HomeMy WebLinkAboutPWD-017-21Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: PWD-017-21
Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: GG-229-21, C-108-21,
C-109-21
File Number: PA. FarewelICreekTraiIPhase 2 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B Status Update
Recommendations:
1. That Report PWD-017-21 be received;
2. That Council provide direction to staff regarding the Farewell Creek Phase 2B trail
alignment given the environmental impacts, additional costs, and recommendations
that are outlined within the report; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-017-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PWD-017-21
Report Overview
The purpose of this report is to present Council with an update on the status of the Council
selected alignment for Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2B and to seek direction based on
current assessments regarding the additional risk, impact, and costing information.
1. Background
1.1 The design of Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A has been finalized and the project tender
closed on March 1, 2021. Once awarded, preparatory works for Phase 2A can begin
immediately on site with an estimated trail completion date of August 2021.
1.2 At the direction of Council, Staff have advanced the design of Farewell Creek Trail
Phase 213 (Phase 2A limits to Townline Road) by completing a slope stability analysis,
review and consultation with CLOCA, updates to the preliminary design of the Council
selected alignment, a tree inventory and impact assessment, and have refined the
preliminary design cost estimate. This information has revealed a more fulsome
understanding of the slope stability hazard risks, environmental impacts, costs, and
timeline challenges and constraints associated with the Council selected alignment.
2. Slope Stability Analysis and CLOCA Review &
Recommendations
2.1 Staff retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to conduct a slope stability analysis along
the Phase 2B Council selected trail alignment which traverses a steep existing
embankment along the Farewell Creek valley immediately northeast of Townline Road.
A photo of the embankment can be seen in Figure 1. The report, completed in
September 2020, carried out analyses on long term slope stability and provided
recommendations for retaining wall, trail, and construction methodology design.
2.2 On October 20, 2020 Clarington staff met with the Director of Engineering and Field
Operations, Infrastructure Planner/Enforcement Officer and Terrestrial Resource
Analyst from CLOCA to review the slope stability analysis, soil conditions, groundwater
conditions and potential impacts to the natural environment for the Council selected trail
alignment. After considering this information, CLOCA staff have advised that there are
significant ecological impacts and geotechnical risks associated with the alignment due
to:
The significant impact to natural environmental features including mature forest;
and
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 3
The increased long term risk of slope failure, erosion, and property damage to
Pinedale Crescent landowners that could result from disturbance of the valley
walls.
2.3 Due to the steep nature of the valley in this area, construction of the trail and the
construction methodology along the slope would require extensive clearing of mature
forest vegetation along the slope, well in excess of typical trail footprints due to the
necessary grading to achieve the accessible grade of the trail as well as establishing a
safe construction platform. A typical cross section drawing showing the anticipated
limits of impact has been provided in Attachment 1. Note that this cross section does
not reflect further disturbances that would be required on the embankment to facilitate
construction. These will be determined through detailed design and development of
construction methodology.
2.4 CLOCA staff have advised, and the consultant's Tree Inventory and Impact Assessment
Report has reconfirmed, that the forest community in this area is well established and
mature. For example, of significant note along the slope face is the presence of hemlock
trees and yellow birch, approximated to be in the range of 80-100+ years old. The
removal of hemlock, birch and other mature trees along the slope face would result in
an irreplaceable loss due to the tree's slow growth rates and their significant contribution
to a healthy ecosystem. Mature trees provide cooling effects on the watercourse,
provide unique wildlife habitats, protect against establishment of invasive species by
providing closed canopy conditions, and stabilize the valley wall with their extensive root
system, preventing erosion and slope failure that could threaten the trail and nearby
houses.
2.5 Mature forest is a unique and important feature and, aside from the plentiful beneficial
ecosystem services provided, forests of this quality exist only in limited areas within the
Municipality of Clarington and the CLOCA watershed in general. By removing these
trees, much of the overall aesthetic and ecological value of the forest would be removed
and the long term stability of the steep Farewell Creek valley slopes will be permanently
impaired.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 4
Figure 1: Slope face looking northeast along the Council selected trail alignment
2.6 Although engineered slope stabilization systems could be employed, the systems are
not permanent and would need to be replaced when the end of their service life has
been reached. As the Pinedale Crescent homes are within the erosion hazard of the
Farewell Creek valley, the proposed trail and works would increase the risk to the
homeowners and require constant and permanent monitoring and maintenance of slope
protection works by the Municipality to manage the slope stability, which the Pinedale
Crescent homes would rely upon for the long-term safety of their properties. This would
require the Municipality to annually monitor the slope for movement, inspect the
engineered slope stabilization system for weaknesses, repair any at risk segments of
the system, and conduct maintenance of drainage systems in perpetuity.
2.7 CLOCA staff have advised that, despite geotechnical engineering of the disturbed slope
to accommodate the trail, the proposed mid -slope trail will likely result in an
unacceptable risk as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act. The existing slope is
steep and covered in mature forest. The geotechnical report notes presence of curved
tree trunks, which are an indicator of gradual slope movement. While the trail and
disturbed portion of the slope could be engineered, which would require perpetual
monitoring and maintenance as noted above, the removal of mature vegetation and
placement of a trail mid slope may have unforeseen consequences on the remaining
valley slope. This trail alignment does not meet CLOCA policy for approval.
Accordingly, CLOCA staff strongly recommend alternative trail configurations to avoid
this risk.
2.8 CLOCA staff have been supportive of trail projects in the Municipality of Clarington and
advise that they will continue to work with Clarington staff to find acceptable trail
locations. CLOCA staff recognize that most trails require some removal of vegetation
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PWD-017-21
and other disturbance within natural areas that is generally mitigatable, however, in this
instance, the impacts to the natural heritage system and risks of a trail in this location
are extensive and should be avoided given the unacceptable level of risk and impact
associated with a mid -slope trail and existing potentially vulnerable table land
development above the slope. The loss of the natural heritage features and functions in
order to provide a trail in this location are irreplaceable due to the existing trees' age,
slow growth rates, and ecosystem services including slope stabilization.
2.9 CLOCA has recommended that safer and significantly less intrusive trail alignment
alternatives, which are available, should be pursued. Accordingly, CLOCA staff
recommend an alternative trail alignment that bypasses this steepest portion of the
valley and would eliminate concerns related to significant natural heritage
feature/function removal, slope stability, and risk to existing table land residential
property.
2.10 Further information and comments from CLOCA regarding CLOCA policy & guidelines,
terrestrial ecology, environmental review, and permit requirements, relating to the
Council selected alignment, have been provided in Attachment 2.
3. Status of Phase 2B Design
3.1 Detailed construction and mitigation design drawings form part of a CLOCA Permit.
Accordingly, it is a requirement to have a 100% complete detailed design for review and
consideration in granting a permit. Currently, Public Works has only completed a
preliminary design for the Council selected alignment which was used as a basis in
conducting the Slope Stability Assessment. All work completed to date has been done
to gain a further understanding of the associated impacts caused by the construction of
the Council selected trail alignment, analyze construction feasibility, ecological impacts,
long term stability impacts, etc. The preliminary design has been updated to reflect the
recommendations in the Slope Stability Assessment in order to understand the overall
limits of disturbance, establish parameters for the detailed design, and quantify the tree
removals and environmental impacts.
3.2 Public Works retained an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist to
conduct a survey in early February 2021 of all trees that would be within the limits of
grading for both the Council selected route and the original alignment in order to
inventory, assess, and appraise a value of the trees that will be impacted / removed.
The assessment report prepared by CIMA+ has been provided in Attachment 3 and
shows the limits of disturbance considered, identifies prominent species of trees,
quantity, and the appraised value using the Trunk Formula Technique of the Council of
Tree & Landscape Appraises Guide for Plant Appraisal. A detailed design would need
to consider the assessed tree impacts and specific tree inventory and, in consultation
with CLOCA, would review the trail alignment to potentially partially mitigate some
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 6
impacts. The trail alignment would need to be adjusted slightly to avoid significant or
prominent species of trees and hazards where possible, and design appropriate slope
stabilization measures around any significant tree species or tree clusters.
3.3 The tree impact assessment quantified the impact to trees on the valley slope for both
the Council selected alignment and the original alignment. Table 1 below presents the
cost summary from the tree impact assessment showing the appraised values of
impacted trees along each alignment.
Tree Removal Summary
Number of
Trees Impacted
Appraised Value of
Impacted Trees
Phase 2B - Council Selected Alignment
217
$393,020
Phase 2B - Original Alignment
123
$208,580
Table 1: Estimated Tree Impact Appraisal Value Summary
3.4 The Trunk formulation for appraising trees presented in the Tree Impact and Inventory
Assessment is limited to tree economic value as opposed to the full suite of ecological
services that the trees provide. It is important to note that the ecological impacts at
hand extend beyond the economic value of the trees. Ecological goods and services
take into account the following: air quality, climate regulation in terms of both carbon
storage and carbon uptake, water runoff control, filtration, soil formation, waste
treatment, pollination, seed dispersal, biological control, recreation and aesthetics. Most
importantly in this context, the ecological goods and services include provision of
necessary slope stability and erosion control in support of the table land residential
community along Pinedale Crescent. These attributes are not monetized in the
appraised valuation in Table 1 above.
4. Timeline Considerations
4.1 As the Phase 2B alignment contains a level of impact and risk that likely pose
challenges to approval under the Conservation Authorities Act legislated tests for
development proposals, obtaining the necessary approval may not be possible. In
addition to the issues described above, proceeding with the Council selected alignment
at this time includes increased risk to the completion of Phase 2B due to lack of
environmental approvals and an increased risk to missing the Ontario Municipal
Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Program deadline of substantial and functional completion
by December 31 of this year.
4.2 Staff have outlined the following key project timeline considerations.
March 8, 2021 - Submission of Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2B update Report to
General Government Committee and confirmation of the selected trail alignment.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 7
Should Council decide to continue to pursue the Council selected alignment, there
is a high likelihood that, following the submission of a permit application and
detailed design review, CLOCA staff will not be in a position to recommend
approval of the proposal due to the risks associated with slope hazards and
environmental impact.
o In the likely event of a CLOCA staff recommended refusal, the application
would need to be considered by the CLOCA Board -convened Hearing in order
to make a decision on the application.
o At a hearing, the Municipality of Clarington would need to make
representations in support of the application. Due to the risks associated with
slope hazards and environmental impact, Municipal staff would not be in a
position to make favourable representations, which will necessitate Council
seeking and obtaining representation in advance of the hearing event.
o The CLOCA Hearing Board may refuse the application or may approve it with
conditions that may not be foreseen.
o Should the application be refused by the CLOCA Hearing Board, Council may
lodge an appeal to the Mining and Lands Tribunal, which would then convene
a new hearing likely after a matter of months.
Should Council decide to pursue the original alignment, there is a clear route to
obtaining the necessary approvals to allow the tendering and construction
processes to proceed within the OMCC Program timeline requirements. Dates
noted are approximate.
o May 3, 2021 - Submission of Infrastructure Permit to CLOCA for review. CLOCA
has advised their typical review process would require approximately four weeks.
o July 5, 2021 - Upon review of the application, the engineering consultant will
likely require additional time (estimated 4 weeks) to revise the design to suit the
agreed upon requirements and amend the tender documentation.
o August 6, 2021 - It is recommended that the Municipality issue a minimum three
week tender due to the complexity and challenges of constructing the trail
alignment.
o September 13, 2021 - Assuming the tender pricing is favorable, the Staff
recommendation report would be submitted to the next General Government
Committee Meeting.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 8
o October 15, 2021 - Assuming a favorable vote to proceed with the project,
issuance of a Purchase Order to the Contractor, assembly of contract
documentation, pre -construction meeting, and time to mobilization could take
several weeks.
o December 24, 2021 — Deadline for construction completion.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 Staff undertook a refinement of the preliminary trail design along both the Council
selected alignment and original alignment to incorporate the recommendations of the
slope stability analysis into each design. This in turn was used to calculate a more
detailed itemized cost estimate of the works and to provide an update for Council's
consideration in advancing this project through detailed design.
5.2 Estimated total costs to build the remainder of Farewell Creek Trail from the Phase 1
terminus to Townline Road have been provided in Table 2 below. The estimated cost
for Phase 2B includes design, tendering, contract administration, inspection, material
testing, regulatory permits, and a 10% contingency. The costs however do not reflect
any tree compensation that would be required and will need to be considered as
additional costs to the figures below. Additionally, total approved and allocated funding
to date has been provided in Table 3 below.
