FILL was encountered near surface HA13-02 & -03.

NATURAL SAND / SILT: Interlayered grey to grey-brown, with occasional brown mottled zones, loose to compact SAND with trace silt, and firm to stiff SILT to silty CLAY with trace sand and gravel was typically encountered below the fill soils extending to the depth of test hole exploration at 2.1 to 6.1m.

We note a zone of ORGANIC SILT/PEAT was encountered within the SAND / SILT stratum at TH13-02, & -09 and HA13-02 & -03. PEAT was also encountered immediately below the existing fill soils at TH13-03 extending to a depth of 2.1m.

Routes 2 & 3: Inland Route(s): TH13-10, HA13-04 to -06 & GPTH12-01 to -06 (Geopacific)

FILL: Existing fills were encountered at three of the test hole locations along the Inland Route alignments as below:

Compact SAND over organic rich fill materials were encountered at HA13-04 to the depth of exploration at 1.2m.

SAND / SILT was encountered to a depth of 0.9m at TH13-10 advanced within the existing fill berm along the 2A alignment.

GPTH12-01 encountered relatively shallow refusal within existing SILT fill soils. PEAT/ORGANIC SILT: Brown to dark-brown, damp to moist, soft to firm PEAT / ORGANIC SILT was typically encountered below the existing fill and/or immediately below existing grades within each of the test locations within the Inland Route.

The organic rich soils were encountered to a depth of 1.7m at TH13-10 and extended to the depth of exploration achieved by the hand augers at HA13-05, -06 & -07 (2.7 to 3.0m). PEAT /


4

ORGANIC SILT were recorded within test holes GPTH12-02, -03, -04, -05, &-06, extending to 3.2m depth at GPTH12-03 and to the depth of exploration at the remaining test locations.

SILT: Natural SILT was below the PEAT/ORGANIC SILT at TH13-10 & GPTH12-03 extending to the depth of exploration at 4.6 and 3.3m.

GROUNDWATER; Within fill areas, semi-static groundwater conditions were encountered at depths ranging from 0.8 to 3.4m except at test holes TH13-04, -07 and -10, and HA13-04 where groundwater was not encountered within the depth of exploration. Semi-static groundwater was encountered near surface within test holes in areas with near surface organic silt / peat.

It is considered that the semi-static groundwater levels fluctuate with water levels in the Coquitlam River adjacent to the site. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally, and with drainage conditions.

The subsurface conditions described above were encountered at the test hole locations only. It should be noted that subsurface conditions at other locations could vary.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

Based on available test hole information and information gathered during the geotechnical exploration field work, we expect that the proposed 1A & 1B River Route alignment would generally be underlain by existing mineral fills underlain by natural sand & silt overbank sediments. Inland route alignments 2A, 2B & 3B are expected to be underlain by a near surface zone of highly compressible peat and/or organic silt bog sediments in turn underlain by natural silt. Trail development on the existing mineral fill berm located within the 2A alignment area would be suitable for geotechnical considerations.

The following provides preliminary geotechnical discussion and recommendations for trail development for each of the potential trail route alignments. It is understood that the trail would likely be elevated above natural surrounding grades for flood conditions. It is expected that a 1 in 10 year flood elevation may be adopted for the trail project.

Site access for completion of the current geotechnical exploration was limited given the requirement for minimal disturbance within the existing park. It is recommended that additional intrusive geotechnical exploration work (machine pits and/or drills) be completed prior to construction and when the preferred alignment has been identified.

6.1.1 River Route Alignment 1A & 1B

The subsurface exploration below the existing trail alignment generally encountered sand trail fills over natural sand and silt. These natural mineral soils may be interpreted as overbank sediments deposited by the Coquitlam River.

Natural compressible peat/organic silt was encountered immediately below the existing fill within TH13-03 along the River Route, and peat/organic silt interlayers were encountered within the natural sand/silt at the other four test locations along this route.

Settlement resulting from placement of additional mineral trail fill materials would be expected to be within tolerable limits for trail areas generally underlain by natural sand & silt soils. Where peat soils are encountered near surface adjacent to a proposed river alignment consideration could be given to completion of ‘deep stripping’ for removal of the near surface compressible materials and/or completion of preload treatment to reduce post construction settlement. The thickness of


5

the natural near surface compressible peat is expected to thicken from east to west off the Coquitlam River making removal of the peat a potentially viable option for the river route. The magnitude of settlement resulting from compression of peat / organic rich soils interlayered within the natural sand / silt would be expected to be tolerable for the proposed trail.

