geotechnical assessment and design...geotechnical assessment and design lynx creek boat launch-rev 1...

Prepared for:

R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd.

300 - 4940 Canada Way Burnaby BC, V5G 4M5 22-May-2020

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND

DESIGN

Lynx Creek Boat Launch – Rev 1

Highway 29, British Columbia

Project # KX052807.20

‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN

Lynx Creek Boat Launch - Rev1

Highway 29, British Columbia

Project # KX052807.20

Prepared for:

R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd.

300 - 4940 Canada Way Burnaby BC, V5G 4M5

Prepared by:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions,

a Division of Wood Canada Limited

3456 Opie Crescent Prince George, BC V2N 2P9

13-Mar-2020

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment and Infrastructure Limited).

save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent

that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other

than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and

must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may

constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains

access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and

for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to

access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage

howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or

death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Revision History

Revision

Number Date Description of Change

Author of

Change

Final March 13, 2020 Issuance in Final DO

1 May 22, 2020

Modified Section 4.1.1 (second last sentence);

Section 6.3 (first sentence in last paragraph;

Section 6.5 (options), Table 6-2 (Riprap Unit Weight),

Table 6-3 (FOS), Appendix D

DO


Lynx Creek Boat Launch-Rev 1

Project # KX052807.20 | 22 May 2020 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Scope ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

4.0 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Field Investigation Program ............................................................................................................................ 4

4.1.1 Test Pitting ............................................................................................................................................ 5

4.1.2 Drilling .................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Laboratory Testing Program ........................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 Site Conditions and Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 6

5.1 Geology ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 8

6.0 Geotechnical Design Considerations and Recommendations ........................................................................... 9

6.1 General Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 9

6.2 Parking Area Granular Structure .................................................................................................................10

6.3 Boat Launch/Ramp Considerations ...........................................................................................................10

6.4 Temporary Excavations ...................................................................................................................................11

6.5 Breakwater Mound ...........................................................................................................................................11

6.6 Geotextile and Biaxial Geogrid Specifications .......................................................................................13

6.7 Waste Disposal ...................................................................................................................................................14

7.0 Closure ...................................................................................................................................................................................15

8.0 References ............................................................................................................................................................................16

List of Figures

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Site Plan Geotechnical Investigations

Figure 3: Profile

Figure 4: Cross Sections (Sheets 1 to 2)

Figure 5: Photo Plates

List of Appendices

Appendix A BC MoTI Soils Classification System

Appendix B 2018 Investigation Logs

Appendix C Laboratory Testing

Appendix D Slope Stability Analysis (Slope/W)

Appendix E Limitations



Project # KX052807.20 | 22 May 2020 Table 1

1.0 Introduction

As part of BC Hydro’s proposed Site C Clean Energy Project, portions of the existing Highway 29

alignment between Hudson’s Hope and Charlie Lake, BC, will be flooded during normal reservoir

operation. Before filling of the reservoir, the affected portions of the highway will be relocated away from

the reservoir area. As part of the project, the Lynx Creek Boat Launch is proposed to be relocated south of

the new Lynx Creek West highway alignment, east of the existing Millar Road. In support of the project,

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood), formerly Amec

Foster Wheeler, was retained by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. (Binnie) to provide geotechnical engineering

services in support of the proposed realignment of Highway 29 along with additional geotechnical

engineering services in support of design of the boat launch. The general location is shown in Figure 1,

and a plan of the proposed boat launch is provided in Figure 2.

This report presents a summary of the geotechnical subsurface investigations carried out and the resulting

data for the Lynx Creek Boat Launch site. This report includes a description of the scope of services,

methodology, factual results of the field investigations, associated soil testing, and discussion of

geotechnical engineering analysis and geotechnical recommendations. Investigation locations are shown

in Figure 2. Additional background geotechnical information is provided in our previous reports:

Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Lynx Creek, Highway 29 Definition Design, Site C Clean

Energy Project dated 5 March 2012, Geotechnical Data Report, Lynx Creek West, dated 16 March 2020,

and, Geotechnical Assessment and Design, Lynx Creek West (draft), 22 May 2020.




2.0 Scope

The general scope of Wood’s geotechnical field assessment for the Lynx Creek Boat Launch was as

described in Work Order 7 - Site C Clean Energy Project, Engineering Design Services for Hwy 29 Road

and Infrastructure, Western Segments: Functional Design, Version 4 – December 19, 2017, and pursuant to

the Sub-Consultant Agreement between Binnie and Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a

Division of Wood Canada Limited, dated 16 July 2018.

The geotechnical field assessment included the following activities:

• Review of relevant project background data;

• Preparation of a site-specific health and safety plan for the field work;

• Field reconnaissance to identify locations and access routes for the geotechnical investigation;

• Development of a geotechnical site investigation plan and budget;

• Preparation of site access plan and permit support information;

• Procurement and coordination of subcontractor equipment and support services for the geotechnical

investigation work involving utility location, tree fallers, Level 3 medics, wildlife monitoring, an

excavator contractor, traffic control, and a drill rig;

• Logistical and Safety Coordination of the access preparation and geotechnical investigation work with

concurrent activities by others, including property considerations, surveyors, archaeology and

environmental studies;

• Supervision of several phases of geotechnical field investigation, including logging of ground

conditions, collecting soil samples from test pits and test holes;

• Laboratory testing on selected soil samples;

• Preparation of this geotechnical report.




3.0 Project Description

The proposed boat launch site is located near the existing intersection of Highway 29 and Millar Road and

will provide public access to the Site C reservoir after filling. The access road to the Lynx Creek Boat

Launch is referenced as the L300A2-Line (Binnie 90% Detailed design drawings dated 9 March 2020) and

will form an intersection with the proposed Highway 29 realignment at approximately Sta. 1002+080. The

L300A1-Line begins at Sta. 300+011.711 where it will run generally south and parallel to the new highway

alignment for approximately 700 m before reaching the Lynx Creek Boat Launch parking area entrance.

The parking area is estimated at 9,000 m2, with access to the reservoir located at the eastern end of the

parking lot via boat ramp. Figure 2 depicts the proposed Lynx Creek Boat Launch site plan (Moffatt &

Nichol Lynx Creek Boat Launch 90% Design dated 3 February 2020) and location relative to the new

highway alignment.

The Lynx Creek Boat Launch will be situated on relatively flat-lying northeast-southwest oriented fluvial

terrace terrain that slopes gently down to the southeast towards the Peace River. The new access road

from the new highway alignment leading to the Lynx Creek Boat Launch will require shallow excavated

cuts and constructed fills less than 3 m in depth and height, respectively. Additional geotechnical

assessment information pertaining to the access road is provided in our draft report: Geotechnical

Assessment and Design, Lynx Creek West, 9 March 2020.

The boat launch parking area will require shallow cuts up to 3 m in depth to elevations as low as 462.5 m.

The parking area is to be unpaved and consist of high fines surface aggregate with a 4.5% grade dipping

towards the reservoir shoreline and a cross-fall of 1%. Planned earth works for the boat ramp consist of

cuts up to 5 m in depth. The grade of the proposed cast-in-place concrete ramp is planned to descend at

an angle of 15° into the reservoir with the end of the ramp terminating at an elevation of 458.8 m. BC

MoTI bridge end fill specification material with a thickness of 2.4 m is proposed to be placed underneath

the concrete ramp. The sides of the boat ramp are planned to consist of a riprap and filter stone overlying

a geotextile with proposed side slopes of 3H:1V. The ramp is to be protected by a breakwater mound

located on the upstream side of the ramp. The breakwater is planned to be constructed to a maximum

height of 3.0 m, with proposed side slopes of 2H:1V and a crest elevation of 462.5 m. The breakwater

mound is currently proposed to consist of a riprap shell, a “quarry run” core (a free draining sand and

gravel pit-run fill having less than 5% passing the 0.075mm sieve), with an (assumed non-woven)

geotextile separator placed between the core and the shell. An 11.0 m gangway and 31.3 m floating dock

are proposed along the northwest portion of the boat ramp.




4.0 Geotechnical Investigation

Geotechnical field investigation specific to the boat launch area (test pitting, drilling) began in August

2018 and was completed in September 2018. The field investigation was dictated by access

considerations, property requirements, environmental constraints, archaeological constraints, and weather

conditions. Photo plates depicting various aspects of the project alignment are provided in Figure 5.

4.1 Field Investigation Program

An Environmental Management Plan and an Environmental Protection Plan were prepared by Wood

specifically for the geotechnical field investigation program for this project site. The plans outlined the

environmental protocols and procedures that were to be followed during the geotechnical investigations.

Environmental monitors were on site for the duration of the project to conduct bird, wildlife, and invasive

plant surveys in the areas potentially impacted by the geotechnical field investigations. Additionally,

environmental monitors were present to observe on site equipment washing and the implementation of

erosion control measures.

Before and during the field investigation, archaeologically sensitive areas were identified by others. During

the field investigation work, archaeological monitors from Ecofor Consulting Ltd. with First Nations

representatives were on site. The archaeological monitors reviewed the upper 0.6 m to 1.0 m of soil to be

disturbed by geotechnical investigations within designated archaeological sites. The archaeological

monitors also reviewed access routes and surface disturbance locations associated with equipment

maneuvering. An archaeological monitor with First Nations representatives was also on site to observe

drilling and test pitting activities being conducted outside of archaeologically sensitive areas.