Farewell Creek Trail — Project Item
Cost
Phase 2A — Construction (Based on tender pricing received)
$1,360,100
Slope Stability Analysis
$50,400
Land Appraisal — Ecological Gift Lands
$3,600
Ecological Gift Lands — Change of Use Tax
$16,000
Phase 2B — Preliminary Design
$12,200
Total Project Commitments To Date
$1,442,300
Phase 2B — Council Selected Alignment*
$2,151,000
Phase 2B — Original Alignment*
$1,324,000
Total Cost — Phase 2A + Council Selected Alignment
$3,593,300
Total Cost — Phase 2A + Original Alignment
$2,766,300
*Refer to CIMA Updated Preliminary Design Updated Cost Estimate in
Attachment 2
Table 2: Total Estimated Cost of Construction of Phase 2
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 9
Funding
Funding Source
Amount
Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 (Townline Rd. to Phase 1 Trail)
2019 (110-32-325-83288-7401)
Funding amount includes $195,000 Ontario Municipal
Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Grant Funding
$1,100,000.00
Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 (Townline Rd. to Phase 1 Trail)
2020 (110-32-325-83288-7401)
Funding amount includes $118,900 Ontario Municipal
Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Grant Funding
$450,000.00
Various Erosion Protection Works (Estimated)
2021 (110-32-340-83437-7401)
$98,300.00
Total Available Funding
$1,648,300.00
Table 3: Allocated Funding Sources
5.3 The disparity between the available allocated funding and the total estimated project
cost, for both the Council selected alignment and the original alignment, can be
attributed to several factors as outlined below. The project budget was completed at a
time when detailed design for Phase 2 had not been initiated and much of the
components requiring intensive engineering design had not been identified and known
at the time. Several prominent items are as follows:
The original trail alignment did not foresee the need for slope stabilization measures
to the level that is recommended in the slope stability analysis and, when the
Council selected alignment was introduced as an alternative for the project, it was
anticipated that more rudimentary stabilization measures e.g. armor stone retaining
wall, could be utilized. The slope stability analysis concluded that these measures
would not be a viable and safe solution for long term slope stability, and specifically
stated an engineered retained soil system wall would be required;
• The budget did not factor in the requirement for an access road to be constructed for
Phase 2A from Darlington Boulevard to the trail location. This access road is
required to facilitate transport of trail building materials, the bridge structures,
construction equipment, etc.;
The triple culvert crossing required to traverse the Robert Adams stormwater
management pond outfall in Phase 2A had seen a substantial erosion event since
the Phase 2 trail was initially conceptualized. This elongated the length of the pond
outfall channel crossing and required an increase in erosion protection for bank
stability at the crossing location;
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
Page 10
The bridge locations of Phase 2A were since finalized and had undergone crossing
location adjustments in consultation with CLOCA which led to an elongation of one
of the bridge spans;
• Undertaking of detailed design allows for a much more granular analysis and
consideration of existing environmental features. The Farewell Creek valley is a
more challenging environment than most of the other recently constructed trails
within Clarington and requires more involvement with protection of ecological
features, slope stabilization, earthworks management, and erosion protection works;
The degree of existing tree impacts / removals and compensation were unforeseen
at project conception.
Key Items and Financial Factors - Council Selected Alignment
5.4 A substantial portion of the cost for Phase 2B is attributable to the works that are
required to ensure long term slope stability of the embankment as detailed in the slope
stability analysis. Of particular note is the requirement for a retained/reinforced soil wall
system to address areas of significant stability concern. These types of systems are
costly due to the amount of earth excavation, installation of drainage systems, and the
requirements to construct the retained soil wall system in a strategic layered approach.
The total estimated cost (including design, construction, inspection, testing, etc.)
associated for this retained soil system on the Council selected alignment is estimated
to be upwards of $700,000. This cost is based on unit rates that were received through
tenders of similar projects and has been adjusted upwards to reflect the physical
constraints of building the reinforced soil wall along the slope face, construction of a
stable working platform, utilization of smaller equipment to conduct the installation,
increased duration of construction, etc.
5.5 As the trail would be situated atop of the retaining wall, a substantial elevation difference
between the trail and the existing ground below is created. As the trail will be utilized by
cyclists who are situated higher above the ground while cycling, a `guard' type of
handrail is required along the trail alignment that is of sufficient height to protect a cyclist
in a fall, is non -climbable, and has vertical slats / pickets that must be closely spaced.
The total estimated cost (including design, construction, inspection, etc.) for the handrail
is estimated to be approximately $140,000.
5.6 The alignment traversing along the face of the slope requires a larger footprint of
disturbance for all components of its construction. This translates into a larger volume of
earthworks (soil) that will be required to be exported off site as placing this material as
fill within the Farewell Creek valley would not be permitted and filling along the slope
face would likely be detrimental to long term slope stability. The total estimated cost
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PWD-017-21
(including design, construction, inspection, testing, etc.) associated with earthworks is
estimated to be $180,000.
5.7 An itemized cost estimate based on the updated preliminary design has been provided
in the Updated Cost Comparison report in Attachment 2.
5.8 The Municipality of Clarington was a successful recipient of funding from the Ontario
Municipal Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Program in the amount of $313,899.53, of which
the majority was to be utilized for the constriction of Phase 2 of the Farewell Creek
Trail. The funding requires that a project be substantially and functionally completed by
December 31, 2021. The funding also requires the trail connect to significant trip origins
and destinations with commuter cycling infrastructure. The Phase 2A termination limit
does not meet the obligations of the OMCC funding Agreement.
5.9 The estimated completion date of the project falls close to the deadlines outlined in the
OMCC funding Agreement. There may be a risk that the completion date of the project
exceeds the deadlines of the OMCC Agreement, in which case the Municipality would
not be eligible to apply the OMCC funds to this project. The Municipality would need to
divert OMCC funding previously allocated to Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2 to other
qualifying projects. An updated list of projects needs to be submitted to the OMCC for
approval prior to diversion of any funding, and so this decision would need to be made
soon to allow time for review by the Province, and for the design, tendering and
construction of the alternate project by the December 31, 2021 deadline.
5.10 As detailed design is not complete on this project, and in light of the recommendation of
the Slope Stability Assessment, staff are unable to accurately assess any expected cost
increases due to late season construction given the existing soil conditions. Several
factors may influence construction requirements and sequencing such as wetter
weather, elevated groundwater conditions, more robust construction platform
requirements, etc. It is likely that costs to construct the Council selected alignment in
the Fall will be at a premium to the above provided estimates as tenders later in the year
are also subject to contractor availability. As a high level estimate, these factors could
further increase the cost of a project of this type by 20%, or approximately $430,000 for
the proposed trail alignment.
5.11 Based on the construction cost estimate for the Council selected alignment as noted in
section 5.2, there is an anticipated funding shortfall of $1,945,000 which will need to be
drawn from a reserve fund for completion of Phase 2B of the project in 2021. At the
time of tender and recommendation of award for Phase 2B, funding options will be
provided once actual construction costs have been obtained.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
6. Alternative Trail Alignment
Page 12
6.1 As an alternate option, Staff reviewed a modification to the current trail alignment that
that was suggested earlier in the design process by Council and the public. This
alignment would see one branch of the trail from the Phase 2A terminus lead toward
Townline Road along Farewell Creek, with a future potential connection to Oshawa's
trail (green route in Figure 2 below), while the other branch would revert to the original
alignment that followed the top of the stormwater management facility berm and
continues west to Townline Road (orange route in Figure 2 below). A preliminary high
level cost estimate has been prepared for this trail branch, including the bridge crossing,
and is estimated to cost approximately $455,000. This alternative trail alignment is not
considered as part of the approved funding for Farewell Creek Trail to date and will
need to be budgeted for in a future year.
6.2 If this alignment is selected, staff will further review the alternate trail branch alignment
suggestion with CLOCA which may achieve the same goals Council sought from the
Council selected alignment, namely being within the wooded portion of the valley and to
be able to see and hear Farewell Creek.
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PWD-017-21
Figure 2: Alternative trail alignment
6.3 Staff will also consult with the City of Oshawa and their Active Transportation
Committee. The outcomes of the site meeting and discussions with these stakeholders
will be submitted to Council as a report for future consideration with an updated
estimate of the costs required to complete this modification.
7. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
8. Conclusion
The preliminary design and background work completed to date demonstrate that the
design and construction of the Council selected alignment for Farewell Creek Trail
Phase 2B contains increased slope hazard risk, risks to table land private property,
increased ecological impact, increased overall project costs, and ultimately risk of
project approval. These factors are in excess of what was initially understood at project
conception and at costs exceeding the allocated funding for Farewell Creek Trail.
It is respectfully requested that Council provide Staff with direction whether the Council
selected alignment for Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B be further pursued in light of the
financial, environmental, and timeline challenges and constraints, OR that Council
advise Staff to pursue the original alignment along the top of the Pinedale Crescent
stormwater management pond berm to Townline Road, with consideration for a
secondary future connection along the creek alignment to Clarington's boundary.
Staff Contact: Robert Brezina, Capital Works Engineer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2331 or
RBrezina@Clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Typical Trail Cross Section - Station 4+540
Attachment 2 — Documentation and comments regarding CLOCA policy & guidelines,
terrestrial ecology, environmental review, and permit requirements
Attachment 3 — Tree Inventory and Impacts Assessment, Updated Cost Estimate Comparison
to Support Farewell Creek Phase 2B Geotechnical Recommendations, Geotechnical
Investigation — Slope Stability Assessment
Interested Parties:
Municipality of Clarington
Report PWD-017-21
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
CLOCA
CIMA+
Page 14
FAREWELL CREEK RECREATIONAL TRAIL - PHASE 2B
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - STATION 4+540 +/-
SHOWING BOTH ORIGINAL AND
COUNCIL RECOMMENDED
ALIGNMENTS
FAREWELL
CREEK
87.85 m
r4-9.10 mt
� e
rv�wsr r
Attachment 2 to Report PWD-017-21
Central
Lake Ontario
Conservation
Authority
March 2, 2021
Robert Brezina
Capital Works Engineer
Municipality of Clarington, Public Works Department
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON
L1C 3A6
Dear Robert:
Subject: CLOCA Comments for March 81" Staff Report
Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B
Municipality of Clarington, Region of Durham
CLOCA IMS File: RCON196
Healthy watersheds for today
and tomorrow.
Further to our recent discussions and submissions of technical information, we wish to provide you with the
following detailed comments with respect to the proposed development activity.
Applicable CLOCA Policies
Please see the following CLOCA Policy & Procedural Guidelines for Regulation & Plan Review. 5.3.1 Policies for
Erosion Hazards - River and Stream Valleys. The following outlines the specific policies for implementing CLOCA's
regulation 42106 with respect to erosion hazards associated with a river and stream valleys:
1) Development is prohibited within the erosion hazard of a river or stream valley except where allowed under
policies (5.3.1.2 — 5.3.1.12) and subject to the General Policies;
4) Public parks and passive outdoor recreational uses (e.g., passive, or low intensity outdoor recreation and
education, trail systems) may be permitted if it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of CLOCA that:
• there is no feasible alternative location outside of the erosion hazard; passive outdoor recreational uses
generally means, minimal site alteration, infrastructure and structures and provide for low intensive
recreational uses such as trail systems.
• buildings, structures, and parking facilities are located outside of the erosion hazard;
• a geotechnical study demonstrates that there is no impact on existing and future slope stability; and
• unacceptable risks to life and property do not result.
Policy Analysis
In evaluating the revised proposal against the applicable policies captioned above, we observe that:
100 WHITING AVENUE OSHAWA ON L1 H 3T3 I P.9055790411 I F.9055790994 I CLOCA.COM
Healthy watersheds for today
and tomorrow.
• There is a feasible alternative location that is either out of the erosion
hazard or in a less hazardous location;
• The proposal requires extensive site alteration in compared to the alternative alignment;
• Structures would be required within the erosion hazard;
• The geotechnical study has not demonstrated that there would be no impact on existing and future
slope stability;
• Risks to table land property are present and may result from construction and/or improper future
maintenance of the proposed alignment.
Environmental Engineering
It is the opinion of CLOCA staff that despite geotechnical engineering of the disturbed slope to accommodate the
trail, the proposed mid -slope trail will result in unacceptable risk. The existing slope is steep and covered in
mature forest. The geotechnical report notes presence of curved tree trunks, and indicator of gradual slope
movement. While the trail and disturbed portion of the slope could be engineered (requiring perpetual
monitoring and maintenance), the removal of mature vegetation and placement of a trail mid slope may have
unforeseen consequences on the remaining valley slope. This trail alternative does not meet CLOCA policy for
approval, and CLOCA staff strongly recommend alternative trail configurations. (See attached Memo from
CLOCA's Environmental Engineering Department for further technical detail and analysis.)
Terrestrial Ecology
With respect to the Farewell Phase 2B trail alignment, compensation, as it applies to natural features, can only
be applied when all options for the maintenance of a feature have been exhausted. The hierarchy of mitigation
outlines the following steps in order to facilitate the project/development:
1. Avoidance - Prevent impacts from occurring, by changing project location, scope, nature of timing of
activities.
2. Minimize - Reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts that cannot be avoided.
3. Mitigate - Rehabilitate or restore features or functions that have been exposed to impacts that could
not be avoided or minimized.
4. Compensate - Create or restore new habitat to compensate for loss that could not be avoided,
minimized, or mitigated. Compensation should be a rare activity and should only apply to features that
can in fact, be reasonably replicated. (i.e., young successional tree/shrub communities and simple
wetland communities).
Climax communities such as the significant Farewell Creek Valley, in this location, is a complex ecosystem with
many ecosystem services that can not simply be replaced. It has taken several generations for these
communities to evolve. The option of compensation is premature as there are more suitable alternatives to the
trail location that would minimize the overall disturbance to the ecosystem. With respect to the Trunk
formulation for appraising trees, this methodology is based more on tree value as opposed to ecological
services. As trees age and reach a point of over maturity their economic value decreases.
Conversely their ecological value may well be peaking at this time. In order to provide a complete appraisal of
the vegetation proposed for removal in each alignment scenario, the value of the ecological services must be
considered. Economic value of the trees is only one applicable factor. Ecological goods and services need to
factor in the following: Air Quality, Climate regulation (carbon stored), Climate regulation (carbon uptake),
Page12
Healthy watersheds for today
and tomorrow.
Water runoff control, Water filtration, Soil formation, Waste treatment,
Pollination (agriculture), Seed dispersal, Biological control & Recreation & Aesthetics.
See CLOCA's Action plan for Ecological Goods and Service at the link below:
https://03879aO7-372c-443e-997e-ae65078d7559.filesusr.com/ugd/b3995f 06185f605b264622af69c49d5d6eb4a9.pdf
Additional Considerations
CLOCA staff note that, in addition to the permanent and ongoing monitoring and maintenance that would be
required of the proposed engineered solution, the project would entail the municipality assuming responsibility
as a result of any failure or adverse effects should the slope be destabilized during construction or as a result of
a failure to continually implement the prescribed monitoring program in future years.