Localized areas of fill embankment sideslope sloughing, and sink holes were observed along trail areas immediately adjacent to the Coquitlam River. It is considered that the localized sink holes may be due to the migration of the sand fill and natural sand & silt towards the banks of the Coquitlam River, and/or towards voids created by natural disturbance of existing vegetation roots (i.e. voids created by toppling of trees along embankment sideslopes). It is considered that localized embankment sideslope sloughing may be due to erosion caused by the Coquitlam River and/or due to natural disturbance of existing vegetation roots as described above.

Areas exhibiting sink holes and/or sidewall sloughing should be over excavated and repaired using well graded high fracture crushed gravel and sand materials resistant to erosion. Alternatively the sink-hole / sloughing trail areas may be avoided by shifting the trail alignment further inland (ie suitable slope setback).

It is understood that the hydrotechnical consultant may require soft and/or hard erosion control measures to be constructed along select portions of the bank of the Coquitlam River to reduce potential for ongoing retrogression of the existing bank slopes. Geotechnical aspects of the proposed protection measures should be provided by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to construction.

6.1.2 Inland Route Alignments 2A, 2B, and 3B

The subsurface exploration generally encountered a significant thickness of organic silt/peat over sand and silt soils at natural low lying areas. Existing fill over natural organic rich soils were encountered within the existing soil berm.

The existing 2A berm, following removal of any surficial organics, would be considered suitable for support of the proposed trail, and would be preferred for geotechnical (settlement) considerations when compared to a trail alignment constructed through the lower lying areas through this segment of the 2A alignment.

Development of a new trail alignment in the bog swamp areas underlain by highly compressible peat / organic rich silt would be susceptible to significant settlement resulting from relatively short term compression / consolidation from the increased vertical stress, as well as some additional longer term settlement resulting from decomposition of the organic materials, especially when above groundwater levels. Fill placement within the peat / organic rich silt areas would need to be carried out in stages with sufficient time lag between the stages to permit dissipation of elevated pore water pressures and for strengthening of the natural compressible soils. Details of the proposed preload and settlement monitoring for trail development within peat / organic rich silt subgrade areas are provided in section 6.2.2 below.

Displacement methods for improvement of peat subgrade areas, and/or deep stripping of the peat soils were not considered to be appropriate methods of construction within the existing environmentally sensitive park area.

Trail settlements are expected to be in the range of 30 to 70 percent of total mineral fill thickness, and will depend on the total thickness and width of fill required, and the thickness, consistency, and stress history of the highly compressible soils. Settlement of existing structures adjacent to proposed inland trail fill areas would also need to be evaluated prior to construction. In particular, subgrade for the existing CPR rail lines adjacent to the alignment should be confirmed and/or the proposed inland trail alignment should be suitably set-back from the existing tracks.


6

Consideration may be given to trail embankment construction using lightweight fill materials such as vesicular basalt “red pumice” to reduce the vertical stress induced on the natural soil subgrade, however the use of lightweight fill is likely cost prohibitive when compared to using conventional mineral fills with a preload treatment, especially for the proposed gravel surfaced pedestrian trail considered to be tolerable to some post-construction settlement.

An increased maintenance program for restoration of grades resulting from post construction settlement should be expected for trail areas constructed over the peat / organic rich silt. The magnitude of post construction settlement could be forecast based on the finding of preload survey monitoring programs carried out at the time of construction.

6.2 Subgrade Preparation – Trail Alignments

6.2.1 Existing Fill / Sand & Silt Subgrade Areas - River Route Alignment 1A, 1B & Berm 2A

Subgrade preparation below proposed fill areas underlain by existing mineral soils should typically include removal of any surficial vegetation and/or surficial organic rich soils down to existing granular fill soils and/or natural sand/silt soils.

We note that any final river route trail areas that are underlain by a significant thickness of compressible peat / organic rich silt (inland of the existing alignment) would likely require a similar subgrade treatment as provided below. Where the surficial peat thickness is less than 1m we expect stripping could be carried out reveal the underlying sand / silt.