Before commencing the field investigation, a BC One Call referral was conducted by Wood representatives

to identify public utilities in the area. Additionally, when possible, private utility locations not covered by

BC One Call service were identified with the assistance of property owners. Where planned investigation

sites were identified to be within the limits of approach for a respective utility, the planned investigation

location was adjusted to maintain the required safe work distance.

During the field investigation, traffic control was provided by SL Enterprizes Ltd. An emergency

transportation vehicle (ETV), along with a Level 3 medic was provided by Blue Fox First Aid & Services Ltd.

A first aid trailer was provided by Raven Oilfield Rentals. A bear monitor was provided by Backcountry

Wildlife Monitoring to monitor bear and other wildlife activity within the vicinity of the investigation

locations. To facilitate access within and near treed areas, danger tree assessment and selective

tree/vegetation clearing were conducted by Northern Rockies Tree Service.

During geotechnical field investigation, a Wood or Binnie field representative was appointed as the Site

Safety Coordinator. A Wood representative was also appointed as a Site Field Coordinator to direct all on-

site activities. These representatives also coordinated the safety for other work such as archaeological,

environmental, and legal surveys that were conducted concurrently and independently of the

geotechnical field investigation, but were in the general area when geotechnical investigations were

ongoing.

Subsurface investigations were advanced while a qualified Wood representative monitored the work and

logged observations. Soil samples were collected during subsurface field investigations and were

classified according to the current BC MoTI soils classification system, rev. 90-04-26 (Appendix A), relevant

ASTM standards and Wood in-house standards. The Wood in-house standard for describing the

frequency of boulders and cobbles is as follows; isolated (0-10%), occasional (11-20%), and frequent

(>21%).




The 2018 subsurface investigations consisted of the following:

• 3 test holes (ranging in depth from 6.2 to 7.5 m below surface).

• 5 excavator test pits (ranging in depth from 4.8 to 5.5 m below surface).

The locations of completed investigation sites were initially recorded with a handheld GPS receiver with an

expected horizontal accuracy of ±3 m. The approximate elevation of each investigation location was

initially interpreted from the LiDAR topography data using the GPS coordinates. Binnie then surveyed the

completed investigation sites and provided more accurate location data which has been reported herein.

For locations that were not surveyed in, the initial handheld GPS and LiDAR topography data was relied

on. Two different coordinate systems (local stationing and UTM NAD 83) were used for various aspects of

this project. Investigation site coordinates in both systems are provided in Table B1 in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Test Pitting

W6 Ranch Ltd. provided excavator services. A Hyundai 210 LC-9 excavator with a clean-up (1 m wide)

bucket was used. The excavator was used for site access preparation and to conduct test pits, during

which a Wood representative collected grab and/or bulk samples. All test pits were backfilled and tamped

with the excavator bucket after being photographed and logged. In the absence of laboratory testing,

descriptions of soils were based on ASTM D2488-09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification

of Soils. Compactnessdescriptions of granular soils were based on qualitative visual assessment of particle

packing and ease of excavation. Test Pit Logs are provided in Appendix B.

4.1.2 Drilling

Westech Drilling Corp provided the drilling services. One multi-functional tracked drill was used by

Westech (Fraste PL). During the field investigation, ODEX drilling was the primary method used. Soil

samples were primarily collected via Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) along with grab samples. Blow

counts during the SPT tests were counted to establish N-values. The SPT tests were conducted as per

ASTM D1586 ( 140 lb. / 623 N automatic trip hammer, 50.8 mm diameter split spoon sampler) using NWJ

(67 mm outside diameter) rods. Test hole Summary Logs are provided in Appendix B.

4.2 Laboratory Testing Program

Soil samples obtained during the field program were submitted to Wood’s laboratories in Prince George

and Smithers, BC. Basic testing was performed in Prince George and Smithers laboratories, consisting of

moisture content (ASTM D2216), grain size distribution (ASTM C117/136), hydrometer (ASTM D422), and

soil plasticity limits (ASTM D4318). The results of the laboratory testing for soil properties are provided in

Appendix C. The results are also summarized in the logs provided in Appendix B.



Project # KX052807.20| 22 May 2020 Table 6

5.0 Site Conditions and Discussion

5.1 Geology

In general, the soils encountered during the investigation consisted of northeast-southwest oriented

alluvial and fluvial deposits. Figure 3 provides stick log depictions of the various materials encountered in

test pits and test holes.

Topsoil

Topsoil was encountered at all investigation locations. The topsoil generally had a thickness of 0.1 m

except for TP18-LXB-205 where the encountered thickness was 0.2 m.

Silt / Clay

Beneath the topsoil, a fine-grained sandy silt cap was encountered at all locations, which was in turn

underlain by a coarser grained gravel and sand deposit. The fine-grained soils are likely associated with

historical over-bank flood deposits of the Peace River. The fine-grained material can generally be

described as sandy silt, loose, non-plastic, light brown, and moist. The thickness of the silt varied between

0.9 to 3.0 m except for TP18-LXB-205 where the encountered thickness was 4.5 m.

A clay layer with an observed thickness of 0.2 m was encountered underlying the silt in TP18-LXB-205. The

clay was silty and contained trace to some fine-grained sand, was very stiff, low plastic, brown, and above

the plastic limit. A summary of lab testing performed on select fine-grained soil samples is provided in

Table 5-1, below.

Table 5-1: Summary of Encountered Fine-Grained Soils and Laboratory Testing Results

ID Material

Depth of

Sample

(m)

Gradation Atterberg

Limits Moisture

Content

%

SPT N

Value Gravel

%

Sand

%

Fines

%

PL LL

TH18-LXB-201 ML

0.1-0.6

0.6-1.2

1.4-2.0

2.1-2.3

-

-

0

-

-

-

35

-

-

-

65

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

6

12

13

4

9

7

-

TH18-LXB-202 ML

0.1-0.6

0.8-1.4

1.5-2.1

2.3-2.9

6.6-6.7

6.9-7.5

-

0

-

-

-

1

-

38

-

-

-

39

-

62

-

-

-

60

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

8

15

21

3

9

5

10

15

16

-

40

TH18-LXB-203 ML

0.0-0.6

0.8-1.4

1.5-2.1

2.3-2.9

-

-

0

-

-

-

23

-

-

-

77

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

9

15

17

5

6

8

8

TP18-LXB-201 ML 1.1-1.3

1.9-2.1

2.9-3.1

0

-

-

31

-

-

69

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

13

13

-

-

-

TP18-LXB-202 ML 1.1-1.3 - - - - - 8 -

TP18-LXB-203 ML 1.1-1.3 0 34 66 - - 13 -




ID Material

Depth of

Sample

(m)

Gradation Atterberg

Limits Moisture

Content

%

SPT N

Value Gravel

%

Sand

%

Fines

%

PL LL

TP18-LXB-204 ML 0.8-1.0 0 44 56 - - 10 -

TP18-LXB-205 ML

1.7-1.9

2.2-2.4

2.9-3.1

3.8-4.0

4.6-4.7

-

0

-

0

-

-

32

-

35

-

-

68

-

65

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

14

10

-

11

-

-

-

-

-

CL 4.7-4.8 - - - 20 39 25 -

Gravel / Sand

The silt was typically underlain by a coarse-grained fluvial deposit comprising a mixture of gravel, sand,

and silt. The coarse-grained material can generally be described as gravel and sand with trace to some silt

and occasional cobbles and boulders, poorly graded, dense to very dense, brown, and moist. The

thickness of the material varied between 1.1 to 3.9 m. Encountered elevations ranged from 455.8 to 466.8

m and the surface of this deposit generally appears to dip towards the southeast. TP18LXB-205 did not

fully penetrate the overlying silt deposit.

A relatively clean gravel was encountered underlying the poorly graded gravels and sands within TP18-

LXB-202, TP18-LXB-203, and TP18-LXB-204. The relatively clean gravel can be described as sandy gravel

to gravel and sand with trace silt and occasional cobbles and boulders, poorly graded to well graded,

compact to dense, light brown to grey, and moist. This layer varied in thickness from 1.4 to 3.3 m. A silt

layer with the properties similar to that overlying the gravel deposit was encountered underlying the

poorly graded sand and gravel in TH18-LXB-202 with a thickness of 0.9 m. A summary of lab testing

performed on select coarse-grained soil samples is provided in Table 5-2, below.