Permit Requirements
With respect to any future applications with respect to this application, in addition to the applicable policies
discussed above, the proposal must meet the required statutory tests for approval contained in the
Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 42/06.
We look forward to continuing to work with you as this project is refined. Please feel free to contact the
undersigned should you have any questions.
Yours truly,
�] AD Fff�q--
Andrew Fera
Infrastructure Planner / Enforcement Officer
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
afera@cloca.com 1 905-244-8774
Attach. Technical Memo from CLOCA's Environmental Engineering Department
Cc: Chris Jones, Director of Planning & Regulation (clones@cloca.com)
Page 13
Ar
,f,&"Central
Lake Ontario
Conservation
Authority
Memo from Environmental Engineering
Date:
To:
From:
Materials Reviewed:
Healthy watersheds for today
and tomorrow.
March 1, 2021 File: RCON196
Andrew Fera Cc: Chris Jones
Perry Sisson Subject: Farewell Creek Trail —
Phase 2B Alignment.
Valley
Geotechnical Investigation, Slope Stability and Proposed Recreational Trail
Design Farewell Creek Valley, Courtice (Golder Assoc ,September 17, 2020)
ENVIRONEMNAL ENGINEERING REVIEW
Further to on -going conversations regarding the above noted trail proposal, I offer the following concerns and
review of the geotechnical report and proposed mid -slope alternative trail construction:
The mid -slope trail alternative is located on a steep valley slope of the Farewell Creek that is densely covered in
mature forest vegetation. The Golder report notes the slope extends 21m to 28m above the creek elevation, and
has steep slopes ranging from 1:1 to 3:1 (horizontal distance: vertical distance). Farewell Creek lies immediately
at the toe of the slope. Residential dwellings along Pinedale Crescent are located directly behind the top of
slope, and are within the erosion hazard of the Farewell Creek stream and valley. The Golder study notes:
"...localised areas of soft soils associated with sloughed soils and flowing groundwater at surface were observed
along the face of the slope and located at elevations from about mid -slope to the toe of slope. Signs of erosion
and instability, including surface creep, were also observed along the slope face indicated by exposed tree roots
and characteristic tree bending." The slope is located in the Iroquois Beach physiographic feature and contains
both sandy and till soils.
The Golder visual assessment of the slope found "signs of localised and surficial instabilities on the valley slope
surface" which includes the following:
• Exposed tree roots;
• Tree bending (curved trunks) and tilting due to surface creep;
• Presence of localised areas of sloughed soils and soft, wet spots;
• Toe erosion at the bank of the creek; and
• Seeping groundwater at surface."
100 WHITING AVENUE OSHAWA ON L1 H 3T3 I P.9055790411 I F.9055790994 I CLOCA.COM
Healthy watersheds for today
and tomorrow.
These findings are further substantiated with observed evidence of: several localized areas of soft soil that
probably accumulated due to active erosion of the wet surficial soils. Golder's slope stability analysis concluded
the existing slope is stable with respect to deep seated failure mechanisms, but sections of the slope do not
meet stable slope criteria with respect to surficial slope failure.
CLOCA staff have noted the forest vegetation to be of significant age and structure. These slopes are very
sensitive to disturbance. Any activity that removes mature vegetation, alters the health of existing vegetation,
changes the hydrology, drainage patterns or groundwater/ seepage conditions, or disturbs surficial soils, is likely
to create further instability throughout the slope.
With respect to proposed trail construction on the slope, Golder notes the use of gabion, armour stone, or
concrete retaining walls would result in a reduction of the safety factor and are not recommended. Golder
suggests soils anchor/soil nail construction for the proposed mid slope trail as a concept, but notes:
"The proposed regrading of the slopes and construction of retaining walls is anticipated to be difficult due to the
existing terrain and heavy vegetation (including mature trees). In addition, site access is expected to be
challenging and problematic due to varying slope gradients as well as presence of soft and wet areas. Regrading
of the existing slopes will require removal of vegetation (including mature trees) and use of benching and
engineered fill to construct the minimum slope stable gradient of 2H:1V under the short-term condition for site
access. The reconstruction of the slope will likely require cuts (initially from the upper portion of the slope) in
order to maintain the slopes short term stability and then reconstruction of the slope to the desired geometry
from the bottom up using benched engineered fill."
It is clear that the proposed trail construction would result in severe and extensive disturbance to the valley
slope. Details of the full extent of the disturbance would become more evident through the detailed design
process, and construction, but is likely to include massive removal of mature trees and regrading of significant
portions of the existing slope. Golder further notes
"It should be noted that the proposed construction activities noted above will likely result in significant site
disturbance and vegetation/tree removal. It is strongly recommended that further discussions between the
contractor, Municipality, Golder and CLOCA be held to address issues related to tree removal and slope
regrading."
Even with this complete reconstruction of major portions of the slope, the remaining undisturbed slope portions
are likely to be impacted through:
• Changes in hydrology
o Less tree canopy leads to reduced rain interception and evapotranspiration and more soil
moisture and runoff.
0 3m paved (impervious) trail will create more stormwater runoff and may concentrate runoff to
locations on the slope.
• Changes in vegetation health
o Opening of tree canopy leads to impacted health of remaining trees and reduced surficial soil
stability due to decline in root health.
Page12
Healthy watersheds for today
and tomorrow.
These changes create a significant risk of further failure of the remaining valley slope and poses a risk to the
existing Pinedale Crescent homes that, in my opinion, are unacceptable.
In conclusion, the existing Farewell Creek valley slope is a tall and steep slope with varying sandy and till soils
and groundwater seepage, and the Farewell Creek directly at the toe of slope. The existing slope shows signs of
surficial creep and minor sloughing, but has been historically stable due to the presence of very mature forest
vegetation. Existing homes are perched on the top of slope and are within the erosion hazard.
A mid slope trail proposal has been proposed, and Golder Associates has provided a concept for this proposal.
They note, however, very difficult conditions for construction, and it can be concluded that a significant portion
of the existing slope would be disturbed to complete the work, and the remaining portions of the slope would
also be negatively impacted. This would lead to greater concern for slope stability and future slope failures that
could impact existing homes and property.
While the trail and disturbed portion of the slope could be engineered (requiring perpetual monitoring and
maintenance), the removal of mature vegetation and placement of a trail mid slope may have unforeseen
consequences on the remaining valley slope. This trail alternative does not meet CLOCA policy for approval, and
in my opinion poses an unacceptable risk for future slope failure and impacts to existing property. Alternative
trail configurations that avoid this portion of the valley slope should be pursued.
Page 13
CIM/IV+
Revised February 2611, 2021
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Attention: Mr. Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works
RE: Tree Inventory and Impact Assessment, Updated Cost Estimates and
Comparison to Support Farewell Creek Phase 2B Geotechnical
Recommendations
Dear Mr. Brake:
As per the outline provided in our proposal dated February 41h , 2021, CIMA Canada Inc. (CIMA+)
has completed the necessary topographic survey update to capture the impacted trees within the
Council recommended trail alignment as well as the tree inventory and assessment for both the
Council preferred alignment and the original trial alignment. A summary of the updated base plan
information from the survey and the tree inventory is provided in Attachment 1.
We have also revised the preliminary design to incorporate the recommendations of the Golder
Associates' (Golder) Slope Stability Assessment dated September 171h, 2020 for construction of the
trail to ensure the long-term stability of the valley wall during and after construction of the trail.
Cost estimates for the revised preliminary design were updated and also compared with cost
estimates for the original alignment along with updating the cost estimates for the balance of the
trail connecting to the closest sidewalks at Cherrydown Drive and to the southwest limit of the
Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A. The following sections will outline in more detail the work that was
completed.
BACKGROUND
As part of the design of the Council preferred alignment for the Farewell Creek Trail, CIMA+ and
Clarington staff walked the trail alignment and identified concerns with slope steepness and stability
as well as water seepage. In order to address these concerns Council approved the commissioning
of a geotechnical investigation and slope stability analysis for the area of concern bound by
Townline Road to the west and the existing stormwater management pond to the east (STA 4+440
to 4+630 as identified on the attached trail alignment drawings). Golder undertook the geotechnical
work in the summer of 2020 and provided their final report in September of 2020.
Golder's report identified two areas where long term slope stability was a concern if a trail was
constructed on the Council preferred alignment. The report recommended that remedial measures
would be required from roughly STA 4+460 to 4+510 and from STA 4+550 to 4+600 to ensure the
long-term stability of the slope. Due to the existing slope composition a traditional armor stone or
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 213 Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx MNCENTRIC)
415 Baseline Road West, 2d Floor Bowmanville, ON L1 C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 Best Employer- - -
CANAOA 2019
February 11, 2021 Page 2 of 11 M
precast concrete gravity retaining wall were determined to not be viable options to improve stability
and would be detrimental to the slope stability if used. In this regard, requirements for an alternative
wall design were identified.
KWGSWOW DR
J
-fARETrfI,L �E1c `
PHASE 26
COUNOL PREFERM
TRAIL AUONMENT
se6TbInNRR
WAN AGDO T 1
moo►
Y 1 I �
I PfEDALE CAES
ALIGLENJ OPTIONS k
MATCHR4G POINT 1
SOUTH LIMIT OF - - -
�PHA,sE 26 - -
r
PHASE 2A TRAIL
I uk
TNS I
rIOM
pj- I.114GWAY OR
�00
i T
:.I
PHASE 2e
ORIpNAL TRAIL
ALIGNMENT
5
' GLENA88EY DR T Y--- T- `YTT -F--\ i—T—T—F-0
Figure 1: Key Plan of Trail Alignment Options
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate RevO5.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 3 of 11
2 UPDATED PROPOSED DESIGN
Based on the recommendations from Golder the design of Council preferred alignment has been
modified to include a Retained/Reinforced Soil Wall (RSW) or Retained Soil System (RSS) wall to
address the areas of stability concern. Additionally, in the interest of minimizing the number of trees
impacted by extensive down slope grading, the design has also been modified to include the
RSW/RSS treatment within the full length of the treed area of the slope running continuously from
roughly 4+450 to 6+630. The complete Golder technical memorandum is provided in Appendix B
for reference.
An RSW/RSS typically includes a reinforced face that consist of either stone within a steel mesh or
concrete panels, the face is then `tied -back' into the soil behind the wall. The `tie -backs' typically
consists of geogrid material that also serves to reinforce the soil (backfill) that is placed behind the
wall. Figure 1 illustrates a typical cross-section of an RSS wall in a roadway application.
=advis units
Figure 2: Cross Section of Typical RSS Wall
The Municipality of Clarington has used this type of system in the past on their Bond Head active
transportation improvement project on Mill Street where it was placed between Graham Creek and
Mill Street to provide a stable platform for the pedestrian trail and viewing platform. The photos
provided in the below figures show the wall and its components at various stages of construction.
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 4 of 11 M
Figure 3: Wall Staging with Geogrid Tie Backs Wire Grid Wall
r
3
•3� � �` �
,Jrirr � -
y t
$
Figure 4: RSS Wall - Subdrain, Geogrid, Backfill and Typical Equipment for Construction
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 5 of 11 M
e it
Figure 5: Stone Outside Face of RSS Wall with Geogrid Tie Backs
Figure 6: Granular Backfill Placement
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 6 of 11 M
Figure 7: Treatment at Pipe Outfall
Figure 8: Special Preparation for Railing Footings
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 7 of 11 M
Figure 9: Finished Wall Face with Storm Outlet
Figure 10: Wall Face with Minimal Disturbance Beyond Wall Base
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 8 of 11 M
Figure 11: Installed Railing System (guard)
With the use of the reinforced soil retention walls at locations that were confirmed to have slope
stability concerns, Golder's the long-term (drained) analysis determined that the factor of safety
would be 1.5 or greater which is considered acceptable for slope design.
The RSS Wall is also proposed for the trail within the existing established wooded area east of the
storm pond slope. Across the face of the constructed pond slope grading at 2.5:1 would be used
to establish the trail platform with the intent of reducing trail costs.
As part of the RSS Wall design a railing meeting the requirements of a `guard' will be required due
to the 1.0 m to 3.5 m+ wall heights. The railing will be of sufficient height (1.4 m) to account for use
of the trail by cyclists similar to the one shown in Figure 11.
In order to address water runoff from the backslope above the trail and to take the runoff from the
trail surface in a manner that will not compromise the RSS Wall base a concrete gutter will be
constructed on the upslope side of the trail cross-section. Ditch inlets and pipe outlets (through the
wall system) at sufficient frequency will also be used to effectively manage the water runoff.
The plan and profile drawing for the Council recommended alignment is provided in Appendix C
along with the typical RSS Wall details from the Bond Head Active Transportation Improvement
project on Mill Street. Note that the plan and profile drawing was used as part of the geotechnical
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 9 of 11 lie
report and the notes related to armor stone retaining walls are no longer applicable as they are
proposed to be replaced with the RSS Wall as recommended by Golder.
3 TREE INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION
In addition to the geotechnical investigation and analysis that was undertaken to support the design
and construction of the trail along the Council recommended alignment, Clarington staff requested
that a tree inventory, analysis, and valuation be undertaken. Considering the concern raised by the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) staff regarding the impact the trail would
have on the mature forest on the slope that this trail alignment traverses, Clarington staff wanted to
have a full accounting of the area to better inform their design and discussions with CLOCA staff
moving forward. The full details of the inventory including a drawing showing the area of influence
and impact of both the Council recommended alignment and the original design alignment are
provided in Appendix A. Also included in the drawing set is a summary table of all trees impacted
including the tree species, size, condition, structural defects, and estimated impact of trail
construction on the trees.