6.2.2 Peat / Organic rich Silt Subgrade Areas - Inland Route Alignments 2A, 2B, and 3B

6.2.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

Subgrade preparation below trail areas underlain by relatively deep natural peat / organic rich silt would not require conventional stripping of near surface organics as the existing vegetation and rootmat provides for improved subgrade strength for construction.

Smaller vegetation should typically be pushed down level with the ground surface. Removal and disturbance of existing root structure should be avoided as much as possible. Larger vegetation should be cut at surface and the root mat left in place.

Prior to fill placement, subgrade areas should typically be overlain by a non-woven geotextile fabric (Nilex 4551 or approved equivalent) for improved strength and to provide for a separation layer.

6.2.2.2 Settlement Monitoring

Settlement monitoring should be carried out in areas of fill placement to allow assessment of time required between successive stages of fill placement, and to provide data required for predicting long term settlement.

Prior to commencing fill placement, settlement gauges should be installed and a survey monitoring program should be established to monitor the fill settlement. Settlement gauges should typically be installed at a maximum 40m horizontal spacing along trails. Settlement gauges should consist of 25 mm thick plywood sheet base plates, approximately 600 mm square, with a metal floor flange attached using nuts and bolts to firmly affix each settlement gauge riser to its base plate. A steel pipe with a minimum diameter of 38 mm should be threaded into the flange and extended above the top of the fill for monitoring by the surveyor.

The top of the riser pipe should be surveyed prior to placement of new fill. The settlement gauges should then be read (measured using a level rod survey to an accuracy of 2mm) at 0, 3, 5, 7, and 14 days after fill placement, and once every two weeks thereafter. Top of fill elevations adjacent


7

to the gauges should also be measured during each set of readings. The results should be forwarded to the Geotechnical Consultant for review.

6.2.2.3 Preload & Considerations for Preload Surcharging

For settlement considerations it is recommended that embankment fills for the proposed trail alignments underlain by peat / organic rich silt be constructed to a minimum 0.5m above the proposed design trail level to provide for a nominal surcharge. We note that additional fill placement may be required during the final stage of preload monitoring to maintain a fill level at / or above the proposed trail grade.

Each stage of fill should be limited to a maximum thickness of 1.2m. The time between successive stages of fill placement will be determined based on review and assessment of the settlement gauge data.

For preliminary planning purposes we expect that approximately 4 to 6 weeks would be required between successive stages of fill placement. We note the duration for the final stage would likely be in the order of 3 to 6 months and would be dependent on the magnitude of post construction settlement considered tolerable.

6.3 Embankment Fill Materials – Proposed Trails

The following trail embankment fill material types would be considered suitable for geotechnical considerations.

Well graded clean sand / sand & gravel (MMCD SGSB or equivalent)

Riversand fill with a suitable erosion protection surface layer comprised of a minimum 0.3m thick well graded crushed sand & gravel layer (MMCD crushed Base or Subbase) placed on the top and sides of the constructed fill embankment.

High fines silty sand (till fills etc.) for construction during seasonally dry weather conditions (June to August), and for soil layers placed on dry subgrade conditions. Placement of a free draining granular layer (minimum 1.2m thick of clean material type as provided above) prior to placement of silty fill materials is also recommended within the base lifts of the proposed trail embankments within natural peat / organic rich subgrade areas to achieve a dry subgrade for the silty fill materials. Silty fills would require a 0.3m thick erosion protection layer (MMCD crushed Base or Subbase) placed on the top and sides of the constructed fill embankment.

Embankment fill materials should be compacted to at least 95% Standard Proctor Density (SPD).

Erosion protection layers and the proposed trail surfacing should be constructed following completion of the proposed preload monitoring program for peat / organic rich silt subgrade areas.

Following completion of the preload treatment a 100mm thickness of 10mm minus crusher dust should be placed and compacted as a surfacing aggregate for the proposed trails.

Proposed embankment fill material types should be reviewed for suitability by a qualified geotechnical consultant prior to construction.

6.4 Embankment Slopes

Fill slopes consisting of suitably compacted mineral soils should be constructed at gradients no steeper than 2H:1V for geotechnical considerations.

nalon

Highlight


8

6.5 Pedestrian Creek Crossings

It is understood that creek crossings will be required for the proposed trail. It is understood that the crossings would be designed for pedestrian and light vehicle loadings.