Table 5-2: Summary of Encountered Coarse-Grained Soils and Laboratory Testing Results

ID Material

Depth of

Sample

(m)

Gradation Atterberg

Limits Moisture

Content

%

SPT N

Value Gravel

%

Sand

%

Fines

%

PL LL

TH18-LXB-201

SM1 2.3-2.7 35 50 15 - - 2 45

GP-GM

2.9-3.2

3.7-4.3

4.4-4.8

5.2-5.6

5.9-6.2

-

57

-

-

-

-

35

-

-

-

-

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

8

7

7

6

>50

44

>50

>50

>50

TH18-LXB-202 GM1

3.0-3.6

3.8-4.4

4.6-5.2

5.3-5.6

6.1-6.6

48

-

-

-

-

38

-

-

-

-

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

2

3

2

3

94

37

52

>50

70




ID Material

Depth of

Sample

(m)

Gradation Atterberg

Limits Moisture

Content

%

SPT N

Value Gravel

%

Sand

%

Fines

%

PL LL

TH18-LXB-203 GM1

3.0-3.3

3.8-4.2

4.6-4.8

5.3-5.5

6.1-6.2

49

-

-

-

-

37

-

-

-

-

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

6

3

3

3

>50

>50

>50

>50

>50

TP18-LXB-201 GP-GM 3.7-3.9

4.7-4.9

61

-

33

-

6

-

-

-

-

-

3

2

-

-

TP18-LXB-202

GM2 1.9-2.1

2.8-3.0

44

-

35

-

21

-

-

-

-

-

3

3

-

-

GW 4.0-4.2

5.3-5.5

59

-

39

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

-

TP18-LXB-203

SM2 2.0-2.2

2.8-3.0

38

-

39

-

23

-

-

-

-

-

8

5

-

-

GP 3.7-3.9

4.9-5.1

-

63

-

34

-

3

-

-

-

-

5

2

-

-

TP18-LXB-204

SP-SM 1.9-2.1 - - - - - 4 -

GP 2.8-3.0

3.8-4.0

5.2-5.4

73

-

-

25

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

2

-

-

-

5.2 Groundwater Conditions

Test holes and test pits were completed with a maximum termination depth corresponding with elevation

452.0 m. Groundwater was not encountered in any test pits or test holes at the time of the investigation. It

should be noted that groundwater conditions fluctuate seasonally and the groundwater conditions during

construction may be different from what was encountered during the field investigation, and at areas

between investigation locations. It is considered likely that the groundwater level corresponds with the

water level in the adjacent Peace River channel.




6.0 Geotechnical Design Considerations and Recommendations

Based on the office and field investigations to date, there does not appear to be any significant

geohazards or geotechnical conditions that would preclude the construction of Lynx Creek Boat Launch as

proposed. Section 6.1 through Section 6.6 provide geotechnical recommendations using the BC Hydro

Site C – Highway 29 Relocation Geotechnical Design Criteria (Version 2.8 - DRAFT) for the proposed boat

launch near Lynx Creek. Recommendations are based on specific base mapping data and design drawings

provided to Wood on 3 February 2020. The following recommendations also reference the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure’s 2016 version of the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction

(SS2016), which are assumed to be used for the project construction, unless updated prior to construction.

6.1 General Recommendations

Geotechnical conditions for parking lot and associated boat launch area construction are favourable, but a

portion of the boat launch earthworks subgrade will consist of frost susceptible and/or erosion

susceptible fine-grained soils. Subgrade soils at the proposed grade on the west end of the parking area

are anticipated to consist of coarse-granular (sand and gravel) soils, whereas fine-grained (silty

sand/sandy silt) soils are anticipated on the east end. Based on the completed investigations and

associated current design, there is insufficient subsurface information available to conclude and identify

the associated station/area where this transition will occur. The location of the transition depends on

whether or not one assumes the contact between the overlying silt and underlying granular soils east of

TP18-LXB-204 is horizontal or dipping down to the east. The recommendations provided below

conservatively assume a dipping contact and that the subgrade and associated cut slopes will encounter

primarily fine-grained and erodible soils.

Based on the reservoir shoreline report completed by BGC (BGC, 2012) the identified preliminary impact

lines (that estimate the anticipated long-term (100-year) beach erosion and slope regression along the

reservoir shoreline) bisect a section of the parking lot and associated boat launch components. If not

mitigated by erosion control measures, over time this area will be subject to erosion and instability. The

approximate area identified for additional erosion control measures is shown on Figure 2, however the

ultimate location, type of mitigation, and extent of the erosion control measures is to be assessed and

designed by others. Prior to construction, Wood should review the proposed erosion control measures to

check for stability considerations.

For construction of the proposed parking area, breakwater mound subgrade, boat ramp subgrade and

channel excavation Wood recommends the following:

• Maximum cut slopes of 3H:1V.

• Fine-grained soil from cuts should be considered unsuitable for re-use and be disposed of.

Coarse-grained soil from cuts are not anticipated in significant volume but may be used for

construction borrow purposes provided material specifications are met.

• Significant groundwater seepage is not anticipated in planned excavations. However, in the event

that seepage is encountered, a field review by a geotechnical engineer will be required and the

cut may need to be protected from piping erosion by placement of a granular drainage blanket

on the face of the slope from the base of the ditch to a minimum of 2 m above the seepage zone.

• Cut slopes in the silt and sand will be extremely susceptible to surface runoff erosion. Protection

via coarse-grained granular surface blankets, erosion control matting and/or hydro-seeding with

an appropriate vegetation seed mix as soon as possible after soil disturbance is complete.




• To establish subgrade, remove any existing topsoil, existing old foundations/fills, along with any

softened/loosened or otherwise unsuitable subgrade material. A minimum average stripping

depth of 200 mm should be used. However, required stripping may be deeper in areas not

specifically tested.

• Deposits of unsuitable subgrade soils that are too deep to be practically removed will require

additional subgrade improvements as directed by a geotechnical engineer at the time of

construction. Subgrade improvements may consist of (but are not limited to) use of geotextile

separator(s), biaxial geogrid layer(s), granular backfills and/or other methods.

• Crown the subgrade to promote drainage by providing a minimum cross fall of 2% as soon as

possible following exposure of the subgrade soils. This will help minimize softening of the fine-

grained subgrade materials due to infiltration of surface water from precipitation events that

occur following exposure of the subgrade.

• Minimize disturbance of the subgrade by limiting vehicle and construction traffic over the

prepared subgrade surface. If the subgrade surface is disturbed and becomes softened, removal

of softened soils and replacement with suitable fill will be required.

• Surface drainage and drainage from under the parking lot structure should be directed to a ditch

or a subdrain system but should not be directed over the face of potentially unstable or erodible

slopes without additional erosion protection.

• All subgrade preparation, fill placement and fill compaction operations should be observed by

qualified geotechnical engineering field personnel to confirm that the construction is in

accordance with the recommendations in this report and SS 2016.

6.2 Parking Area Granular Structure

The recommended parking area granular structure is dependent on the nature of the soil subgrade that

will be encountered. Table 6-1 provides a recommended structure, for two different subgrade conditions

(Type A for well-drained granular subgrades, Type B for poorly drained and/or fine-grained subgrades). As

the transition station/area between the fine-grained and granular subgrade is unknown it is

recommended that Type B is used for design purposes and modified, if needed, to a Type A at the time of

construction, based on exposed subgrade type and thickness. In addition, subgrade areas comprising

fine-grained soils should also be covered with a Class 2 non-woven geotextile (as described in Section 6.6

below), prior to pavement structure (Type B) placement.

Table 6-1: Recommended Parking Lot Structure

6.3 Boat Launch/Ramp Considerations

At the currently proposed ramp location, it is anticipated that the fine-grained and frost susceptible

subgrade soils will extend to the full depth of the proposed cut and to a considerable depth below the

proposed ramp. Alternately, ground insulation can be considered. It is understood that the current boat

ramp is proposed to be constructed using cast-in-place concrete, which is not very tolerant to frost heave.

To reduce the effect of the frost heave, typically in northeastern British Columbia unheated slab-on-grade

Subgrade Type Granular

Structure

High Fines

Surfacing

Aggregate

Crushed Base

Course SGSB

Well Drained Granular Soils (sand

and gravel <10% fines) A 100 mm 300 mm 300 mm

Poorly Drained or Fine-Grained

Soils (>10% fines) B 100 mm 300 mm 600 mm




foundations are placed on non-frost susceptible soils (free draining, sand and gravel) that are at least

2.4 m thick. For this site, such an approach would require significant subexcavations and replacement with

non-frost susceptible granular fill. Wood has developed three options for consideration below. There are

other available options and if needed Wood can provide additional comments and recommendations:

Option 1 – Excavate and replace the native fine-grained frost susceptible soil with structural fill (Bridge

End Fill as defined in SS 2016) to a minimum depth of 2.4 m or to free draining (<5% material passing the

0.075mm sieve) native sand and gravel, whichever comes first. The width of the base of the excavation

should be a minimum of 1.5 m wider on either side of the ramp. Based on the current design (12 m wide

ramp) this will amount to a minimum width of 15 m at the base of the excavation with side slopes

appropriate for temporary excavations extending to surface.

Option 2 – Rigid insulation could be used to reduce the excavation and replacement depth. The thickness

and extension of the insulation beyond the concrete ramp is a function of the insulation placement depth.

If this option is selected, Wood could provide additional analysis and recommendations associated with

the use of rigid insulation. Additional boundary inputs (maximum excavation depth, insulation thickness,

and excavation width/length extent beyond the footprint of the concrete ramp) would be required.

Option 3 – Use an alternate boat ramp surface that is more tolerant of frost induced movements, e.g. pre-

cast articulating concrete blocks or slabs, placed on a minimum of 1.0 m of free draining bridge end fill

(Structural Fill). This subgrade would still be frost susceptible, however the articulating pre-cast concrete

would allow the structure to flex, while the 600 mm thick granular structure will provide sufficient bearing

capacity and support for the ramp structure.

Regardless of the selected option, to provide a uniform subgrade for the concrete a minimum 150 mm

thick WGB layer should be placed directly under the concrete and a non-woven Class 2 geotextile

separator, as described in Section 6.6, should be placed between the native soils and granular fill at

subgrade and should extend up to at least 2 m above HWL (463.8 m). Refer to Section 6.1 for additional

general subgrade preparation comments and recommendations.