Based on the inventory and assessment CIMA+ completed a valuation of the trees based on the
Trunk Formula Method provided by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant
Appraisal (10th Edition, Second Printing) to quantify, with a dollar value, the loss of trees based on
their importance to the local mature forest and to the residential properties that currently benefit
from the presence of the trees. The valuation also considers such things as the tree size, health,
species importance, defects, and location.
3.1 COUNCIL PREFERRED ALIGNMENT
A total of 217 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with construction zones for
Council recommended trail alignment, as per the summary chart below. These trees consist
predominantly of Elm, Hemlock, Beech, Birch, Cedar and Poplar that are part of well established
and mature forest. The presence of very large Hemlock and Yellow Birch are significant contributors
to the overall health and character of the forest and stabilize the valley slopes with their extensive
root systems. Table 1 below provides a summary of the number of trees that would be removed
and the range in the size of trees removed.
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 10 of 11
Table 1: Tree Removals Along Council Preferred Alignment
A�
DBH of Trees to Be Removed
(Diameter at Breast Height)
0-5cm
10-20cm
20-30cm
30-40cm
40cm +
Total
Individual
-
-
10
20
13
43
Trees in
_
113
55
6
-
174
Groups
113
65
26
13
217
Total
217 trees to be removed
Appraised
$393,020 for 217 trees to be removed
Value
3.2 ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
A total of 123 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with construction zones for the
trail along the original alignment. The trees that would be removed to construct the trail along the
original alignment are predominantly Spruce, Cedar, Maple, Manitoba Maple, and Ash, and 2 very
large Yellow Birch trees that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Table 2 below provides a
summary of the number of trees that would be removed and the range in the size of trees removed:
Table 2: Tree Removals Along Original Alignment
DBH of Trees to Be Removed
(Diameter at Breast Height)
0-5cm
10-20cm
20-30cm
30-40cm
40cm +
Total
Individual
2
19
2
7
3
33
Trees in
_
50
40
-
-
90
Groups
2
69
42
7
3
123
Total
123 trees to be removed
Appraised
$208,580 for 123 trees to be removed
Value
Typically, based on experience, CLOCA may request that all trees removed must be replaced with
the same or a greater number of "new" trees as compensation while other jurisdictions require
replacement or compensation based on the value of the trees removed.
4 UPDATED COST ESTIMATES
Along with the updated design for the trail based on the recommendations of Golder's geotechnical
assessment CIMA+ has updated the cost estimate for construction to include the use of RSS walls
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.c�
February 11, 2021 Page 11 of 11 lie
where necessary to address slope stability and reduction in impact to the mature tree canopy. The
estimate updates also reflect costs changes consistent with similar trail construction over the last
couple of years. The following is a summary of the trail construction costs to complete the trail from
Cherrydown Drive to the limit of Phase 2A.
4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000(Common Alignment) $479,000
4+430 to 4+720 (Council Recommended Alignment) $1,249,000
Other Costs (design/tendering, Admin., Contingencies, Permits) $423,000
TOTAL $2,151,000
4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000(Common Alignment) $479,000
4+430 to 4+720 (Original Alignment) $585,000
Other Costs (design/tendering, Admin., Contingencies, Permits) $260,000
TOTAL $1,324,000
The biggest factor contributing to the price difference between the two options above is the retained
soil system wall and railing which accounts for approximately $665,000 of difference between the
two options. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimates is provided in Appendix D. The tree
valuation costs are not included in the above cost estimates for the trail.
A photo log of the two alternative trail routes between STA 4+430 and 4+720 are provided in
Appendix E.
We would like to thank the Municipality of Clarington for providing CIMA+ the opportunity to work
on this unique trail design. Should you have any questions regarding this technical memorandum
or any of the supporting material, we would be glad to assist you.
Best regards,
CIMA Canada Inc.
Ron Albright, P.Eng.
Project Director
Ron.Albright@cima.ca
070114 \\
Dan Campbell
Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner
Dan. Campbell@cima.ca
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx
cima.ca
Appendix A: Tree Inventory
CIANV,k+
CIM/X+
February 11, 2021
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON U C 3A6
Attention: Mr. Stephen Brake
Director of Public Works
RE: Tree Inventory and Impact Assessment, Appraisal Value Comparison
between Trail Alignments 1 (Original) and 2 (Council recommended)
Dear Mr. Brake:
A tree inventory and assessment were completed to review the trees potentially affected by both
trail alignments. An ISA Certified Arborist from CIMA+ conducted site visits on February 5t" and 8t"
2021. Trees were numbered, identified, measured, and assessed for condition. The tree inventory
tables containing this information are included on Tree Inventory Plans 1 through 4 (attached).
Alignment 1:
A total of 62 individual trees and 3 tree groupings were identified within the area impacted by
Alignment 1 (magenta hatch) and includes all trees numbered 1 through 62, as well as tree groups
A through C (90 trees within groups).
A total of 123 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with the construction zone for
trail Alignment 1, as per the summary chart below.
Tree Removal Summary - Alignment 1 (magenta)
DBH
Diameter at Breast Height)
0-5cm
10-20cm
20-30cm
30-40cm
40cm +
2
19
2
7
3
50
40
Total: 33 + 50 + 40 = 123 trees to be
removed
(Individual Trees)
(Tree within Groupings)
The trees that would be removed to construct Alignment 1 are predominantly Spruce, Cedar, Maple,
Manitoba Maple, and Ash, and 2 very large Yellow Birch trees that are reaching the end of their
lifespan.
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1 C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443
KINCENTRI0
Best Employer
CANADA2019
February 11, 2021 Page 2 of 4 A+k
Photo Examale of Trail Alianment 1:
Alignment 2:
A total of 46 individual trees and 12 tree groupings were identified within Alignment 2 (yellow hatch)
and includes all trees numbered 63 through 108, as well as tree groups D through O (174 trees
within groups).
A total of 217 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with construction zones for trail
Alignment 2, as per the summary chart below.
Tree Removal Summary - Alignment 2
DBH
Diameter at Breast Height
0-5cm
10-20cm
20-30cm
30-40cm
40cm +
10
20
13
113
55
6
Total: 43 + 113 + 55 + 6 = 217 trees to be removed
(Individual Trees)
(Tree within Groupings)
The trees that would be removed to construct Alignment 2 are predominantly Elm, Hemlock,
Beech, Birch, Cedar and Poplar that are part of well established and mature forest. Very large
Hemlock and Yellow Birch are significant contributors to the overall health of the forest and
stabilize the valley with their extensive root system. These species are not predominant in the
area, especially at their larger size, and preference should be given to protect these trees.
Alignment 2 would require the removal of more large trees (39 trees >30cm) than Alignment 1 (10
trees > 30cm). This is significant because larger trees provide more ecological benefits and take
much longer to replace.
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 3 of 4 A+k
Photo Examale of Trail Alianment 2:
- y
\ 4
` - .01
'
Removal of these mature trees along the slope face would result in significant impacts and with
the slow growth rate of these trees, reestablishment of the existing forest through the area would
be unlikely to replicate the existing healthy ecosystem. Forests of this mature nature and
advanced age are limited within the Municipality of Clarington. There is also potential for additional
tree loss due to slope failure and injury from trail construction and associated grading.
Additional maintenance for Alignment 2 should be expected to keep the trail area clear of potentially
hazardous branches and trees as nearby trees decline due to root damage. The potential for
maintenance issues associated with erosion must also be recognized given the significant slope
that would be disturbed to construct the trail.
Appraisal Value Comparison:
As requested by Clarington, CIMA+ has used the Trunk Formula Technique (Reproduction Method)
of the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal (loth Edition, Second
Printing) to apply a value to the existing trees. This value is based on the cost of planting nursery
trees, proportionally increased to represent the size of the tree being removed. The goal of this
approach is to provide a comparison of the total tree value that would be impacted by moving
forward with Alignment 1 or Alignment 2. This does not take into account the additional impacts of
Alignment 2 on the forest ecosystem. While Alignment 1 would impact primarily trees along the
edge of the forest, Alignment 2 would disrupt the core of the forest on all sides of the trail, affecting
more trees beyond the edges of disturbance, in a sensitive area that would not be able to recover
to its current state.
The following total appraised values were calculated for the trees that must be removed for each
alignment:
Alignment 1: $208,580 (original)
Alignment 2: $393,020 (Council recommended)
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx
cima.ca
February 11, 2021 Page 4 of 4 #*�f
CIMA+ Arborist staff have also read the feedback provided by CLOCA staff related to the loss of
trees, and concur with their comments as they relate to the uniqueness and importance of the
mature forest that exists along the proposed trail alignment.
Best regards,
CIMA Canada Inc.
Sean Nailer, ISA Certified Arborist
Senior Technician
Sean.Nailer@cima.ca
C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx
Lisa Cullen, GALA, ISA Certified Arborist
Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner
Lisa. Cullen @cima.ca
cima.ca
This tlrawing M1es been preparetl for me use of --them entl may nol W used. reprotlecetl or reWd upon
by MiN pbdi.b. —pt es agreatl by CIMA entl it. client, es re —d by I—, for use by gpvemm-al
wing agencies CIMA eroepls no responsibility, entl tlenies any Ilabiliry wM1elsoever, tp any pefiy IM1et
motlifies thlstlrewing wilnaN CIMA's express written consem.
tis ne resppnsiblliry ofne contredor �o Inman themselves of the axedocation oentles—ell Iiabilily
f I
A
CLIENT:
DRAWN BY:
L. MAY
CHECKED BY:
S. NAILER
TITLE:
FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL
n
PHASE LB
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
r em ell ntl
obelow gretle before rommencing
for tlemegNililies services esWdures wemer above groutsl
h
EXISTING TREES WITH
C 1A
tM1e wp*. 6ppM1 information ie net nepessarily aM1mvn pn,he tlrawing. entl ,M1e where eM1awn.pannpti"gMn b. gaarameetl.
%I\ TREE INVENTORY NUMBER
`�
`
ar
CI
-
R. ALBRIGHT
TREE INVENTORY
S Wits the sole exceplipn M me benchmarks) spec?celly tlescnbetl mrn,ls project, no elevetlan intlicetetl or
ssumetl M1ereonm I. be... d ase raferenre elevation for any ppmoP.T.-2ntl
al tlimensians entl informe�ion Snell be checketl aria vengetl on the lob entl enytllscrepencies must be
reppnetl to ne—idpaliry before rommencing thewoM. At be bbminetl hom—d
! tlimensipns, tlrawings are not to be scaled.
Fl--415 Baseline Roatl West, Bow —All., ON L1C 5M
Phone: 90G6974464 www.clma.ca
SCALE:
1:250
DATE:2
FEBRUARY 2021
PROJECT NUMBER:
C14-0287
DRAWING NUMBER:
1
CON TRACT NUMBER:
_
01
2021/02/10
RA
ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM
No.
DATE
BY
ISSUES/REVISIONS
11
AREA OF
MPACT
IT 1
6
i
9Ali,
■
i
This tlrawing has been.b.g for the use of CIMA's Gienl entl may y I bB usetl, by
gb- or relletl upon
by MiN parries. exreptas agreatlby ClMAantl ilsclient, es re9uiretl by law or for use by.
CLIENT:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
TITLE:
b.y .en�el
' wing agencies CIMA eroapls no responsibility, entl tlenies any Ilabiliry wM1elspever, I. any perry Ihet
L. MAY
S. NAILER
FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL
matlifies thlstlmwing wilnaN CIMA's express written consem.
d Itls ne resppnsiblliry pfna contrenor �o lnmrm themselves of the exectloc—p[antlasepmaallliabilily
A
+
PHASE LB
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
helaw gretle befarerommencing
for tlamage taall Nil-ti servicesa.Hlyres whether eb.ing,
EXISTING TREES WITHC
JAW
hd
the wa*. 6pah information ie net neaessanly ahawn an,M1e tlrawing, entl where aM1own.,M1e aacuraay aannat
TREE INVENTORY NUMBER
`
IV
C
-
R. ALBRGHT
TREE INVENTORY
b. gaarameetl.
%I\
R
S WiM the sole excepli-M Me benchmarks) spec—lly tlescnbetl far this project, no elevatlan intlicatetl
SCALE:
DATE:
ssumetl M1ereon is Io to usetl asa raferenre elevation 11 any pumose.
Nltlimensibdbhyd—pandas mastbe
01
2021/02/10
RA
ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM
2ntl Floor-415 Baseline Roatl West, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 5M2
Phone: 90G6974464 www.clma.ca
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWING NUMBER:
CON TRACT NUMBER:
reppnetl to ne--paliry before rommencing th.—Al maesu—Ib mast be bbtainatl from atetatl
1:250
FEBRUARV 2021
C14-0287
2
_
! dimensions, tlrewings are not to W scalatl.
No.
DATE
BY
ISSUES/REVISIONS
TREE INVENTORY TABLE: ALIGNMENT 1
Tree
No.
Common
name
Scientific
name
DBH
Wro
epp—
Overall
Condition
(D), (P/, (F),
(G), a (E)
Structural Defects
Tree
Impacts
(gnjure/
(R)emove
Comments
GR
COD
NA
INCL
CRB
MB
DPR
SMD
ADV
LN
1
Spruce
Piceasp.
20-30
G
dead lower branches
2
Spruce
Picea sp.
20-30
G
dead lower branches
3
Spruce
Piceasp.
20-30
G
I
dead lower branches
4
Spruce
Piceasp.
10-20
G
R
2stem
5
Ash
Fraxinus sp.
10-1
D
I
I
I
I
R
tree is dead, signs of EAB
6
Cedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
20-30
G
1
7
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-20
F
X
X
X
R
8
Cedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
30-40
G
1
9
Maple
Acers .
10-20
F/G
X
R
10
Maple
Acersp.