Peat and/or organic silt subsoils are expected to be absent or relatively thin at the previous crossing locations along the original trail alignment. At these locations, it is considered feasible to construct these crossing on lightly loaded grade supported footings (or pre-cast block foundations), with the structures detailed to accommodate some settlement.

For proposed crossings within the low lying bog areas where significant thickness of compressible organic soils is anticipated, it is considered feasible to construct these crossing on lightly loaded grade supported footings, with the structures detailed to accommodate some settlement and following site preparation comprised of deep stripping and/or a significant preload surcharge Alternately, consideration could be given to deep pile foundation support.

Proposed bridge foundations should be designed and constructed under field review from a qualified geotechnical consultant. Deep test hole information, would likely be required for pile foundation design options.

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD REVIEWS

Geotechnical field reviews are required by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Field reviews are essential to ensure that the recommendations of the geotechnical report are understood and followed.

Geotechnical Construction reviews would be needed to address the following:

Stripping; Structure Foundations; Settlement monitoring data review; Compaction of trail structure fills.

8.0 CLOSURE

This report should be considered preliminary and is subject to review and revision as required, once final layout drawings have been finalized.

This report is prepared for the exclusive use of Lees + Associates and their designated representatives and may not be used by other parties without the written permission of Braun Geotechnical Ltd. Metro Vancouver may also rely on the findings of the Geotechnical Report.

If the development plans change, or if during construction soil conditions are noted to be different from those described in this report, Braun Geotechnical should be notified immediately in order that the geotechnical recommendations can be confirmed or modified, if required. Further, this report assumes that field reviews will be completed by a qualified Geotechnical Consultant during construction who will review and accept the recommendations in this report, or modify the recommendations as required.

The site contractor should make their own assessment of subsurface conditions and select the construction means and methods most appropriate to the site conditions. This report should not be included in the specifications without suitable qualifications approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.


X:\2013 Projects\13-5916 Sheep Paddocks Trail\Report 13-5916 2013-07-22.doc

9

The use of this report is subject to the attached Report Interpretation and Limitations. The reader’s attention is drawn specifically to those conditions, as it is considered essential that they be followed for proper use and interpretation of this report.

We hope the above meets with your requirements. Should any questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

Braun Geotechnical Ltd. Braun Geotechnical Ltd.

DRAFT DRAFT

Harman Dhillon, EIT. Stuart Hrysio, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer

Encl: Report Interpretation and Limitations Test Hole Location Plan

Test Hole Logs by Braun Geotechnical Test Holes by Others

of 2

REPORT INTERPRETATION AND LIMITATIONS 1. STANDARD OF CARE Braun Geotechnical Ltd. (Braun) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with generally accepted engineering consulting practices in this area, subject to the time and physical constraints applicable. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2. COMPLETENESS OF THIS REPORT This Report represents a summary of paper, electronic and other documents, records, data and files and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Braun by the Client, communications between Braun and the Client, and/or to any other reports, writings, proposals or documents prepared by Braun for the Client relating to the specific site described herein. This report is intended to be used and quoted in its entirety. Any references to this report must include the whole of the report and any appendices or supporting material. Braun cannot be responsible for use by any party of portions of this report without reference to the entire report. 3. BASIS OF THIS REPORT This report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objective, and purpose described to Braun by the Client or the Client’s Representatives or Consultants. The applicability and reliability of any of the factual data, findings, recommendations or opinions expressed in this document pertain to a specific project at described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site, and are valid only to the extent that there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the descriptions provided to Braun. Braun cannot be responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless we were specifically requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of any alterations or variations to the project description provided by the Client. If the project does not commence within 18 months of the report date, the report may become invalid and further review may be required. The recommendations of this report should only be used for design. The extent of exploration including number of test pits or test holes necessary to thoroughly investigate the site for conditions that may affect construction costs will generally be greater than that required for design purposes. Contractors should rely upon their own explorations and interpretation of the factual data provided for costing purposes, equipment requirements, construction techniques, or to establish project schedule. The information provided in this report is based on limited exploration, for a specific project scope. Braun cannot accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations or decisions by the Client or others based on information contained in this Report. This restriction of liability includes decisions made to purchase or sell land. 4. USE OF THIS REPORT The contents of this report, including plans, data, drawings and all other documents including electronic and hard copies remain the copyright property of Braun Geotechnical Ltd. However, we will consider any reasonable request by the Client to approve the use of this report by other parties as “Approved Users.” With regard to the duplication and distribution of this Report or its contents, we authorize only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the Report only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of this Report by those parties. The Client and “Approved Users” may not give, lend, sell or otherwise make this Report or any portion thereof available to any other party without express written permission from Braun. Any use which a third party makes of this Report – in its entirety or portions thereof – is the sole responsibility of such third parties. BRAUN GEOTECHNICAL LTD. ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED BY ANY PARTY RESULTING FROM THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THIS REPORT. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification or unintended alteration, and the Client should not rely on electronic versions of reports or other documents. All documents should be obtained directly from Braun. 5. INTERPRETATION OF THIS REPORT Classification and identification of soils and rock and other geological units, including groundwater conditions have been based on exploration(s) performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. These tasks are judgemental in nature; despite comprehensive sampling and testing programs properly performed by experienced personnel with the appropriate equipment, some conditions may elude detection. As such, all explorations involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected. Further, all documents or records summarizing such exploration will be based on assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled at the time of the site exploration. Actual conditions may vary