6.4 Temporary Excavations

Temporary excavations greater than 1.2 m in depth, where worker entry is required should be constructed

in accordance with the current Part 20.78 through 20.95 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation

as per WorkSafeBC. The construction contractor, however, is ultimately responsible for the safety of

temporary excavation slopes. Should excavations encounter groundwater, flatter slopes than those

recommended by WorkSafeBC could be required. Excavations greater than 1.2 m in depth with steeper

slopes and those subject to seepage or sloughing should not be entered unless they are shored, braced

or sloped as approved by the contractor’s geotechnical engineer.

6.5 Breakwater Mound

A breakwater mound up to 3.0 m in height is proposed on the upstream side of the boat ramp.

Subsurface soils at the proposed breakwater location are anticipated to consist of fine-grained soils.

Analyses were conducted with the understanding that a compacted free draining sand and gravel fill

(would be used as the core material for the breakwater mound. A nominal riprap thickness of 1.15 m was

typically modelled for the riprap shown in the design configuration based on information provided by

Moffat & Nichol. If the riprap thickness differs significantly, Wood should be notified and the stability may

need to be reanalyzed.




To assess the stability of the proposed breakwater structure, limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were

undertaken at Sta. 0+200 using the proprietary computer program Slope/W by GeoSlope International

Inc. The Morgenstern half-slice function was used to resolve interslice forces. The geometry of the

breakwater and stratigraphy was based on available drawings provided by Moffatt & Nichol and

subsurface information obtained during the geotechnical field investigation. A summary of the

parameters used in the stability analysis is provided in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: Geotechnical Material Properties for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses

Soil Type Unit Weight

(kN/m3)

Limit Equilibrium

Shear Strength Model

Cohesion

(kPa)

Angle of Internal

Friction (°)

Free Draining Sand

and Gravel Fill 21 Mohr-Coulomb 0 36

Riprap 22 Mohr-Coulomb 0 43

Loose to Compact

Sandy Silt (Native) 19 Mohr-Coulomb 0 29

*Compaction relative to Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

The assumed minimum required factor of safety for global long-term slope stability for a typical

consequence slope with a typical degree of understanding was 1.54, assuming a reservoir at maximum

normal reservoir water level at elev. 461. 8 m. The assumed minimum required factor of safety for the

emergency drawdown scenario for the reservoir was 1.24. For the proposed breakwater design as

configured with a 2H:1V slope on the design drawings provided by Moffatt & Nichol the factor of safety

requirements for the maximum normal reservoir water level was not met. Consequently, a number of

variations to the breakwater configuration were modelled using various assumptions about compaction of

the core, flatter slope angles, and thicker riprap. A summary of limit equilibrium slope stability analyses is

provided in Table 6-3, below. The individual analysis outputs of the stability analyses are provided in

Appendix D.

Table 6-3: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses for Breakwater Construction

Design Case Core Material Slope Angle

Riprap

Thickness

(m)

Breakwater

FOS

Normal Operating Level Free Draining Sand

and Gravel Fill 2H:1V 1.15 1.485

Drawdown 1.492


and Gravel Fill 2.2H:1V 1.15

1.575

Drawdown 1.494


and Gravel Fill 2H:1V 1.6

1.555

Drawdown 1.561

Based on the completed analyses, the required factor of safety for slope stability of the breakwater

mound can be achieved by each of the following:

a) Flatten the slope angle to 2.2H:1V

b) Thicken the riprap to 1.6m




Maintenance of adequate slope stability is also predicated upon preservation of the existing ground

profile beyond the toes of the proposed breakwater mound. There is a need to protect not only the

inundated portion of the breakwater, but also protect some of the adjacent original ground that may be

subject to attrition by longer-term shoreline erosion. It is anticipated that armoring the shoreline and

possibly some portion of the reservoir bottom adjacent the toes of the breakwater mound would be

required to address this issue.

6.6 Geotextile and Biaxial Geogrid Specifications

Where non-woven geotextiles are required, the recommended specifications listed in Table 6-4, below

should be used.

Table 6-4: Non-Woven Geotextile Specifications

1. Elongation > 50%, as per ASTM D4632

2. Based on minimum average roll values (as per ASTM C 4759) in the weaker principal direction

3. Based on maximum average roll values

Where geogrid is required for local subgrade improvement during construction, the recommended

specifications for a biaxial polypropylene geogrid are provided in Table 6-5, below.

Table 6-5: Biaxial Polypropylene Geogrid Specifications

Property Test Method Value

Tensile Strength @ 5% Strain, Machine Direction1 ASTM D 6637 ≥ 11.8 kN/m

Tensile Strength @ 5% Strain, Cross Machine Direction1 ASTM D 6637 ≥ 18.8 kN/m

Maximum Aperture Size 50 mm

Minimum Aperture Size 15 mm

Flexural Stiffness1 ASTM D 7748 ≥ 700 g-cm

Roll Width 4.0 +/- 0.1 m 1. Based on minimum average roll values (as per ASTM C4759).

Property Test Method Class 1 Class 2

Material Type Non-Woven1 Non-Woven1

Grab Tensile Strength2 ASTM D 4632 ≥ 900 N ≥ 700 N

Sewn Seam Strength2 ASTM D 4632 ≥ 810 ≥ 630 N

Tear Strength2 ASTM D 4533 ≥ 350 ≥ 250 N

Puncture Strength2 ASTM D 6241 ≥ 1925 ≥ 1375 N

Permittivity ASTM D4491 ≥ 0.2 sec-1 ≥ 0.1 sec-1

Apparent Opening Size3 ASTM D 4751 < 0.43 mm < 0.22 mm

Recommended Application + 50 kg class riprap

drainage layers

subgrade separation

- 50 kg class riprap




6.7 Waste Disposal

The following procedures are recommended for siting and placing waste from unsuitable or surplus soil

materials generated by the project:

• Waste materials should only be placed on slopes with a gradient of 10° (approx. 5.7H:1V) or less

and should not be placed in the vicinity of the crests of other slopes where they could have a de-

stabilizing influence.

• Do not site waste areas within or near environmentally sensitive locations such as riparian zones,

seepage zones, or where the waste will cause ponding of water or redirection of drainage patterns

(including ditches).

• Up to a maximum height of 3 m waste materials should be placed with a maximum slope of 3H:1V.

Place the waste in maximum 1 m thick lifts and level with tracked equipment, as required.

• Do not site waste piles adjacent to existing and proposed road fills, where practicable. Waste piles

placed adjacent to road fills are often encountered during future road widening and upgrading

projects, frequently leading to costly removal (and schedule delays) during construction.

• Waste piles placed adjacent to road fills should not block drainage from existing fills and should be

kept at least 1 m below existing or proposed road pavement structure subgrade and/or any other

granular fills that are likely to transmit drainage.

• Contour the waste material to promote surface drainage. To maintain positive drainage from the

fill surface while allowing for long-term settlement of the loosely placed fill, use a minimum 10%

cross fall slopes to crown the waste material.

• Use appropriate short-term measures to control off-site transport of fines in runoff (such as silt

fencing). Maintain the short-term controls until effective long-term measures (such as vegetation

cover) are established.

Subject to relevant environmental and land use requirements, disposal of surplus excavation material

(waste) is not anticipated to be a geotechnical concern, especially if deposited on fluvial terrace areas

and/or below the reservoir inundation level.




8.0 References

Amec Foster Wheeler. (5 March 2012). Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Proposed Lynx Creek Segment

Highway 29 Definition Design.

BGC Engineering Inc. (2012). BC Hydro, Site C Clean Energy Project, Preliminary Reservoir Impact Lines.

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (1 July 2016). 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway

Construction.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions. (20 February 2020). BC Hydro Site C – Highway 29

Relocation Geotechnical Design Criteria (Version 2.8).

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions. (16 March 2020). Geotechnical Data Report Lynx Creek West

Segment.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions. (22 May 2020). Geotechnical Assessment and Design Lynx

Creek West Segment (draft).

Figures

Figure 1: Site Location Plan Figure 2: Site Plan Geotechnical Investigations Figure 3: Profile Figure 4: Cross Sections (Sheets 1 to 2) Figure 5: Photo Plates

L1000A21Design

Alignment

Hwy 29

P e a c eR i v e r

L y n x

C r e e k

D r yC r e e k

F a r r e l l

Cre

ek

LynxCreekWest

LynxCreekEast

E

L300 DesignAlignment

Lynx CreekBoat Launch

Notes:1. Lynx Creek boat launch location provided by Moffat & Nichol CAD file 'Z959805- SP01(UTM).dwg', received 5 February 2020.2. L300 centreline alignment and L1000A21 centreline alignment provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file '20200306 - Lynx 90DD- UTM.dwg', received 9 March 2020.3. Image provided by Bing Maps Road - © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 HERE.

LegendL300 Centreline Alignment

L1000A21 Centreline Alignment

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

_̂

VancouverKamloops

ChetwyndFort St John

PrinceGeorge

ProjectLocation

This drawing was originally produced in colour.