30-40
G
X
R
11
Maple
Acers .
30-40
G
R
12
Maple
Acers .
30-40
G
R
13
Maple
Acersp.
30-40
G
R
14
Cedar
Thu -a occidentalis
0-5
G
R
15
Cedar
Thu -a occidentalis
0-5
F
R
16
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
30-40
F/P
X
X
X
X
X
R
leaning overtrail, potential hazard
17
Cedar
Thu -a occidentalis
10-20
F
X
R
18
Cedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
30-40
G
1
19
ICedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
30-40
F
20
Cedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
10-20
F
21
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-20
F/P
X
X
X
X
X
R
exposed roots, cavity at base
22
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
20-30
P
X
X
X
X
R
severe lean overtrail, potential hazard
23
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-20
F
R
24
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-15
F
R
25
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-15
F
R
26
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-15
F
R
27
Elm
Ulmussp.
10-15
F
1
28
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-15
F
X
X
R
29
ISpruce
Piceasp.
10-20
F
R
suppressed tree, one side lack of needles
30
1 Manitoba Maple
Acerne undo
30-40
F
leaning towards trail over neighbouring tree
31
Maple
Acers .
10-20
F
XT—R
deadwood in canopy
Tree
No.
Common
name
Scientific
name
DBH
a(CM)
Coverall
(D),(P),(F7,
(G), a (E)
Structural Defects
Imp cts
(gnjure/
(R)enove
Comments
GR
COD
NA
INC
CRB
MBR
DPR
SMD
ADV
LN
32
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10-20
F
1
33
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10-20
F
1
34
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-20
F
X
X
R
35
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10-15
G
R
36
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
20-30
G
I
I
I
I
I
1 1
37
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10-15
G
I
38
Black Walnut
Juglansnigra
35
F/G
X
X
X
I
leaning overtrail, on slope
39
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-15
F
X
X
R
40
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10-20
F
1
41
lCedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10'20
F
R
42
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
10-20
F
1
43
Maple
Acers .
20-30
G
X
X
I
44
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
30-40
F
X
R
leaning ov ertrail, potential hazard
45
Crabapple
Malus sp.
10-20
F/P
R
46
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
20-30
F
R
47
Cedar
Thujaoaidentalis
20-30
P
R
48
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
10-15
F
R
49
Yellow Birch
Betulaalle haniensis
30-40
F
X
X
significant deadwood, broken limbs
50
Dead Deciduous
Dead Deciduous
10-15
D
R
51
1 Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
30-40
G
X
1
52
Manitoba Maple
Acernegundo
30-40
G
X
R
53
Yellow Birch
Betulaalle haniensis
90
F
X
X
X
X
R
significant deadwood
54
Yellow Birch
Betulaalle haniensis
90
F
I
X
X
X
X
R
significant deadwood
55
Dead Deciduous
Dead Deciduous
36
D
tree is dead
56
ICedar
Thujaoaidentalis
20-30
G
clump
57
Yellow Birch
Betulaalleghaniensis
45
F
X
X
I
deadwood in canopy
58
Ash
Fraxinus sp.
43
D
I
I
I
I
I
tree is dead, signs of EAB
59
Ash
Fraxinus sp.
44
D
itree is dead, signs of EAB
60
Ash
Fraxinus sp.
49
D
tree is dead, signs of EAB
61 ICedar
Thu -a oaidentalis
68
F/P
X
X
X
R
Loosed roots, cavities at base, significant deadwood
TREE GROUPING TABLE: ALIGNMENT 1
Group
Common
name
Scientific
(within
group)
DBH
([IameteratBreast Height)
Overall
Condition
(� (E) (� a
(E)(R)ertrove
Tree
Impacts
(gnjure/
Comments
10-20cm
20-30cm
30-40cm
A
Cedar
Thuja sp.
100
20stems
20stems
Good
R
B
Cedar
Thuja sp.
100
10stems
10stems
Good
R
C
Cedar
Thuja sp.
100
1 20stems
10stems
Good
R
This drawing M1es been prepared for reuseofClMA's Giant entl may not bB usetl. repmducetl prrelled upon
by rite pbdi.b. —pt ee agreed by CIMA and it-wrt, es re —d by law or for use by gpvemmentel
wing agencies CIMA a is no responsibility. entl tlenies any (lability whatsoever, I. any pahy net
' matlifies thlstlmwing wilhaut ClMA's express wdMn consem.
It Is ne responsibility ofne contreMorI Inman themselves ofne exert loc—of. entl assume ell liability
for damage to ell Nilities services entl sWctures whener above grouts or below gretle before rommencing
ne-6uchthmrmefianisnotneceseadlyah--netlrawing,entlwhereshown.nea ra annpt
be gueremeetl.
I Wits the sole exceptionMne benchmarks)spec?catty tlescdbetlfar this pr.j... no.mustier intlicated or
ssumetl M1ereon N I. usetl ass referen�elevetian for any pumose.
All dimensions entl information Snell be checked era vengetl on the lob entl enytllscrepencies must be
reported tone munidpelitybefere commencing the want. At meesu—Ib must be obbb-d hom et d
! dimensions, drawings are not to be s—d.
C JIW
!
2rid Fl-- 415 Baseline Road West, Bow hAlle, ON L1C 5M2
Phone: 905-6974464 www.clma.ca
CLIENT:
•
C1-IILJI��
DRAWN BY:
L. MAY
CHECKED BY:
S. NAILER
TITLE:
FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL
n
PHASE LB
TREE INVENTORY
DESIGNED BY:
-
APPROVED BY:
R. ALBRIGHT
SCALE:
1:250
DATE:
FEBRUARY 2021
PROJECT NUMBER:
C14-0287
DRAWING NUMBER:
3
CON TRACT NUMBER:
_
01
2021/02/10
RA
ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM
No.
DATE
BY
ISSUES/REVISIONS
TREE INVENTORY TABLE: ALIGNMENT 2
Tree
No.
Common
name
Scientific
name
UB,H
•approx.
Overall
Condition
(D), (P), (F),
(G), or (E)
Structural Defects
Tree
Impacts
(gnjure/
(R)emove
Comments
GR
COD
NA
INCL
CRB
MBR
DPR
SMD
ADV
LN
63
Elm
Ulmussp.
20
G
R
64
Elm
Ulmuss .
20
G
R
65
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
30,20
G
X
R
66
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
50
G
R
67
Elm
Ulmussp.
20-30
G
R
68
Elm
Ulmussp.
30-40
G
R
69
Elm
Ulmussp.
20-30
G
R
70
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
30-40
G
R
dead tree leaning on branches
71
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
30-40
F/G
R
2 stem, one main leader broken
72
American Beech
Fagus americana
30-40
G
X
X
R
tree cavity
73
American Beech
Fagus americana
30-40
G
X
X
R
74
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
35,35
G
X
X
R
exposed roots
75
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
40-50
G
R
76
Maple
Acers
30-40
F/G
X
X
R
decay at base
77
1 Easte rn He ml ock
Tsuga canadensis
30-40
G
R
78
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
30-40
G
1
79
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
20-30
G
R
80
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
30-40
F/G
R
suppressed tree
81
White Birch
Betula papyrifera
30,30
F
X
X
X
X
R
exposed roots, cavities at base, significant deadwood
82
White Birch
Betula papyrifera
40-50
F
X
X
R
significant deadwood
83
Cedar
Thujaoccidentalis
20-30
F
X
X
1
84
Eastern Hemlock
Tsu acanadensis
40-50
F/P
R
large tree cavity up trunk
85
American Beech
Fa us americana
51
F
I
X
X
R
significant deadwood
Tree
No.
Common
name
Scientific
name
UBH
• aP ro
Overall
Condition
(Q)• (F), (F),
(G), or (E)
Structural Defects
Tree
Impacts
(gnjure/
(R)e—e
Comments
GR
COD
NA
�INCL�
CRB
NI
DPR
SMD
ADV
LN
86
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
50-60
F/G
X
X
X
X
X
R
exposed surface roots
87
Cedar
Thujaoccidentalis
30-40
F/P
X
X
X
R
suppressedtree
88
White Birch
Betula papyrifera
20-30
F/G
X
R
89
White Birch
Betula papyrifera
20-30
F/G
X
R
90
White Birch
Betula a rifera
40-50
F/G
X
R
91
Cedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
40-50
F/P
X
X
X
R
significant deadwood, exosed roots
92
American Beech
Fagus americana
20-30
F/G
X
X
R
exposed roots
93
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
40-50
G
X
X
R
94
White Birch
Betula a rifera
30-40
F
X
R
95
White Birch
Betula papyrifera
30-40
F
X
R
96
American Beech
Fagus americana
30-40
G
R
97
American Beech
Fagus americana
40-50
F
X
X
X
R
signs of decay, tree showing signs of stress
98
Poplar
Po uluss .
40-50
G
X
X
X
R
dead tree leaning over branches
99
Poplar
Po uluss .
30-40
G
R
100
Poplar
Po uluss .
30-40
G
R
101
American Beech
Fagus americana
20-30
G
X
R
102
Poplar
Populus sp.
30-40
G
R
103
Cedar
Thu-aoccidentalis
30-40
G
R
104
Manitoba Maple
Acerne undo
30.40
F/G
X
X
R
vine growing throughout
105
Yellow Birch
Betula alleghaniensis
30-40
F
X
X
1
106
American Beech
Fagus americana
20.30
G
R
107
Eastern Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
20.30
F
R
suppressecitree
108
Cedar
Thu -a oaidentalis
40.50
F
R
marked with bullse a in red spraypaint
TREE GROUPING TABLE: ALIGNMENT 2
Group
Common
name
Scientific
name
(within
group)
DBH
(DameteratBreasBreast Height)
Overall
Condition
(D), (P), (F), (6), or
(E)
Tree
Impacts
(gnjure/
(R)emove
Comments
10-20cm
20.30cm
30-40cm
D
Cedar
Thuja sp.
100
4stems
10stems
3stems
Good
R
E
Cedar
Thuja sp.
30
2stems
2stems
lstem
Good
R
Elm
Ulmussp.
30
5stems
Good
R
Hemlock
Tsuga sp.
35
6stems
Good
R
Maple
Acersp.
5
1stem
Good
R
F
Cedar
Thuja sp.
75
1stem
5stems
Good
R
Elm
Ulmussp.
25
1stem
1stem
Good
R
G
Maple
Acersp.
50
4stems
2stems
Good
R
Cedar
Thujasp.
50
2stems
3stems
Fair
R
H
Cedar
Thuja sp.
65
7stems
3stems
Good
R
Hemlock
Tsuga sp.
15
1stem
1stem
Good
R
Birch
Betula sp.
5
lstem
Good
R
Maple
Acersp.
15
2stems
Good
R
I
Cedar
Thuja sp.
85
13stems
I 2stems
I Good
I R
Hemlock
Tsuga sp.
15
2stems
Good
R
Group
Common
name
Scientific
name
(within
group)
DBH
(D%i at Breast Height)
Overall
Condition
(�' (H' (H' (�' or
(q
Tree
Impacts
(9npre /
(rgemwe
Comments
10.20cm
2D30cm
30.40cm
J
Cedar
Thu -asp.
65
5stems
1stem
Good
R
Hemlock
Tsuga sp.
35
3stems
Good
R
K
Beech
Fagus sp.
55
7stems
Good
R
Cedar
Thu -as .
30
4stems
Good
R
Birch
Betula sp.
15
2stems
Good
R
L
Cedar
Thuja sp.
60
10stems
5stems
Good
R
Maple
Acersp.
20
5stems
Good
R
Beech
Fagus sp.
20
4stems
Good
R
M
Poplar
Populussp.
100
5stems
4stems
Good
R
N
Cedar
Thuja sp.
75
3stems
5stems
lstem
Good
R
Beech
Fagus s.
25
2stems
1stem
Good
R
0
Cedar
Thuja sp.
85
12stems
6stems
1stem
Good
R
Beech
Fagus sp.
10
2stems
Good
R
Hemlock
Tsuga sp.
5
1stem
Good
R
V This cawing M1es been preparetl turn. use of C1— diem entl may not ba usetl. repmtlucea or mWd upon
Y by nirtlpatlies.—ptas agreatlbyC entl it. ifity. rdasre9uiretl by law or for use by. b.yp.enlel
' wing agencies CIMA eaepls no responsibility, entl tlenies any Ilabiliry wM1elsoever, I. any peM1y Ihet
matlifies thlstlmwing wnnaul ClMA's express written consem.
It is
b—g`bt`
for tlto ell Nililies services end sWctures whener above grouts or below gretle before rommencngC1-I�L��6pah nfarmalian ie not ne e a ly ahawn an IM1e tlmwng, entl where ahawn.lhe a ra y annat
bB gueremeetl.
Wits the sole exception a ne benchmark(s) spec?catty tlescnbetl farthls projeM, no elevetlan intlicetetl or
ssumetl M1ereonN to be usetl ase-ren�elevetian for any pumose.
I a
al tlimensians entl information Snell bech-1d entl vengetl on the lob entl any mscrepancies must be
repptdtonemunidpalirybefarecommencinglhawant.almeasureme ib—beobteinadtromstatetl
dimensions,@swings are not to be scaletl.
Cor.g.
`
J�W
2nd Fl-- 415 Baseline Roatl West, Bow hAlle, ON L1C 5M2
Phone: 90G6974464 www.cima.ca
CLIENT:
I•
DRAWN BY:
L. MAY
CHECKED BY:
S. NAILER
TITLE:
FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL
PHASELB
TREE INVENTORY
DESIGNED BV:
-
APPROVED BV:
R. ALBRIGHT
SCALE:
1:250
DATE:
FEBRUARY2021
PROJECT NUMBER:
C14-0287
DRAWING NUMBER:
4
CON TRACT NUMBER:
-
01
2021/02/10
RA
ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM
No.