of 2

significantly between the points investigated and all persons making use of such documents or records should be aware of and accept this risk. The Client and “Approved Users” accept that subsurface conditions may change with time and this report only represents the soil conditions encountered at the time of exploration and/or review. Soil and ground water conditions may change due to construction activity on the site or on adjacent sites, and also from other causes, including climactic conditions. The exploration and review provided in this report were for geotechnical purposes only. Environmental aspects of soil and groundwater have not been included in the exploration or review, or addressed in any other way. The exploration and Report is based on information provided by the Client or the Client’s Consultants, and conditions observed at the time of our site reconnaissance or exploration. Braun has relied in good faith upon all information provided. Accordingly, Braun cannot accept responsibility for inaccuracies, misstatements, omissions, or deficiencies in this Report resulting from misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations or fraudulent acts of persons or sources providing this information. 6. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW This report assumes that Braun will be retained to work and coordinate design and construction with other Design Professionals and the Contractor. Further, it is assumed that Braun will be retained to provide field reviews during construction to confirm adherence to building code guidelines and generally accepted engineering practices, and the recommendations provided in this report. Field services recommended for the project represent the minimum necessary to confirm that the work is being carried out in general conformance with Braun’s recommendations and generally accepted engineering standards. It is the Client’s or the Client’s Contractor’s responsibility to provide timely notice to Braun to carry out site reviews. The Client acknowledges that unsatisfactory or unsafe conditions may be missed by intermittent site reviews by Braun. Accordingly, it is the Client’s or Client’s Contractor’s responsibility to inform Braun of any such conditions. Work that is covered prior to review by Braun may have to be re-exposed at considerable cost to the Client. Review of all Geotechnical aspects of the project are required for submittal of unconditional Letters of Assurance to regulatory authorities. The site reviews are not carried out for the benefit of the Contractor(s) and therefore do not in any way effect the Contractor(s) obligations to perform under the terms of his/her Contract. 7. SAMPLE DISPOSAL Braun will dispose of all samples 3 months after issuance of this report, or after a longer period of time at the Client’s expense if requested by the Client. All contaminated samples remain the property of the Client and it will be the Client’s responsibility to dispose of them properly. 8. SUBCONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS Engineering studies frequently requires hiring the services of individuals and companies with special expertise and/or services which Braun Geotechnical Ltd. does not provide. These services are arranged as a convenience to our Clients, for the Client’s benefit. Accordingly, the Client agrees to hold the Company harmless and to indemnify and defend Braun Geotechnical Ltd. from and against all claims arising through such Subconsultants or Contractors as though the Client had retained those services directly. This includes responsibility for payment of services rendered and the pursuit of damages for errors, omissions or negligence by those parties in carrying out their work. These conditions apply to specialized subconsultants and the use of drilling, excavation and laboratory testing services, and any other Subconsultant or Contractor. 9. SITE SAFETY Braun Geotechnical Ltd. assumes responsibility for site safety solely for the activities of our employees on the jobsite. The Client or any Contractors on the site will be responsible for their own personnel. The Client or his representatives, Contractors or others retain control of the site. It is the Client’s or the Client’s Contractors responsibility to inform Braun of conditions pertaining to the safety and security of the site – hazardous or otherwise – of which the Client or Contractor is aware. Exploration or construction activities could uncover previously unknown hazardous conditions, materials, or substances that may result in the necessity to undertake emergency procedures to protect workers, the public or the environment. Additional work may be required that is outside of any previously established budget(s). The Client agrees to reimburse Braun for fees and expenses resulting from such discoveries. The Client acknowledges that some discoveries require that certain regulatory bodies be informed. The Client agrees that notification to such bodies by Braun Geotechnical Ltd. will not be a cause for either action or dispute.