CLIENT:

S:\Internal\KX052807-GIS\1-LynxCreek\LC-BoatLaunch-Fig1-SiteLocPlan.mxd

SCALE:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHK'D BY:

DWN BY: TITLE:

PROJECT:REV NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

HIGHWAY NO. 29LYNX CREEK WESTUTM Zone 10

NAD 83

NH

BB SITE LOCATION PLANGEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN

LYNX CREEK BOAT LAUNCH

A

FIGURE 1

KX052807.20

MARCH 2020

$

1:150,000

0 2 4 6 81km

3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045

WoodEnvironment & Infrastructure Solutions

a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)

BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE &ASSOCIATES LTD.

1001+6

00

1001

+700 30

0+40

0

300+

500

300+

600

300+

700

LIMIT OF300+780.000CONSTRUCTION

!!

!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

F

F

FF

FF

!A

!A

!A

")

")

")

")

")

P e a c e R i v e r

Milla

rRoa

d

Highway

29

Profile

Cross Section0+040

Cross Section0+200

TP18-LXB-201TP18-LXB-202

TP18-LXB-203

TP18-LXB-204

TP18-LXB-205

TH18-LXB-201

TH18-LXB-202

TH18-LXB-203

Notes:1. Boat launch detail provided by R.F. Binnie &

Associates Ltd. CAD file 'Z959805-SP01(UTM).dwg', received 5 February 2020.

2. L300 centreline alignment, L1000A21 centreline alignment, slope stake lines and supporting linework provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file '20200306 - Lynx 90DD-UTM.dwg', received 9 March 2020.

3. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.

4. Hillshade imagery processed from LIDAR provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.

Legend!A 2018 Test Hole Location") 2018 Test Pit Location

L300 Centreline AlignmentL1000A21 Centreline AlignmentOther Centreline AlignmentSlope Stake Line

Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)

Erosion Impact Line (EIL)Stability Impact Line (SIL)

!!

! ! ! !!!!!

Approximate Location Of Erosion ControlMeasures (To Be Determined By Others)


CLIENT:

S:\Internal\KX052807-GIS\1-LynxCreek\LC-BoatLaunch-Fig2-SitePlan-LIDAR-HS.mxd

SCALE:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHK'D BY:

DWN BY: TITLE:

PROJECT:REV NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

HIGHWAY NO. 29LYNX CREEKUTM Zone 10

NAD 83

NH

BB SITE PLAN WITH LIDAR HILLSHADEGEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN


A

FIGURE 2

KX052807.20

MARCH 2020


WoodEnvironment & Infrastructure Solutions


$

0 40 80 120 16020m

1:2,500

BC HYDRO c/oR.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.

460

465

Elevation (m

)

0+000

Station (m)

0+040 0+080 0+2000+120 0+160

455

0+240

Cross Section

Station 0+040

See Figure 4 Sheet 1

Cross Section

Station 0+200

See Figure 4 Sheet 2

0+280

460

465

Elevation (m

)

455

0+320

PARKING AREA

EG-LIDAR

CHANNEL

TOP OF BREAKWATER

EL 462.5m

(BEYOND)

HWL EL 461.8m

LWL EL 460.0m

EL 458.8m

RAMP

HIGHWAY

29

MILLAR ROAD

TS

ML

GM1

ML

0.1

3

6.6

7.5

5

10

15

16

94

37

52

R

70

40

5

8

15

21

3

2

3

2

3

3

9

m

TH18-LXB-202N WW

TS

ML

GP

0.1

1.3

3.7

5.1

13

8

5

5

2

m

TP18-LXB-203WW TS

ML

SP-SM

GP

0.1

1

2.1

5.4

10

4

1

1

2

m

TP18-LXB-204WW

TS

ML

CL

0.2

4.74.8

9

14

10

1125 20 39

m

TP18-LXB-205WW PL LL

SM2

END

END

END

470 470

N/A

PROJECTION:

N/A

DATUM:

PROFILE

STATION 0+000 TO 0+240



PROJECT:

TITLE:

REV. NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

KX052807.20

A

CLIENT:

DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

MARCH 2020

DATE:

SCALE:

NH

AS NOTED

BB

HIGHWAY NO. 29

LYNX CREEK WEST


FIGURE 3

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions



BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.

Notes:

1. SPT N values and associated laboratory testing data provided with the Sticklogs may not be presented

at representative elevations. Please refer to Appendix B – Investigation Logs for additional details.

2. Profile detail provided by Moffat & Nichol CAD file 'Z959805-SP01(UTM).dwg', received 5 February

2020.

Legend

Profile

Existing Ground Surface

0m 10 20 30 40

H 1 : 1000

V 1 : 125

0m 1.25 2.5 3.75 4

460

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Offset (m)

℄E

levation (m

)

450

470

-50

460

Elevation (m

)

450

470

TSML

SP-SM

GP

0.11

2.1

5.4

10

41

1

2

m

TP18-LXB-204WW

ENDPARKING AREA

N/A

PROJECTION:

N/A

DATUM:

CROSS SECTION 0+040



PROJECT:

TITLE:

REV. NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

KX052807.20

A

CLIENT:

DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

MARCH 2020

DATE:

SCALE:

NH

1:400

BB

HIGHWAY NO. 29

LYNX CREEK WEST






FIGURE 4

SHEET NO. 1 of 2

Notes:



2. Typical cross section and existing ground surface provided by Moffat & Nichol CAD file

'Z959805-SP01(UTM).dwg', received 5 February 2020.

Legend

Typical Cross Section


1 : 400

0m 4 8 12 16

460

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Offset (m)

℄E

levation (m

)

450

470

-50

460

Elevation (m

)

450

470

TSML

ML

0.1

3

6.67.5

5101516943752R7040

58

15213232339

m

TH18-LXB-202N WW

GM1

ENDCHANNEL

RUBBLE MOUND

BREAKWATER

HWL

LWL

N/A

PROJECTION:

N/A

DATUM:

CROSS SECTION 0+200



PROJECT:

TITLE:

REV. NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

KX052807.20

A

CLIENT:

DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

MARCH 2020

DATE:

SCALE:

NH

1:400

BB

HIGHWAY NO. 29

LYNX CREEK WEST






FIGURE 4

SHEET NO. 2 of 2

Notes:



2. Typical cross section and existing ground surface provided by Moffat & Nichol CAD file

'Z959805-SP01(UTM).dwg', received 5 February 2020.

Legend

Typical Cross Section


1 : 400

0m 4 8 12 16

FS OCT 2019

DO KX052807.20

N/A -

N/A

NTS

FIGURE 5

Sheet No. 1 of 1

R.F Binnie & Associates Ltd.

Geotechnical Assessment and Design

Highway No. 29

Lynx Creek Boat Launch

Wood Environment & Infrastructure

Solutions3456 Opie Crescent, Prince George, BC, V2N 2P9

Photo Plate

CLIENT DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

SCALE:

PROJECT

TITLE

PROJECT NO:

REV. NO.:

DATE:

PHOTO 1: View north along existing Millar Road, paralleling access road to new boat

launch, on June 1, 2011.

PHOTO 2: View northeast along existing Highway 29 near TH18-LXB-203 on August 29,

2018.

PHOTO 3: Sandy silt cap encountered throughout the boat launch investigation. Photo taken

at TP19-LX-502 along the proposed access road to the boat launch on April 11, 2019.

PHOTO 4: Typical drilling operations, drill pad at test hole TH18-LXB-201 on August 31,

2018.

\\PRG-FS1\Projects\Projects\KX05280-SiteC-Hy29\TechWorkFiles\DetailedGeotech-LynxCreek\Lynx Creek Boat Launch\Reporting\Data Report\Drawings\Photo Plates\KX052807.20 Photo Plates.xlsx

Appendix A

BC MoTI Soils Classification System

MOTI SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Major

Divisions

Symbol

Soil Type

Coarse Grained Soils

Grave

l and

Grave

lly Soils

GW Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM* Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC* Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

Sand and

Sandy Soils SW* Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little to no fines

SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM* Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

SC* Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Fine Grained Soils

Silts and

Clays LL<

50

ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts

with slight plasticity

CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays

OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low palsticity

Silts and

Clays LL>

50

MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts

Organic Soils Pt Peat and other highly organic soils

Topsoil TS Topsoil with roots, etc.

Cobbles SB Rock fragments and cobbles, particle size 75mm to 300mm diameter

Boulders LB Boulders, particle size over 300mm in diameter

*GP-GM ; GP-GC; SP-SM; SP-SC; 6-12% Passing #200 (0.075mm) Sieve

* GM1; GC1; SM1; SC1; 12-20% Passing #200 (0.075mm) Sieve




Appendix B

Investigation Logs

Appendix B

2018 Investigation Coordinates

Northing Easting ELV Northing Easting

TH18-LXB-201 214694.216 572680.827 465.602 6214699.214 572687.418 Survey by R.F. Binnie on 5-Sep-2018

TH18-LXB-202 214557.531 572690.338 459.500 6214562.584 572696.925 Survey by R.F. Binnie on 5-Sep-2018

TH18-LXB-203 214429.489 572631.863 458.750 6214434.594 572638.474 Survey by R.F. Binnie on 31-Aug-2018

TP18-LXB-201 214671.963 572450.679 469.648 6214676.970 572457.363 Survey by R.F. Binnie on 1-Sep-2018





CommentLocal UTM - NAD 83

Hole ID

OD

EX

0.1m

2.3m

2.9m

6.2m

S01A

S01B

S02

S03

S04A

S04B

S05

S06

S07

S08

S09

S04 refusal 50 for 64 mm





75

79

92

83

50

42

65

72

84

TOPSOIL.