DATE
BY
ISSUES/REVISIONS
Appendix B: Geotechnical Report
' GOLDER
DATE September 17, 2020
TO Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
FROM Timi Olumuyiwa
Andrew Hagner
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
EMAIL tolumuyiwa@golder.com
ahagner@golder.com
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED RECREATIONAL TRAIL DESIGN
FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO
Dear Mr. Brezina,
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has been retained by The Municipality of Clarington (The Municipality) to provide
slope stability assessment and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed recreational multi -use trail design
along the south slope of the Farewell Creek Valley in Courtice, Ontario (the Site).
As part of the overall trail development, this report provides geotechnical recommendations for the trail between
Station 4+400 and 4+700 based on the site plan provided by CIMA, entitled "Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2,
Borehole Locations and Alternative Alignment 4", dated June 2020. It is understood that the 3.0 m wide multi -use
asphalt surfaced trail is to be located along a long-term stable slope. Based on this, two alternatives have been
suggested by the Municipality to support the proposed trail alignment which are as follows:
■ Regrading of a portion of the existing slope to form final slopes having a maximum 2H:1 V gradient; or
■ Not regrading the slope but construction of retaining walls located along the north limit (downslope) of the
proposed trail alignment.
This technical memorandum presents the results of the slope stability analyses carried out for the existing slopes
and proposed regraded slopes along the above defined survey station limits. It also provides recommendations
for retaining walls and pavement design for the recreational trail. The geotechnical analyses and comments
provided in this technical memorandum are based on the existing and proposed cross sectional profiles provided
by CIMA and the subsurface site information collected as part of our investigation, as presented in this technical
memorandum.
This technical memorandum should be read in conjunction with the `Important Information and Limitations of This
Report" provided following the text of this technical memorandum, which form an integral part of this document.
1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is generally consisting of a steep densely vegetated natural valley slope that dips towards the Farewell
Creek. A stormwater management pond (SWMP) is located south of the proposed trail route, and an unpaved
pedestrian pathway runs at the slope crest. The dense vegetation consists mostly of trees, but sparse vegetative
Golder Associates Ltd.
100, Scotia Court Whitby, Ontario, L1 N 8Y6 Canada T: +1 905 723 2727 +1 905 723 2182
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation golder.com
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
cover mostly exists along the face of the slope. Localized areas of soft soils associated with sloughed soils and
flowing groundwater at surface were observed along the face of the slope and located at elevations from about
mid -slope to the toe of existing slope. Signs of erosion and instability, including surface creep, were also
observed along the slope face indicated by exposed tree roots and characteristic tree bending.
The height of the natural slope ranges from about 21 m to 28 m within the section of the trail alignment being
assessed with varying slope gradients ranging between 1 H:1 V and 3H:1 V.
2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
The geotechnical field investigation for this assignment was carried out between May 12 and 23, 2020, during
which time six boreholes which consisted of two deeper boreholes (Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2) and four shallow
boreholes (Boreholes 20-3 to 20-6), which were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 1.1 m to 1.6 m
(boreholes drilled at the toe of the slope) and from 23.6 m to 26.0 m (at the crest of the slope) below ground
surface (mbgs). The boreholes were terminated due to practical refusal to further advancement except for
Borehole 20-1 which reached its target depth.
The deep boreholes were advanced using track mount drill rigs (CME 55 and CME 75) supplied and operated by
Pontil Drilling Services Inc. of Mount Albert, Ontario. Standard penetration testing (SPT) and sampling in the
overburden soils were carried out at regular intervals of depth using conventional 50 mm external diameter split
spoon sampling equipment driven by an automatic hammer in accordance with ASTM D1586.
The shallow boreholes were advanced manually by driving the standard 50 mm external diameter split spoon
using a half weight (32 kg) hammer dropped from a 760 mm height.
The split -spoon samplers used in the investigation limit the maximum particle size that can be sampled and tested
to about 35 mm. Therefore, particles or objects that may exist within the soils that are larger than this dimension
would not be sampled or represented in the grain size distributions. The results of the in situ field tests (i.e.
SPT `N'-values) as presented on the Record of Borehole Sheets (i.e. borehole records) and in Section 3 of this
report are uncorrected.
The shallow groundwater conditions were noted in the open boreholes during drilling and after installation of
monitoring wells. A total of five monitoring wells were installed within the boreholes advanced as a part of this
investigation to allow for subsequent monitoring of the groundwater levels at the site. Three shallow monitoring
wells were installed along the mid -slope and downslope. The two deep monitoring wells were installed at the
slope crest and were equipped with aboveground steel casing. Borehole 20-6 was backfilled according to
regulatory standards upon completion of drilling.
The field work was observed by a member of our technical staff, who located the boreholes in the field, arranged
for the clearance of underground utility services, observed the drilling, sampling and in situ testing operations,
logged the boreholes, examined the recovered soil samples and took custody of the samples. The samples were
identified in the field, placed in appropriate containers, labelled, and transported to our Whitby geotechnical
laboratory for further examination and selected laboratory testing. Index and classification tests, consisting of
water content determinations as well as selective gradation and Atterberg limit testing were carried out on the
recovered soil samples.
Five boreholes (Boreholes 20-1 to 20-5) were staked prior to the field investigation and the locations of the
boreholes along with the corresponding geodetic ground surface elevations were surveyed by CIMA and provided
GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
to Golder. Borehole 20-6 was added during the field investigation by Golder. The location of Borehole 20-6
should be considered as approximate and the ground surface elevation was extrapolated from the topographic
survey drawing provided by CIMA on June 11, 2020.
3.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY
3.1 Regional Geology
This portion of the Municipality of Clarington lies within the physiographic regions of Southern Ontario known as
the Iroquois Plain (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The Iroquois Plain region covers the border of the lake shore
extending from the City of Trenton in the east to the city of St. Catharines in the southwest. The Iroquois Plain
refers to an area of lowland that borders the present-day Lake Ontario which was formed within the basin of
Glacial Lake Iroquois which was a larger and higher version of Lake Ontario. Lake Iroquois sediments consist
both of granular soils (silt and sand) and finer -grained silt and clay soils. Apart from the naturally deposited soils
within the study area, fills such as engineered fills and landscape fills are to be expected within the study area.
The overburden within the Iroquois Plain in the vicinity of the study area is underlain by shale bedrock of the
Georgian Bay Formation which contains limestone interlayers. Surface and groundwater flow is predominantly to
the south toward Lake Ontario.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
In summary, the subsurface conditions at the borehole locations consist of topsoil and disturbed native soils
generally underlain by a sequence of silty sand till, silty sand, silt as well as gravel. Typically, the gravel deposit is
underlain by a major deposit of silty sand and glacial till.
Groundwater measured on June 2, 2020 in the monitoring wells installed at the boreholes drilled at the top of the
slope ranged from 12.7 m and 24.8 m below grade. Groundwater measured on June 2, 2020 in the monitoring
wells installed at the boreholes drilled at the bottom of the slope were generally near surface ranging from ground
surface to 1.5 m below the grade.
SILTY SAND
A silty sand deposit, being gravelly to containing trace gravel was encountered in Boreholes 20-1 to 20-4 and
20-6. The silty sand was interlayered within the till in Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2. In Boreholes 20-3, 20-4 and 20-6,
the silty sand deposit underlying the topsoil is disturbed, containing rootlets and organic inclusions. The presence
of cobbles and/or boulders in the silty sand deposit is inferred from auger grinding during drilling in Borehole 20-1.
The SPT `N'-values measured within the silty sand deposit ranged from 65 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to
50 blows per 0.03 m of penetration, indicating a very dense state of compactness. For the disturbed near surface
silty sand, the measured SPT `N'-values ranged from 3 to 7 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a very loose
to loose state of compactness. The natural water contents measured on samples of the silty sand deposit ranged
from about 7 percent to 22 percent.
Grain size distribution curves for four samples of the silty sand deposit is shown on Figure B1 in Appendix B.
SILT
A silt deposit, being sandy to containing trace sand was encountered in Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2 underlying the
silty sand and silty sand till deposits. The presence of cobbles and/or boulders in the silt deposit can be inferred
GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
from the multiple instances of auger grinding during drilling as well as the split -spoon sampler not advancing the
full sample depth.
The measured SPT "N"-values in the silt deposit ranged from 50 blows per 0.08 m of penetration to 50 blows per
0.1 m of penetration, indicating a very dense state of compactness.
The natural water contents measured on four samples of the silt deposit ranged from about 14 percent to
18 percent.
GRAVEL
A gravel deposit, sandy to trace sand, and containing trace to some fines was encountered in Boreholes 20-1,
20-2, 20-3, 20-5 and 20-6 underlying fill or silt deposits.
The measured SPT "N"-values in the gravel deposit ranged from 46 blows per 0.2 m of penetration to 50 blows
per 0.1 m of penetration, suggesting a very dense state of compactness.
The natural water contents measured on samples of the gravel deposit ranged from about 4 percent to 8 percent.
SILTY SAND TILL
A silty sand till deposit, gravelly to trace gravel, containing oxidation staining was encountered in all boreholes.
Wet sand pockets and silt seams were observed within the silty sand till in Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2. The
presence of cobbles and/or boulders were inferred from the multiple instances of auger grinding during drilling as
well as the split -spoon sampler not advancing the full sample depth.
The measured SPT "N"-values in the silty sand till ranged from 33 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to 50 blows per
0.1 m of penetration, indicating a dense to very dense state of compactness.
The natural water contents measured on samples of the silty sand till deposit ranged from about 5 percent to
11 percent. The result of a grain size distribution test carried out on the sample of the silty sand till is shown on
Figure B2 in Appendix B. Atterberg limit testing was performed on a single sample of the silty sand till deposit and
indicate the material is non -plastic.
SANDY SILT, SILT AND SAND TILL
Non -cohesive till deposits consisting of sandy silt, to silt and sand, containing trace gravel was encountered in
Borehole 20-2. Oxidation staining was observed within the upper non -cohesive till deposit. The presence of
cobbles and/or boulders in the till were inferred from the multiple instances of auger grinding during drilling as well
as the split -spoon sampler not advancing the full sample depth.
The measured SPT "N"-values in the sandy silt, to silt and sand till deposits generally ranged from 25 blows per
0.3 m of penetration to 50 blows per 0.01 m of penetration, suggesting a compact to very dense state of
compactness.
The natural water contents measured on samples of the sandy silt, to silt and sand till deposits ranged from
3 percent to 8 percent. The results of grain size distribution tests carried out on two samples of the sandy silt, to
silt and sand till deposits are shown on Figure B3 in Appendix B.
GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was observed during and after completion of drilling. The shallow groundwater conditions and
monitoring well installation details are presented on the Record of Borehole sheet in Appendix A. The
groundwater level subsequently measured in the monitoring wells in Boreholes 20-1 to 20-5 are provided in the
table below:
Table 1: Groundwater Level in Monitoring Well
Borehole No.
20-1
Groundwater level
Depth ..
14.8
in Monitoring Well
109.6
LA
June 2, 2020
20-2
12.7
111.7
June 2, 2020
20-3
1.1
98.6
May 22 and June 2, 2020
20-4
0.1
104.2
May 22, 2020
0.0
104.3
June 2, 2020
20-5
0.6
100.3
May 22, 2020
1.5
99.4
June 2, 2020
It should be noted that the groundwater levels at the site are anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal variations.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides comments on the geotechnical design aspects of the slope regrading, based on our
interpretation of the borehole data and on our understanding of the project requirements. The information in this
section of the technical memorandum is provided for the guidance of the design engineers and professionals.
Where comments are made on construction, they are provided only to highlight aspects of construction which
could affect the design of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine
the factual results of the investigations carried out on the site and satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the
information for construction and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed
construction techniques, schedule, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing and the like.
It should be noted that construction of the proposed retaining wall and slope regrading is anticipated to be
challenging due to the difficult access and site conditions. It is therefore recommended that a contractor
specializing in slope reconstruction / stabilization be engaged to carry out this work. Discussions on the
anticipated site challenges and geotechnical recommendations are detailed below.
4.1 General Comments
It is understood that the site is being proposed to be utilized for a 3.0 m wide multi -use asphalt trail located mid -
slope along an existing natural slope. Furthermore, the proposed trail has been suggested to be supported either
on a 2H:1V regraded slope or armour stone walls. These options have been provided to facilitate the design
process and as such, it is understood that suitable options may be provided based on the site conditions.
GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
However, based on the existing ground conditions, signs of surface erosion such as exposed tree roots, tree
bending and surface creep, presence of sloughed soils and soft, wet spots along the surface of the slope (mid -
slope and downslope), groundwater seepage and freeze and thaw conditions etc., the use of armour stone walls
or any other form of gravity retaining wall structure is not recommended on this site due to its self -weight imposing
additional load on the existing slopes which can further compromise the stability of the slopes.
Regrading of the existing slopes within the proposed 2H:1V limits as shown on the provided drawing has been
considered as an alternative option. However, this will require tree removals, sub -excavation of soft soils,
benching of newly placed engineered fill and properly keyed into competent and undisturbed native soils,
installation of subdrains, construction of temporary pits for groundwater control and ensuring a dry subgrade
during backfilling etc.
Alternatively, earth stabilizing techniques such as the use of helical piers, soil anchors, and reinforced earth walls
are considered viable options to improve the long-term stability of the slopes and support the proposed trail.
Particularly, use of reinforced earth walls supporting the trail would be a practical solution which would minimize
the extent of tree disturbance. The details and geotechnical recommendations on these options have been
further discussed in this report.
Due to anticipated challenges in construction, it is recommended that full-time monitoring of the multi -use trail
construction and slope regrading (if required) be carried out by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer.