LEGEND:

TH13-01 2013 TEST HOLEAPPROXIMATE LOCATION

HA13-01 2013 HAND AUGERAPPROXIMATE LOCATION

GPTH12-01

GPTH12-02

GPTH12-03

GPTH12-04

GPTH12-05

GPTH12-06

TH13-03

TH13-01

TH13-02

TH13-04

TH13-05

TH13-10TH13-08

TH13-07

TH13-06

HA13-01

GPTH12-01 2012 GEOPACIFIC TEST HOLEAPPROXIMATE LOCATION HA13-02

HA13-03

HA13-04

TH13-09

HA13-05

HA13-06

HA13-07

LOCATION PLANLees + Associates Landscape Architects

Sheep Paddocks TrailCoquitlam, BC

13-5916 HD HD SH July 22, 2013 1:5000 13-5916-01

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks

End of Test Hole @ 4.6m15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey, damp, compact SAND, trace to somesilt (FILL)

grey, wet, compact SAND, some silt, tracegravel

grey, wet, loose to compact silty fine SAND

grey, moist, firm fine sandy SILT

grey-brown, wet, loose to compact silty fineSAND with some organics

(at time of drilling)Water Level

S1 26%

S2 35%

S3 54%

S4 106%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp, compact SAND, trace silt(FILL)

grey, damp, compact SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt (FILL)


S1 15%

brown, damp to moist, compact SAND, somesilt, trace organics

grey, slightly brown mottled, moist, firm SILT,some sand

grey, wet, loose silty fine SAND, with organicinterlayersbrown, moist, firm ORGANIC SILT, some sand

grey, moist, firm clayey SILT, trace organics

S2 52%

S3 49%

S4 79%

S5 207%

S6 72%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks

End of Test Hole @ 3.0m

15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp, compact SAND, trace silt,trace organics (FILL)

grey, damp, compact SAND and GRAVEL,trace silt (FILL)


S1 210%

dark-brown, moist, firm PEAT

grey, moist, firm SILT, trace to some sand, withorganic interlayersgrey, wet, loose coarse SAND, trace siltgrey, wet, loose to compact silty fine SAND

S2 90%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp to moist, compact SAND,trace to some silt, occasional silty zones (FILL)

grey, damp, compact SAND and GRAVEL,mixed with brown organics silt (ORGANIC FILL) S1 32%

grey, damp, compact silty fine SANDgrey, moist, loose coarse SAND, trace siltgrey-brown, loose to compact silty fine SAND,trace organics

S2 37%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, moist, loose to compact silty fineSAND, trace gravel, trace organics

grey, damp, compact SAND and GRAVEL,trace silt (FILL)

grey-brown, wet, loose to compact silty fineSAND, trace gravel, trace organics

grey-brown, wet, loose SAND, some silt


S1 35%

grey, wet, loose to compact silty fine SAND,trace gravel, trace organics

brown, moist, firm organic SILT, some sand

S1 47%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp to moist, loose to compactSAND, trace silt (FILL)

brown, damp, compact SAND, some gravel,trace to some organics (FILL)

grey, moist, loose to compact coarse SAND,trace silt

grey-brown, slightly brown mottled, loose tocompact silty fine SAND, occasional organicinterlayers

grey, moist, firm, fine sandy SILT

grey-brown, wet, loose to compact silty fineSAND to firm fine sandy SILT

grey, wet, loose coarse SAND, trace silt


brown, moist, firm organic SILT interlayer

brown, damp, loose to compact SAND, traceto some silt, trace gravel (FILL)

S1 26%

S2 22%

S3 43%

S4 118%

S5 40%

S6 32%

ROUTE 1A

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey, damp, compact SAND and GRAVEL,trace to some silt (FILL)

grey, brown mottled, damp, stiff sandy SILT

grey, slightly brown mottled, moist, firm SILT,trace to some sand, trace organics

S1 36%

S2 40%

-Encountered refusal at 0.9m, moved test hole, andre-drilled.