SILT, sandy (fine to medium grained), traceclay, loose, non-plastic, layered, red brown,occasional organics, moist.-below 0.3 m, light brown

-below 1.2 m, varved

SAND (fine to coarse grained) ANDGRAVEL (fine to coarse grained), some silt,occasional cobbles, poorly graded, maximumparticle size observed > 40 mm,sub-rounded to rounded, dense to verydense, brown, moist.

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to coarse grained), trace tosome silt, occasional cobbles, poorly graded,maximum particle size observed > 40 mm,sub-rounded to rounded, dense to verydense, brown, moist.

-below 5.8 m, sandy

End of Test Hole at 6.2 m.No groundwater encountered.Test Hole backfilled with bentonite chips andcuttings.

TS

ML

SM1

GP-GM

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

Sieve (Sa#S03)G:0% S:35% F:65%Clay:5% Silt:60%

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

Sieve (Sa#S04B)G:35% S:50% F:15%

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

Sieve (Sa#S06)G:57% S:35% F:8%

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:65 S:25 F:10}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-LXB-201

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6

Driller: Geoff Boyer

Drill Make/Model: Fraste PL

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Lynx Creek, 29

Date(s) Drilled: 31/08/2018Project: Highway No. 29 Lynx Creek Boat Launch

465

464

463

462

461

460

459

Alignment: TBDPrepared by:

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

Drilling Method: ODEX

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Logged by: PO Reviewed by: DO

7

0

Wood Environment &Infrastructure Solutions

Datum: Ground Surface - Local Coordinates

COMMENTSTESTING

Drillers Estimate{G % S % F %}

KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG

Company: Westech Drilling Corp

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon

Northing/Easting: 214694.216 , 572680.827

Elevation: 465.6 m

Station/Offset: TBD

Coordinates Surveyed 2018-09-05

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Depth of Summary Log: 6.2 mDepth to Top of Rock:

Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20

SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm)

100 200 300 400 Pocket Penetrometer Shear Strength (kPa)

1223

4545

3344

3202550

1355

7212320

83950

474869

2351

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

28

7

6

12

13

2

10

8

7

7

6

SPT

OD

EX

0.1m

3m

6.6m

S01

S02

S03

S04

S05

S06

S07

S08

S09A

S09B


63

75

88

92

83

58

46

63

63

TOPSOIL.

SILT AND SAND (fine grained), trace clay,loose to compact, non-plastic, light brown,moist.

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to medium grained), trace tosome silt, poorly graded, maximum particlesize observed > 35 mm, sub-rounded torounded, dense to very dense, brown, moist.

SILT AND SAND (fine to medium grained),trace gravel (fine grained), dense,non-plastic, red brown, moist.

TS

ML

GM1

ML

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

Sieve (Sa#S02)G:0% S:38% F:62%Clay:6% Silt:56%

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

{G:0 S:35 F:65}

Sieve (Sa#S05)G:48% S:38% F:14%

{G:50 S:40 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:0 S:40 F:60}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6

Driller: Ryan Horning


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



459

458

457

456

455

454

453


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Logged by: MN/POReviewed by: DO

7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 459.5 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 2

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



2323

3556

5787

58810

23553943

7241342

5232948

1050

12264424

Refusal

5

8

15

21

3

2

3

2

3

3

SPT

OD

EX

7.5m

S10 96SILT AND SAND (fine to medium grained),trace gravel (fine grained), dense,non-plastic, red brown, moist. (continued)


ML

Sieve (Sa#S10)G:1% S:39% F:60%

8

9

10

11

12

13

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)8

9

10

11

12

13



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



452

451

450

449

448

447

446


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


77

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


14

7



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 459.5 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 2 of 2

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



12202024

9

SPT

OD

EX

0m

3m

6.2m

S01

S02

S03

S04

S05

S06

S07

S08

S09






33

63

63

63

75

67

25

77

100

TOPSOIL.

SILT, some sand to sandy (fine grained),loose, non-plastic, light orange brown, moist.

-below 0.8 m, light brown

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to medium grained), trace tosome silt, poorly graded, maximum particlesize observed > 40 mm, sub-rounded torounded, very dense, brown, moist.


TS

ML

GM1

{G:0 S:20 F:80}

{G:0 S:20 F:80}

Sieve (Sa#S03)G:0% S:23% F:77%

{G:0 S:20 F:80}

Sieve (Sa#S05)G:49% S:37% F:14%

{G:55 S:35 F:10}

{G:65 S:25 F:10}

{G:60 S:25 F:15}

{G:45 S:45 F:10}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



458

457

456

455

454

453

452


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 458.75 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

H.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



2234

2424

4445

4445

4052

144962

450

3050

60

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

Refusal

6

9

15

17

4

6

3

3

3

SPT

0.1m

3.1m

5.3m

G01

G02

G03

G04

G05

TOPSOIL.

SILT, sandy (fine grained), trace clay,compact, non-plastic, light brown, moist.-from 0.1 to 0.5 m, orange brown

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to coarse grained), trace silt,occasional cobbles, occasional boulders,poorly graded, maximum particle sizeobserved = 400 mm, sub-rounded, dense,light brown, moist.

-below 3.9 m, layers of silty sand, grey

End of Test Pit at 5.3 m.No sloughing.No groundwater encountered.Test Pit backfilled with excavated material.

TS

ML

GP-GM

Sieve (Sa#G01)G:0% S:31% F:69%Clay:6% Silt:63%

{G:0 S:30 F:70}

{G:5 S:30 F:70}

Sieve (Sa#G04)G:61% S:33% F:6%

{G:60 S:35 F:5}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Test Pit #: TP18-LXB-201

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6

Operator: Chris Gerhart

Excavator: Hyundai 210 LC-9

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Lynx Creek, BC


469

468

467

466

465

464

463


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Logged by: MN Reviewed by: DO

7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

TEST PIT LOG

Company: W6 Ranch

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 469.65 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

P.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



10

13

13

3

2

0.1m

1.8m

3.2m

5.5m

G01

G02

G03

G04

G05

TOPSOIL.

SILT, sandy (fine grained), compact,non-plastic, light brown, moist.-from 0.1 to 0.4 m, orange brown

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (fine to medium grained), silty,ocasional boulders, occasional cobbles,poorly graded, maximum particle sizeobserved = 300 mm, sub-rounded, dense,light brown, moist.

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained) ANDSAND (medium to coarse grained), tracesilt, occasional cobbles, occasional boulders,well graded, maximum particle size observed= 450 mm, sub-rounded, dense, light greybrown to grey brown, dry to moist.


TS

ML

GM2

GW

{G:0 S:80 F:20}

Sieve (Sa#G02)G:44% S:35% F:21%

{G:45 S:40 F:15}

Sieve (Sa#G04)G:59% S:39% F:2%

{G:55 S:40 F:5}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



467

466

465

464

463

462

461


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

TEST PIT LOG

Company: W6 Ranch

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 467.54 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

P.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



8

3

3

1

1

0.1m

1.3m

3.7m

5.1m

G01

G02

G03

G04

G05

TOPSOIL.

SILT, sandy (fine grained), compact,non-plastic, light brown, moist.-from 0.1 to 0.4 m, orange brown

SAND (fine grained) AND GRAVEL (fine tocoarse grained), some silt to silty, occasionalcobbles, occasional boulders, poorly graded,maximum particle size observed = 400 mm,sub-rounded, compact, light brown, moist.

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained), sandy(fine grained), trace silt, occasional cobbles,occasional boulders, poorly graded,maximum particle size observed = 400 mm,sub-rounded, compact, light brown, moist.

End of Test Pit at 5.1 m.Minor sloughing.No groundwater encountered.Test Pit backfilled with excavated material.

TS

ML

SM2

GP

Sieve (Sa#G01)G:0% S:34% F:66%

Sieve (Sa#G02)G:38% S:39% F:23%

{G:40 S:40 F:20}

{G:60 S:35 F:5}

Sieve (Sa#G05)G:63% S:34% F:3%

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



468

467

466

465

464

463

462


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

TEST PIT LOG

Company: W6 Ranch

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 468.08 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

P.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



13

8

5

5

2

0.1m

1m

2.1m

5.4m

G01

G02

G03

G04

G05

TOPSOIL.

SILT AND SAND (fine grained), compact,non-plastic, light brown, moist.-from 0.1 to 0.4 m, orange brown

SAND (fine grained) AND GRAVEL (fine tocoarse grained), trace silt, frequent cobbles,frequent boulders, poorly graded, maximumparticle size observed = 600 mm,sub-rounded, compact, light brown, dry tomoist.

GRAVEL (fine to coarse grained), sandy(medium grained), trace silt, occasionalcobbles, occasional boulders, poorly graded,maximum particle size observed = 600 mm,sub-rounded, dense, grey, dry to moist.

End of Test Pit at 5.4 m.Minor sloughing.No groundwater encountered.Test Pit backfilled with excavated material.