4.2 Visual Assessment of Existing Slope Surfaces
During the field investigation, visual assessment of the existing slope surface condition was carried out to identify
any signs of previous instability such as tension cracks, creep, surface erosion, tree bending and tilting, scarps,
and gullies etc. In general, the natural valley slope appeared to be in a stable overall condition. However, there
were signs of localized and surficial instabilities on the valley slope surface which includes the following:
■ Exposed tree roots;
■ Tree bending and tilting due to surface creep;
■ Presence of localized areas of sloughed soils and soft, wet spots;
■ Toe erosion at the bank of the creek; and
■ Seeping groundwater at surface.
It should be noted that these observations occurred predominantly from about mid -slope to downslope. Although,
signs of dumped materials were encountered in few areas at the slope crest, signs of instability or tension cracks
were not observed within the upper portion of the valley slopes.
Several localized areas of soft soils that appeared wet and spongy were also observed from about
Elevation 108 m and downslope. The soft soils appeared to be made up of sloughed soils probably accumulated
due to active erosion of the wet surficial soils. The thicknesses of these soft soils were probed using a 13 mm
steel rod (pogo stick) under hand force. The 13 mm Steel Rod (pogo stick) penetrations ranging between 0.3 m
and 1.2 m were measured and observed to be increasing in depth from west to east. It should be noted that full
penetration depths could not be measured east of Borehole 20-5 due to the limited length of the pogo stick. As
such, it is recommended that several small test pits be completed within selected areas to confirm the thicknesses
GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
and extent of these soft areas during construction and to determine appropriate stabilizing measures (as
appropriate).
4.3 Slope Stability Assessment
The geotechnical stability of the existing and proposed slopes is governed by the existing surface and subsurface
conditions, groundwater levels, and long-term loading conditions. Limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were
undertaken to analyse the global factor of safety of the proposed slopes using the commercially available program
SLIDE (Version 7.0), produced by Rocscience Inc., employing the Morgenstern -Price method of analysis.
The slope stability factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the forces tending to resist failure relative to the driving
forces tending to cause failure. A factor of safety near unity suggests instability is imminent, whereas a factor of
safety equal to 1.3 or greater is generally considered acceptable for short-term global stability of conventional
slopes. Based on Table 4.3 of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Guide, River and Stream
Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit, a factor of safety between 1.4 and 1.5 is generally considered acceptable for
long-term global stability of conventional slopes.
Slope stability analyses were carried out along selected existing and proposed cross sectional profiles using the
following drawings as provided by CIMA and the Municipality:
■ Drawing No. 1 entitled "Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2, Borehole Locations and Alternative Alignment 4" dated
June 2020, prepared by CIMA.
■ Drawing No. C17 entitled "Storm Sewer Outfall and Detention Pond" from Project No. 76114 dated
July 1984, prepared by D.G Biddle and Associates Ltd.
The slope cross-section locations along the valley slopes as well as relevant boreholes used in the slope stability
analyses are provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Cross -sectional Profile and Relevant Boreholes
Boreholes
Slopen1F
Section A
26 m
4+480 Boreholes 20-1, 20-3 and 20-4
Section B
28 m
4+525 Boreholes 20-1 and 20-4
Section C
26 m
4+575 Boreholes 20-2, 20-5 and 20-6
Section D
21 m
4+610 Boreholes 20-2 and 20-5
The soil parameters for the different strata were selected based on the results of the geotechnical investigation
and are summarized in Table 3.
4 GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Table 3: Soil Parameters for Stability Analysis
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
Engineered Fill
Unit WeIgMh
20 kN/m3
Effective Friction Angle
300
Existing SWMP Berm
20 kN/m3
300
Granular Fill (Granular B Type II)
20 kN/m3
320
Silty Sand
19-20 kN/m3
32-35 °
Silt
19 kN/m3
320
Gravel
20 kN/m3
340
Glacial Till
20 kN/m3
350
Existing Slope Stability Assessment
A long-term slope stability assessment was carried out on the existing valley slopes along three critical cross -
sectional profiles (Sections A, B and C) to determine the factor of safety against deep-seated failure. A cross
sectional profile along the existing storm water management pond (Section D) was also analysed to determine the
long-term stability. Based on the topographic survey drawing provided by CIMA, it is understood that the valley
slopes within the limits of the proposed trail alignment have heights varying between 21 m and 28 m. In addition,
the slope surfaces have changing slope gradients ranging between about 1 H:1V to 3H:1V in the direction of the
creek.
Slope stability analysis of the current natural slopes result for cross section A to D are shown in Figures 4 to 7. In
general, the analyses against deep-seated failure indicate Factor of Safety (FOS) values to be 1.4 or greater for
the unaltered slopes for the long term (drained) analysis, which is generally considered acceptable for slope long
term slope stability.
Surficial and local slope failures within the soft and / or wet soils are expected to occur if the existing slope
conditions are left in place. These localized instabilities have not been shown in the slope stability analyses. The
stability of the existing slope surfaces may be increased with adequate erosion protection, soft soil replacement
and provision of an effective drainage system.
Proposed Regraded Slope Stability Assessment
It is understood that the regrading of a portion of the existing valley slope will mostly require fill placement with
vertical heights ranging between about 2 m and 4 m. The width of the fill to be placed on the surface of the slope
also varied between 15 m and 30 m, increasing from east to west and parallel to the trail alignment.
Short-term and long-term slope stability analyses were carried out on critical cross -sectional profile which are
described as cross sections A to D and the results are shown in Figure 8 to 12. In general, the analyses indicate
Factor of Safety (FOS) values for cross sections B and D to be 1.5 or greater for the proposed slopes for the
short-term and long-term (drained) analysis, which is generally considered acceptable for slope design.
4GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
For cross section A, the analyses indicated a FOS of 1.2 which does not meet the acceptable safety factor of 1.3
and 1.5 for the short-term and long-term analysis. Based on this, further analyses were carried out to determine a
safe and stable slope for cross section A. The analyses show a 2.5H:1 V slope is required to satisfy the safety
factor of 1.3 for short-term conditions, and more gentle slopes exceeding 3H:1 V to meet the long-term condition.
For cross section C, the analyses indicated a FOS of 1.3 which meets the acceptable safety factor of 1.3 for the
short-term analysis. However, in order to achieve a long-term stable slope, a 2.5H:1V slope is required to satisfy
the safety factor of 1.5 for long-term condition.
Considering the need to regrade a significant portion of the existing valley slope to meet these stable slope
gradients for cross sections A and C, it is recommended that retaining/reinforced soil walls be utilized in place of
fill placement between Stations 4+460 to 4+510 and Stations 4+550 to 4+600. Details on the recommendations
for reinforced soil walls are described in Section 4.4.
Sub -excavation of at least 0.6 m must be carried out below the existing ground surface into competent native soil.
Further excavation may be required within localized areas where soft soils are encountered, and it is
recommended that several test pits be completed to ascertain the extent of these soft, organic soils within the
proposed fill limits. Surficial soft, loosened material is to be removed and replaced with suitable fill material and
compacted into the existing slope as detailed in Section 4.6.
During construction, where flowing groundwater and seepage are encountered within the proposed fill limits,
temporary pits should be provided for groundwater control while maintaining a dry subgrade prior to fill placement.
In addition, sufficient permanent subdrains should be provided at the top of the approved subgrade prior to fill
placement to safely convey the seepage down and away from the slope. The actual locations and spacing of the
subdrains should be determined by the geotechnical engineer during construction. Full time monitoring by Golder
should be provided during fill placement.
A summary of the results of the slope stability analyses carried out on cross sections A to D are shown in Table 4
below:
Table 4: Factor of Safety for Existing and Regraded Slopes
GOLDER
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
Note: 1. FOS are based on long-term slope stability analyses against deep-seated failure
2. Short term stability analysis
4.4 Retaining/Reinforced Soil Walls
Retaining walls (armour stone walls) have been suggested as an alternative option to support the proposed
multi -use asphalt trail. Based on the provided drawings, the armour stone wall is to be located downslope of the
proposed trail alignment and having a vertical height of about 3.0 m.
In general, we do not recommend gravity type retaining walls such as stacked gabions, armour stone retaining
walls or concrete walls due to the additional surcharge/loads imposed on the surface of the slopes, and would be
expected to result in a reduction of the safety factor. In addition, multiple rows of retaining wall located upslope
and downslope may be required to support the multi -use trail and provide adequate resistance against anticipated
lateral earth pressures. Based on the existing slope gradient, this will present difficulty in construction and
significant disruption of the existing terrain.
As such, the use of reinforced soil walls or walls with soil anchors/soil nails is recommended to support the
proposed trail in the long-term condition. The reinforced soil walls are anticipated to be constructed where a
safety factor of less than 1.5 was obtained based on a 2HA V slope, between Stations 4+460 to 4+510 and
Stations 4+550 to 4+600.
Slope stability analyses was further carried out on cross sections A and C assuming a reinforced soil wall. The
analyses indicate Factor of Safety (FOS) values for cross sections A and C to be 1.5 or greater for the long-term
(drained) analysis, which is generally considered acceptable for slope design.
It should be noted that the wall supplier is typically responsible for the detailed design. Golder should be
requested to monitor the fill placement within the reinforced zone and the external backfill.
The levelling pads for the retaining wall should be founded on properly prepared subgrade. The subgrade should
be inspected by Golder prior to wall installation to confirm that the exposed soils are undisturbed and competent,
and have been adequately cleaned of loosened, softened, organic and/or other deleterious materials.
Where localized soft soils are encountered within the footprint of the proposed retaining wall, remedial action
(sub -excavation and replacement, installation of subdrains, etc.) will be required and these soils must be sub -
excavated and replaced with approved fill as directed by geotechnical personnel from Golder.
If the walls are founded above the frost depth, movement due to seasonal freeze and thaw cycles in addition to
the movements associated with fill placement and wall loads should be anticipated. The frost depth at this site is
anticipated to be 1.2 m below ground surface as per OPSD 3090.101 (Frost Penetration Depths for Southern
Ontario), as measured vertically from the final ground surface.
GOLDER 10
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
For preliminary design purposes, the appropriate values of parameters for use in preliminary design of the
retaining walls/reinforced soil walls are provided in Table 5 below:
Table 5: Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure
Soil Type
otal Unit
Weight, X
MM3)
Effective
Angle of1
Internal
Friction,
Coefficient of
Lateral Earth
PressuKa t Rest,
Coefficient of Active
ressure, Ka
Coefficient of
Passive Pressure,
Kp
Engineered Fill
4)°
(degrees)
Existing SWIVIP
Berm
Granular Fill
(Granular B
Type
pper
ULower
Silty Sand
4.5 Ground Anchors
Grouted anchors consist of a stressing tendon (i.e., thread bar, rod or cable) connecting a fixed anchorage point
(i.e., the bond zone in the soil or rock mass) to the top surface or head of the anchor. In soils, the bond zone is
typically formed by placing cementitious grout by tremie methods with or without pressure grouting techniques. The
capacity and performance of the anchor depends on the diameter of the bond zone, the grout injection pressure,
the centre -to -centre spacing of the anchors and the methodology/techniques used during construction.
For preliminary planning purposes, anchors grouted and bonded within the silty sand and glacial till deposit can be
designed using an ultimate load transfer of 40 kN/m. In accordance with CFEM (2006), the anchors should be
designed based on:
■ A bond zone length (Lb) less than 8 m;
■ A nominal bond zone diameter of 200 mm;
■ A minimum centre -to -centre spacing between the anchor bond zones that is greater than 4 times the
diameter or 20 percent of the bond zone length (whichever is greater).
GOLDER 11
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
A geotechnical resistance factor of 0.3 should be applied to estimate the factored ultimate geotechnical resistance
in tension. A higher geotechnical resistance factor could be utilized if load tests are carried out.
In addition to the calculated minimum bond length (Lb) required to provide the required design tension load in the
anchor, a minimum 3.0 m long unbonded or `free stressing' length is recommended to be included in the design
above the bond length per PTI (1996, 2004, 2014) and FHWA (1999). The minimum unbonded length is
recommended in order to avoid unacceptable load reduction resulting from seating losses during load transfer and
prestress losses due to creep in the prestressing steel or in the soil (FHWA, 1999).
Because the anchor capacity (in particular the ground -to -anchor bond for grouted soil anchors) is highly
dependent upon the installation technique, the complete temporary anchor design should be the responsibility of
the Contractor, who should be held to an anchor performance specification, enforced by proof tests on all
anchors. Requirements for temporary anchor design and performance include the following:
■ The sustained working load is not to be greater than 60 percent of the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength of
the anchor tendon or bar.
■ Ten percent of all anchors are to be subjected to a performance test in which they are stressed to a
sustained load equal to 1.33 times the design (working stress) load.
■ All anchors are to be proof -loaded to 1.33 times the design load and locked off at 1.1 times the design
(working stress) load.
4.6 Comments on Retaining Wall Construction
The proposed regrading of the slopes and construction of retaining walls is anticipated to be difficult due to the
existing terrain and heavy vegetation (including mature trees). In addition, site access is expected to be
challenging and problematic due to the varying slope gradients as well as presence of soft and wet areas.
Regrading of the existing slopes will require removal of surface vegetation (including mature trees) and use of
benching and engineered fill to construct the minimum stable slope gradient of 2H:1 V under the short term
condition for site access. The reconstruction of the slope will likely require cuts (initially from the upper portion of
the slope) in order to maintain the slopes short term stability and then reconstruction of the slope to the desired
geometry from the bottom up using benched engineered fill.
The use of heavy construction equipment will initially need to be restricted to the base of the existing slope.