ROUTE 1A

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp to moist, compact SAND,some gravel, trace to some silt (FILL)

grey, damp, stiff SILT, some sand, somegravel, trace organics (FILL)


grey-brown, damp, compact SAND, trace silt(FILL)

brown, moist, firm organic SILT

brown, moist, firm SILT, trace to some sand

grey, wet, loose coarse SAND

dark grey-brown, moist, firm organic SILTgrey to grey-brown, moist, firm SILT, trace tosome sand, trace organics

S1 35%

S2 14%

S3 71%

S4 65%

S5 32%

S6 125%

S7 113%

ROUTE 1A

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey, moist, compact silty SAND, some gravel(FILL)

grey-brown, damp to moist, compact SAND,some gravel, trace to some silt (FILL)

grey-brown, moist, compact silty SAND

grey-brown, brown mottled, firm to stiff SILT,some sand

dark-brown, moist, loose silty SAND, someorganicsbrown, moist, firm sandy SILT

grey, wet, loose to compact silty f. SAND

grey, wet, loose to compact SAND, trace tosome silt

dark-brown, moist, firm fibrous PEAT, somesiltgrey, moist, firm sandy SILT with silty sandinterlayers


S1 15%

S2 23%

S3 44%

S4 39%

S5 34%

S6 57%

S7 41%

S8 22%

S9 129%

S10 45%

S11 45%

ROUTE 1A

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp to moist, compact siltySAND to sandy SILT, some gravel, traceorganics (TILL-FILL)

grey-brown, brown mottled, damp to moiststiff SILT, trace to some sand

grey to grey-brown, brown mottled, moist, firmSILT

dark-brown, damp to moist, firm SILT, someorganics

S1 29%

S2 32%

S3 35%

S4 41%

-Encountered refusal at 1.2m, moved test hole, andre-drilled.

ROUTE 2A BERM

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks

End of Auger Hole @ 2.4m

15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, moist, compact SAND, some silt,trace to some organics (FILL)

grey-brown to grey, wet, compact, silty fineSAND

grey, wet, compact SAND, trace to some silt


S1 29%

S2 38%

S3 30%

S4 24%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

brown, damp, firm SILT, some sand,trace gravel, some organics (ORGANIC RICHFILL)

grey, moist, firm to stiff SILT, some clay

grey-brown, moist, firm, sandy SILT


S1 30%

S2 67%

S3 60%

S4 203%dark-brown, wet, firm PEATbrown to grey-brown, moist, firm SILT, somesand, some organics S5 199%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

brown, moist, firm SILT, some sand,some roots, trace organics (ORGANIC FILL)

brown, moist, stiff SILT, some sand, traceorganics


S1 34%

S2 30%

S3 46%

S4 134%dark-brown, wet, soft, organic SILT

S5 363%dark-brown, wet, soft to firm PEAT

grey, moist, firm to stiff silty CLAY

grey-brown to grey, moist, compact, SAND,trace to some silt, trace organics (FILL)

S6 63%

ROUTE 1B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

grey-brown, damp, compact SAND, somegravel, trace to some silt, trace to some roots,occasional cobbles and boulders (FILL)

dark-brown, damp, loose to compact SAND,some gravel, some organics (ORGANIC FILL)

S1

S2

12%

22%

ROUTE 2A

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

dark-brown, moist, soft organic SILT

S1

S2


no recovery below 1.5m

185%

184%

dark-brown, wet, soft to firm PEAT - inferred PEAT below based on resistance

ROUTE 2A

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

dark-brown, moist, soft organic SILT

S1


dark-brown, wet, soft to firm PEAT

no recovery below 1.5m1021%

ROUTE 3B

Soil Description

Dep

th

Sam

ple

#

Sam

ple

mft

Remarks


15

10

5

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

dark-brown, moist, soft organic SILTS1 (at time of drilling)

Water Level

dark-brown, wet, soft to firm PEAT

S2

S3

70%

567%

548%

ROUTE 3B

Survey 2012Sheep Paddocks TrailsScale 1:1000N

appendix a: geotechnical report - metro … a: geotechnical report ... gpth12-01 to -06 for the...

Documents