TS

ML

SP-SM

GP

Sieve (Sa#G01)G:0% S:44% F:56%

{G:40 S:50 F:10}

Sieve (Sa#G03)G:73% S:25% F:2%

{G:70 S:25 F:5}

{G:70 S:25 F:5}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



467

466

465

464

463

462

461


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

TEST PIT LOG

Company: W6 Ranch

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 467.95 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

P.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



10

4

1

1

2

0.2m

4.7m4.8m

G01

G02

G03

G04

G05AG05B

TOPSOIL.

SILT, sandy (fine grained), compact,non-plastic, orange brown, moist.

-below 0.5 m, light brown

-below 2.5 m, frequent cobbles, frequentboulders

-at 3.4 m, some gravel (fine to coarsegrained), sub-rounded

CLAY, silty, trace to some sand (finegrained), very stiff, low plasticity, brown,>WP.


TS

ML

CL

{G:0 S:30 F:70}

Sieve (Sa#G02)G:0% S:32% F:68%Clay:4% Silt:64%

{G:15 S:25 F:60}

Sieve (Sa#G04)G:0% S:35% F:65%

{G:0 S:35 F:65}Atterberg (Sa#G05B):WP:20% WL:39%{G:0 S:10 F:90}

1

2

3

4

5

6

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)1

2

3

4

5

6



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



462

461

460

459

458

457

456


SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS


7

0



COMMENTSTESTING


KX052807.20

TEST PIT LOG

Company: W6 Ranch

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 462.81 m

Station/Offset: TBD


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


Page 1 of 1

W% W %LW %P20 40 60 80

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2A

KX

0528

07.

11 B

OA

T L

AU

NC

H T

P.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2D

.GD

T 3

/13

/20



9

14

10

1125

Appendix C

Laboratory Testing

Moisture Content

Client: R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. Proj. Num: KX052807.20

Project: Lynx Creek Boat Launch Reviewed by: Glenda Michaud

Hole No. Sample No.Sampled

DateTest Date Technician

Top

Depth

(ft)

Bottom

Depth (ft)

Top

Depth

(m)

Bottom

Depth

(m)

Wt. of

Tare

Wt.

Sample

Wet

Wt.

Sample

Dry

Wt. WaterMoisture

Cont. %

TH18-LXB-201 S01A 31-Aug-18 17-Oct-18 S. McMahon 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.59 79.13 65.64 13.5 28%

TH18-LXB-201 S01B 31-Aug-18 17-Oct-18 S. McMahon 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.6 23.38 80.45 76.66 3.8 7%

TH18-LXB-201 S02 31-Aug-18 17-Oct-18 S. McMahon 2.0 4.0 0.6 1.2 23.26 111.53 106.15 5.4 6%
























MOISTURE CONTENT - ASTM D2216

Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of the test results is provided only on written request.





Top

Depth

(ft)

Bottom

Depth (ft)

Top

Depth

(m)

Bottom

Depth

(m)

Wt. of

Tare

Wt.

Sample

Wet

Wt.

Sample

Dry

Wt. WaterMoisture

Cont. %







TP18-LXB-201 G01 30-Aug-18 16-Oct-18 B. Garlick 1.1 1.3 10.3 337.7 307.9 29.8 10%










TP18-LXB-203 G01 31-Aug-18 10-Oct-18 S. McMahon 1.1 1.3 33.27 113.07 103.58 9.5 13%
















Top

Depth

(ft)

Bottom

Depth (ft)

Top

Depth

(m)

Bottom

Depth

(m)

Wt. of

Tare

Wt.

Sample

Wet

Wt.

Sample

Dry

Wt. WaterMoisture

Cont. %





TP18-LXB-205 G05A 31-Aug-18 10-Oct-18 S. McMahon 4.6 4.7 394.2 3616.6 3296.9 319.7 11%

TP18-LXB-205 G05B 31-Aug-18 10-Oct-18 S. McMahon 4.7 4.8 23.23 106.90 90.27 16.6 25%


Atterberg Limits

ATTERBERG LIMITS

ASTM D4318

PROJECT: Hy. 29 Lynx Creek Boat Launch Sample ID: TP18-LXB-205, G05B

Project Number: Date Sampled:

Technician: Depth:

Date: Comments:

Liquid Limit

Trial No. 1 2 3

No. of Blows 14 24 33

Mass Wet + Tare 26.69 24.72 24.86

Mass Dry + Tare 22.88 21.65 21.88

Mass Tare 13.67 13.71 13.89

Mass of Water 3.81 3.07 2.98

Dry Soil Mass 9.21 7.94 7.99

Moisture Content 41.4 38.7 37.3

Liquid Limit 38.5 38.5 38.7 Average Liquid Limit: 39

Plastic Limit

Trial No. 1 2 3

Mass Wet + Tare 19.59 26.71 20.94

Mass Dry + Tare 18.65 24.55 19.71

Mass Tare 14.05 13.90 13.68

Mass of Water 0.94 2.16 1.23

Dry Soil Mass 4.60 10.65 6.03

Moisture Content 20.4 20.3 20.4 Average Plastic Limit 20

Plasticity Index 19

Received Moisture 25

Plasticity Index PI = LL - PL

Liquidity Index LI = (MC - PL) / PI

Per:

Glenda Michaud


KX052807.20

S. McMahon

29-Jan-19

31-Aug-18

4.7m - 4.8m

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

sti

cit

y I

nd

ex

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Chart

CL-ML

"A"- LineWL=50

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

# of blows

Flow Curve

45201510 25 403530

CH

MH & OH

ML & OL

CL

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t (%

)

# of blows

Flow Curve

45201510 25 403530

Grain Size Distribution

R.F. Binnie PROJECT: KX052807

101 - 1577 7th Avenue OFFICE: Prince George, BC

Prince George, BC TECHNICIAN: G. Michaud

V2L 3P5 DATE: 30-Jan-19

PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.50 100.0

9.50 100.0

4.75 100.0

2.00 99.9

0.850 99.8

0.425 99.4

0.250 95.6

0.150 89.6

0.075 64.7

0.0454 44.3

0.0337 31.9

0.0223 19.5

0.0161 14.2

0.0132 12.4

0.0094 10.6

0.0067 8.9

0.0048 7.1

0.0033 5.3

0.0014 4.4

GRAVEL= 0.0%

SAND = 35.3%

SILT = 60.0%

CLAY = 4.7%

Moisture = 11.9%

COMMENTS: D10 = 0.008

D30 = 0.032

D60 = 0.067

Per:

Glenda Michaud


SAMPLE NUMBER: S03 DATE SAMPLED: 31-Aug-18

DEPTH: 1.4m - 2.0m DATE TESTED: 28-Jan-19

SUMMARY

Hy. 29 Lynx Boat Launch

TEST PIT NUMBER: TH18-LXB-201 SAMPLE BY: Wood

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM D422 / AASHTO T-88

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLES

SAND

SILT CLAY

Fine FineMedium

R.F. Binnie PROJECT: KX052807.20


Prince George, BC TECHNICIAN: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Lab


PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 92.3

19.0 81.8

12.5 77.3

9.5 74.5

4.75 64.9

2.00 52.7

0.850 44.6

0.425 37.4

0.250 29.0

0.150 21.1

0.075 14.9

GRAVEL = 35.1%

SAND = 50.0%

FINES = 14.9%

D10 = N/A

D30 = 0.27

D60 = 3.35

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 2.2%

Tested Weight

(g) =646.2

COMMENTS:

Per:

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONASTM C136/ASTM C117

Hy. 29 Lynx Creek Boat Launch

TEST PIT NUMBER: TH18-LXB-201 SAMPLE BY: P. O'Sullivan

SUMMARY

SAMPLE NUMBER: S04B DATE SAMPLED: 31-Aug-18


Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 75.3

19.0 63.8

12.5 60.6

9.5 56.8

4.75 43.5

2.00 29.8

0.850 21.2

0.425 15.2

0.250 12.6

0.150 10.7

0.075 8.1

GRAVEL = 56.5%

SAND = 35.3%

FINES = 8.1%

D10 = 0.12

D30 = 2.03

D60 = 13.01

Cu = 104.12

Cc = 2.53

Moisture = 7.5%

Tested Weight

(g) =602.9

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.50 100.0

9.50 100.0

4.75 100.0

2.00 100.0

0.850 99.9

0.425 99.8

0.250 99.5

0.150 95.1

0.075 62.4

0.0466 42.3

0.0346 30.5

0.0227 20.3

0.0163 16.1

0.0134 13.6

0.0095 11.9

0.0068 10.2

0.0048 8.5

0.0034 7.6

0.0014 5.9

GRAVEL= 0.0%

SAND = 37.6%

SILT = 56.0%

CLAY = 6.4%

Moisture = 7.8%


D30 = 0.034

D60 = 0.071

Per:

Glenda Michaud




SUMMARY


TEST PIT NUMBER: TH18-LXB-202 SAMPLE BY: Wood


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLES

SAND

SILT CLAY

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 95.0

19.0 79.6

12.5 70.7

9.5 63.5

4.75 52.0

2.00 41.9

0.850 34.6

0.425 29.0

0.250 22.6

0.150 18.2

0.075 13.7

GRAVEL = 48.0%

SAND = 38.3%

FINES = 13.7%

D10 = N/A

D30 = 0.48

D60 = 7.70

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 3.3%

Tested Weight

(g) =959.1

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 98.8

12.5 98.8

9.5 98.8

4.75 98.8

2.00 98.7

0.850 98.5

0.425 98.1

0.250 96.7

0.150 86.2

0.075 59.9

GRAVEL = 1.2%

SAND = 38.9%

FINES = 59.9%

D10 = N/A

D30 = N/A

D60 = 0.08

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 8.6%

Tested Weight

(g) =858.1

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.5 100.0

9.5 100.0

4.75 99.8

2.00 99.7

0.850 99.6

0.425 99.4

0.250 99.3

0.150 95.9

0.075 77.3

GRAVEL = 0.2%

SAND = 22.5%

FINES = 77.3%

D10 = N/A

D30 = N/A

D60 = N/A

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 14.8%

Tested Weight

(g) =591.3

COMMENTS:

Sample contained trace amounts of organics.

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 76.8

19.0 73.3

12.5 63.7

9.5 58.9

4.75 51.0

2.00 42.6

0.850 35.5

0.425 28.9

0.250 22.3

0.150 18.1

0.075 14.2

GRAVEL = 49.0%

SAND = 36.9%

FINES = 14.2%

D10 = N/A

D30 = 0.48

D60 = 10.03

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 3.6%

Tested Weight

(g) =524.6

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.50 100.0

9.50 100.0

4.75 100.0

2.00 100.0

0.850 99.9

0.425 99.7

0.250 99.0

0.150 95.3

0.075 68.9

0.0459 45.9

0.0341 33.0

0.0226 20.2

0.0163 14.7

0.0133 13.8

0.0095 11.0

0.0068 9.2

0.0048 7.3

0.0033 6.4

0.0014 5.5

GRAVEL= 0.0%

SAND = 31.1%

SILT = 63.1%

CLAY = 5.8%

Moisture = 10.0%


D30 = 0.031

D60 = 0.062

Per:

Glenda Michaud


SAMPLE NUMBER: G01 DATE SAMPLED: 30-Aug-18


SUMMARY


TEST PIT NUMBER: TP18-LXB-201 SAMPLE BY: Wood


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLES

SAND

SILT CLAY

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 69.6

25.0 65.0

19.0 60.9

12.5 54.4

9.5 50.8

4.75 39.2

2.00 24.6

0.850 19.5

0.425 11.2

0.250 8.2

0.150 7.2

0.075 5.6

GRAVEL = 60.8%

SAND = 33.6%

FINES = 5.6%

D10 = 0.35

D30 = 2.75

D60 = 17.92

Cu = 51.89

Cc = 1.22

Moisture = 3.1%

Tested Weight

(g) =2,445.5

COMMENTS:

Per:

Glenda Michaud


SUMMARY




TEST PIT NUMBER: TP18-LXB-201 SAMPLE BY: M. Hryciuk


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 78.0

50.0 62.2

37.5 62.2

25.0 60.1

19.0 58.7

12.5 57.3

9.5 56.9

4.75 55.8

2.00 54.7

0.850 53.0

0.425 51.0

0.250 44.9

0.150 35.7

0.075 20.7

GRAVEL = 44.2%

SAND = 35.0%

FINES = 20.7%

D10 = N/A

D30 = 0.12

D60 = 24.43

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 3.3%

Tested Weight

(g) =2,502.8

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 75.7

25.0 71.4

19.0 68.2

12.5 61.8

9.5 55.7

4.75 41.4

2.00 24.7

0.850 18.0

0.425 10.5

0.250 5.2

0.150 3.5

0.075 2.5

GRAVEL = 58.6%

SAND = 38.9%

FINES = 2.5%

D10 = 0.40

D30 = 2.63

D60 = 12.03

Cu = 29.89

Cc = 1.43

Moisture = 1.1%

Tested Weight

(g) =2,232.8

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.5 100.0

9.5 100.0

4.75 100.0

2.00 99.9

0.850 99.3

0.425 98.8

0.250 98.1

0.150 90.3

0.075 66.0

GRAVEL = 0.0%

SAND = 34.0%

FINES = 66.0%

D10 = N/A

D30 = N/A

D60 = N/A

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 13.5%

Tested Weight

(g) =939.0

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 93.8

25.0 83.9

19.0 79.5

12.5 73.5

9.5 69.9

4.75 62.3

2.00 54.9

0.850 49.1

0.425 46.0

0.250 40.0

0.150 33.6

0.075 23.3

GRAVEL = 37.7%

SAND = 39.0%

FINES = 23.3%

D10 = N/A

D30 = 0.12

D60 = 3.64

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 8.3%

Tested Weight

(g) =3,534.7

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 88.1

37.5 80.9

25.0 64.4

19.0 59.0

12.5 50.7

9.5 45.9

4.75 37.0

2.00 23.6

0.850 12.6

0.425 8.6

0.250 6.1

0.150 4.4

0.075 3.3

GRAVEL = 63.0%

SAND = 33.7%

FINES = 3.3%

D10 = 0.54

D30 = 3.02

D60 = 19.99

Cu = 36.84

Cc = 0.84

Moisture = 2.3%

Tested Weight

(g) =3,469.6

COMMENTS:

Per:




SUMMARY



Glenda Michaud


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.5 100.0

9.5 100.0

4.75 100.0

2.00 99.9

0.850 99.3

0.425 98.6

0.250 97.1

0.150 83.5

0.075 56.2

GRAVEL = 0.0%

SAND = 43.8%

FINES = 56.2%

D10 = N/A

D30 = N/A

D60 = 0.08

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 9.7%

Tested Weight

(g) =1,001.4

COMMENTS:

Per:

Glenda Michaud


SUMMARY






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 77.7

37.5 68.8

25.0 53.2

19.0 46.1

12.5 41.4

9.5 37.4

4.75 27.1

2.00 14.1

0.850 7.8

0.425 5.7

0.250 4.1

0.150 3.2

0.075 2.4

GRAVEL = 72.9%

SAND = 24.7%

FINES = 2.4%

D10 = 1.15

D30 = 5.77

D60 = 29.83

Cu = 26.01

Cc = 0.97

Moisture = 1.0%

Tested Weight

(g) =2,930.8

COMMENTS:

Per:

Glenda Michaud


SUMMARY






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.50 100.0

9.50 100.0

4.75 100.0

2.00 100.0

0.850 99.9

0.425 99.8

0.250 99.6

0.150 97.0

0.075 68.2

0.0469 47.5

0.0350 31.6

0.0231 17.8

0.0165 13.8

0.0136 11.9

0.0097 7.9

0.0069 6.9

0.0049 5.9

0.0034 4.9

0.0014 4.0

GRAVEL= 0.0%

SAND = 31.8%

SILT = 64.0%

CLAY = 4.2%

Moisture = 14.1%


D30 = 0.033

D60 = 0.062

Per:

Glenda Michaud




SUMMARY


TEST PIT NUMBER: TP18-LXB-205 SAMPLE BY: Wood


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLES

SAND

SILT CLAY

Fine FineMedium





PROJECT NAME:

Grain size Passing

(mm) (%)

100.0 100.0

75.0 100.0

63.0 100.0

50.0 100.0

37.5 100.0

25.0 100.0

19.0 100.0

12.5 100.0

9.5 99.9

4.75 99.8

2.00 99.6

0.850 99.2

0.425 98.7

0.250 98.1

0.150 91.8

0.075 64.7

GRAVEL = 0.2%

SAND = 35.1%

FINES = 64.7%

D10 = N/A

D30 = N/A

D60 = N/A

Cu = N/A

Cc = N/A

Moisture = 0.6%

Tested Weight

(g) =1,452.1

COMMENTS:

One cobble (100mm x 90mm) was scalped from sample prior to testing.

Per:

Glenda Michaud


SUMMARY






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G


GRAVEL

Coarse Coarse

COBBLESSAND

FINES(silt &clay)

Fine FineMedium

Appendix D

Slope Stability Analysis (Slope/W)

Appendix E

Limitations


Lynx Creek Boat Launch

Limitations

Limitations

1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented are subject

to the following:

a. The Standard Terms and Conditions which form a part of our Professional Services

Contract;

b. The Scope of Services;

c. Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and

d. The Limitations stated herein.

2. No other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, are made as to the

professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented.

3. The conclusions presented in this report were based, in part, on visual observations of the Site

and attendant structures. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions

of the Site or structures, which are not reasonably available, in Wood’s opinion, for direct

observation.

4. Where testing was performed, it was carried out in accordance with the terms of our contract

providing for testing. Other substances, or different quantities of substances testing for, may be

present on-site and may be revealed by different or other testing not provided for in our contract.

5. The utilization of Wood’s services during the implementation of any remedial measures will allow

Wood to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.

Wood’s involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as

they are encountered.

6. This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated

otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or

the part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or conclusions in

the report is the sole responsibility of such third party. Wood accepts no responsibility whatsoever

for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions

taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein.

7. This report is not to be given over to any third party for any purpose whatsoever without the

written permission of Wood.

8. Provided that the report is still reliable, and less than 12 months old, Wood will issue a third-party

reliance letter to parties that the client identifies in writing, upon payment of the then current fee

for such letters. All third parties relying on Wood’s report, by such reliance agree to be bound by

our proposal and Wood’s standard reliance letter. Wood’s standard reliance letter indicates that in

no event shall Wood be liable for any damages, howsoever arising, relating to third-party reliance

on Wood’s report. No reliance by any party is permitted without such agreement.

geotechnical assessment and design...geotechnical assessment and design lynx creek boat launch-rev 1...

Documents