Further, the stability of the existing area at the toe of the slope may be problematic as well due to ground water
seepage and soft/wet soil conditions, the contractor should inspect the base of the slope and determine whether
or not the construction equipment will be stable, otherwise some form of stabilization may need to be prepared at
the base. The sequencing of the reconstructive effort and construction of the retaining walls will need to be
discussed and agreed upon prior to construction. All construction should be carried out under full-time
supervision by a geotechnical engineer.
Due to the observed groundwater seepage within the slope surfaces, soft and wet soil conditions, and potential for
localized slope failures, soil excavation is not recommended during the spring season. Soil excavation and
replacement with engineered fill may be carried out during the dryer summer period to reduce the impact of
groundwater and to reduce the need for active dewatering during construction. Once the ground improvements
for the new slope geometry is sufficiently advanced, construction of the retaining walls may be carried out in
phases as directed by Golder. Any persistent wet conditions encountered during construction will require
4GOLDER 12
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
construction of subdrains or reinforced surface channels designed to carry the seeping water safely down the
slope.
It should be noted that the proposed construction activities noted above will likely result in significant site
disturbance and vegetation / tree removal. It is strongly recommended that further discussions between the
contractor, Municipality, Golder and CLOCA be held to address issues related to tree removal and slope
regrading. Furthermore, it is recommended that the proposed construction be carried out by an experienced
contractor specializing in slope reconstruction and stabilization.
The newly regraded slopes will need to be appropriately revegetated for surficial stability and resistance to
erosion.
4.7 Additional Considerations
Prior to placement of any engineered fill for regrading of the slopes (if required), the surficial vegetation, topsoil,
organics and deleterious materials should be completely stripped from the proposed regrading areas. Any soft,
wet soils as well as any stockpiled soils must be removed, and the exposed surface should be inspected by
Golder, to confirm that the exposed soils are undisturbed/sufficiently compacted, competent, and have been
adequately cleaned of loosened, softened, organic and/or other deleterious materials.
Engineered fill should be benched into the existing soils, as per Ontario Provincial Standard Drawing (OPSD)
208.010. Approved granular fill materials consisting of OPSS.PROV 1010 (Aggregates) Granular B Type II (or
other approved high friction granular materials) must be placed in loose lifts no greater in thickness than 300 mm
and uniformly compacted to at least 100 percent of the SPMDD. In general, the granular fill will be placed on the
benched slope with total fill vertical heights ranging from about 3 m to 5 m assuming a 1 m subexcavation is
required and each bench does not exceed height of approximately 1 m. The placed engineered fill must be
overbuilt to allow for sufficient compaction of the whole soil mass. Once compacted, tested, and approved by
Golder, the slope should be cut to the proposed design geometry prior to placement of topsoil and planting of the
vegetation.
The surface of the slope should be completed with bio-engineered slope protection layer consisting of erosion
protection blanket and 300 mm of topsoil. Temporary excavation slopes should be carried out in accordance with
the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations (OHSA).
To avoid surficial instability of the slopes during and following construction, the slope surfaces must be protected
from disturbance and erosion. A 3H:1 V ditch should be constructed behind the proposed asphalt trail, as per
OPSD 3121.150 in order to redirect surface runoff away from the newly constructed slope and/or reinforced soil
walls. Newly installed subdrains within the regraded slopes are expected to be utilized to control erosion, improve
drainage, and direct groundwater seepage into the existing creek.
4.8 Asphalt Trail Construction
Based on the subsoil conditions encountered at the site, the following pavement designs are recommended for the
proposed 3.0 m wide multi -use asphalt trail.
GOLDER 13
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
Table 6: Pavement Design for Pedestrian Trail
HL 3 (Surface)' 50
Granular A Base2 250
Subgrade (Granular B Type II) Prepared and Approved Subgrade3
Notes:
Asphaltic Material shall be in accordance with OPSS 310, 1150 (November 2010), and 1003 (November 2017)
2 Granular Materials shall be in accordance with OPSS.MUNI 1010 (November 2013)
s The subgrade is expected to consist of engineered fill composed of OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular B
The granular base materials should be uniformly compacted to at least 100 percent of their standard Proctor
maximum dry densities. The asphalt materials should be compacted to 92 to 96.5 percent of their Marshall
Maximum Relative Density according to OPSS 310, as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge.
Where new pavement abuts existing pavement, proper longitudinal lap joints should be constructed to key the
new asphalt into the existing surface. The existing asphalt edges should be provided with a proper saw cut edge
prior to keying in the new asphalt. Any undermining or broken edges resulting from the construction activities are
removed by the saw cut.
To help reduce the damage to the pavement due to frost, longitudinal subdrains should be provided along the
subgrade and drained to frost free outlets.
5.0 CLOSURE
We trust that this memorandum meets your immediate requirements. If the proposed realignment plan of the
proposed trail is modified, or if conditions that differ from those assumed in this memorandum are encountered
during construction, Golder should be given the opportunity to review the analyses presented herein. If you have
any questions regarding the content of this technical memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Yours truly,
Golder Associates Ltd.
4OQ�OFESSIONq`\
F
J T. A. OLUMUMA n
100523453
September 17, 2020
O
,po�11NCE O F 0N,V�
Timi Olumuyiwa, M.Sc., P.Eng., PMP
Geotechnical Engineer
TO/AJH/DBE/to/mlk
Andrew J. Hagner, P.Eng.
Associate, Senior Geotechnical Engineer
GOLDER 14
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Attachments: Important Information and Limitations of This Report
Figure 1 — Key Plan
Figure 2 — Borehole Location Plan
Figure 3 — Cross sectional Profile
Figure 4 to 14 — Slope Stability Analysis Results
Appendix A: Methods of Soil Classification
Abbreviations and Terms Used on Record of Boreholes
List of Symbols
Record of Boreholes (BH2O-1 to BH2O-6)
Appendix B: Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results (Figures B1 to 136)
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/117405/project files/6 deliverables/reports/19132686 (1000) mem 2020'09'17 slope stability assessment -farewell creek (rev0).docx
GOLDER 15
' C O L D E R IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND
?^ LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level
of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising
under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and
physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.
Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development
and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to
a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any
change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of
the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of this report, or
portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report.
The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No
other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder's express written consent. If the
report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of
the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for
the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others
is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as
well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the
copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but
only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and
Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any
other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is
susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client can not rely
upon the electronic media versions of Golder's report or other work products.
The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to
Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by
Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the
suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the
report. Golder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report.
Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only
for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including
the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs
would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking
the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented
in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed
construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.
Soil, Rock and Ground Water Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units
have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and
related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves
judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than
abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions.
Golder Associates Ltd.
6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100 Mississauga, Ontario, 1-5N 71<2 Canada T: +1 905 567 4444 1 F: +1 905 567 6561
Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation golder.com
2018
Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and
even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface
conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder
interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil
variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent
properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the
subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or
implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the
site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off -site sources are outside the terms of
reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.
Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions
at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the
recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and
can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and
groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering,
pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to
wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during
construction.
Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of
this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client's
expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be
present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal.
Follow -Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of
Golder's report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to
construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder's report.
During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered
conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted
conditions considered in the preparation of Golder's report and to confirm and document that construction
activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder's report.
Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide
letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this
recommendation is not followed, Golder's responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information
encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the
preparation of the Report.
4 GOLDER
2018
Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those
anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a
condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or
revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires
experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if
conditions have changed significantly.
Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project.
Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no
responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction
monitoring of the system.
4 GOLDER
675000 676000 677000
[A �
-= nee co C'
Courtice
—NAI
g, a
G { `6C'i C,
d
170
T
k ZE',Y.lilC,
Toe Ld u• 5L p 1L,,,
C O
Fg
e{t3F
�
re
f
(p
Park
N
N
96
N
J
- 33 K,7
1
adcr I)INC
;
rVYkrdye
`} r. � �
`•�:7c:y.; �.dp.,
dry P,vk
�
�rl;
�,.,:a
r`
r, vrr
D
;1 }3
Q
y N�
, c
�•l
,rk
S•
'P 7
G r
_
°
tlzc:,.,
-
GIB@�•
F1weJl
a'�'Dri•re
�y�
9 ar,v Grandnew-
e
4�"'r
- _ _
-~
Pa Ik
iHcrthl
F
° jaTy. [f
r C,C�
v
F'.][k
-
Fox c C�'tro
[1L\levan
P.lrk l
.. $t r.Nw
_ � aye D""` •-
0
R
}vJ
J
o><Cemefery !i vmsO"P
Hmmorpf Creek Gd LCertSle 01vp5'gts°�k.Eas .V Il spa P Yk Cr[P q o HJe^ue
w Ad.A
e'6'00 G�
401 Cw17r"V
t \
yr ` ll:�"'%
yC[lr ele�yd y .
r � o
OLoy,r:L �'
CLIENT
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD
DESIGNED
G^ L D E R PREPARED
�J REVIEWED
APPROVED
2020-06-17
JT
JT
TO
AJH
0 500 1,000
1:20,000 METRES
f
REFERENCE(S) Iz
BASE MAP SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, c
NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA
(HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY
PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N
PROJECT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO
TITLE
KEY PLAN
PROJECT NO. CONTROL
19132686 0002
FIGURE
A 1
LIMIT OF
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
O
i low
z /
O /
/
V
APPROXIMATE
—0-8142O-3
CREEK LOCATION
'
EL. = 99.73 /' \
/ 91420- 4
i EL. = 104.27
# 49 i 1`���� p��/i ,2f�'3�
# 47 °
.O
/�FOq # 45
�F
Fs
LEGEND
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH MONITORING WELL
BOREHOLE LOCATION
NOTE(S)
1. LOCATION AND ELEVATION FOR BH2O-6 ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS FOR BH2O-1 TO BH2O-5 WERE SURVEYED BY CIMA
/
BH?0-5 I O
EL. = 100.21 ,FL� = 100.88 ,� I 0
LIMIT OF GRADING8` /
(WITHOUT RETAINING
WALL)
ARMOUR STONE
RETAINING WALL 1/
1
6 S 1 (OPTIONAL) ;
1 /
109 _
pp �� I
O I a
p N Iw
O = — I
d t115
116 / p(:�117
co
116
= ` 115
# 39 -
# 43 # 41 STORMWATER -
MANAGEMENT
POND
REFERENCE(S)
BASE MAP TAKEN FROM CLARINGTON, ENTITLED BOREHOLE LOCATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
ALIGNMENT 4, DATED JUNE 2020, DELIVERED IN FORMAT DWG.
0 25 50
1:1,500 METRES
CLIENT
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
CONSULTANT
YYYY-MM-DD
DESIGNED
GO L D E R
PREPARED
REVIEWED
APPROVED
2020-06-16
JL
TO
AJH
PROJECT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO
TITLE
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
PROJECT NO. CONTROL
19132686
REV. FIGURE
2
1t
)UI\ VL I
t
0
la>
1 = ' i 24.42
00 /
.CFA*M-
# 49
# 4 /
F�
9�F
LEGEND
BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH MONITORING WELL
BOREHOLE LOCATION
® RECOMMENDED RETAINED ZONE
NOTE(S)
1. LOCATION AND ELEVATION FOR BH2O-6 ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS FOR BH2O-1 TO BH2O-5 WERE SURVEYED BY CIMA.
# 45
# 43
1L A 1
ff izi
REFERENCE(S)
BASE MAP TAKEN FROM CLARINGTON, ENTITLED BOREHOLE LOCATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
ALIGNMENT 4, DATED JUNE 2020, DELIVERED IN FORMAT DWG.
0 25 50
1:1,500 METRES
STORMWATER
CLIENT
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROJECT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO E
CONSULTANT
YYW-MM-DD
2020-07-07
TITLE
CROSS SECTIONAL PROFILE
DESIGNED
GO L D E R
PREPARED
JL
REVIEWED
TO
PROJECT NO. CONTROL
APPROVED
AJH
19132686
REV. FIGURE r
---- 3 FF
Safety Factor
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.9
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
Material Name
Color
Topsoil
Upper Silty Sand
■
Glacial Till
■
Sat
Gravel
■
Lower Silty Sand
■
r.
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
19132686 (1000) SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G 0 L D E R Analysis Description
Figure 4: Existing Slope —Long term —Section A
Drawn By Scale 1:578 Company
8.014 Date Me Name Section A_Existing grade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
19132686 (1000) SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L D E RAnalyslsDescrlption Figure 5: Existing Slope Long term —Section B
Drawn By Scale 1:516 Company
Date File Name
s.oia Section B_Existing grade_longterm.slmd
o Safety Factor
Lr-
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
Material Name
Color
Unit Weight
(kN/m3)
Strength Type
phi
(deg)
Topsoil
IEE
16
Mohr -Coulomb
26
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G 0 L D E R Analysis Description
Figure 6: Existing Slope —Long term —Section C
Drawn By Scale 1:445 Company
Date File Name
s.oia Section C_Existing grade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
LA
Phi
(deg)
26
30
32
32
35
34
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G 0 L D E R Analysis Description
Figure 7: Existing Slope Long term —Section D
Drawn By Scale 1:515 Company
8.014 Date File Name Section D_Existing grade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2 ..8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
Material Name
Color
Unit
(kr
Topsoil
Upper Silty Sand
■
Glaciall Till
■
Silt
Gravel
■
Lower Silty Sand
■
Engineered Fill
■
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L D E RAnalysis Descriptlon Figure 8: 2.5H_1H Regraded Slope —Short term —Section A
Drawn By Scale 1:559 Company
8.014 Date Me Name Section A_2.5H_1V regraded_shortterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+ .
Material Name
Color
(kN/m3) Unit Weight
Strength Type
Phi
(deg)
-90 -80 -70 60 -50 -40 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L a E RAnalysis Descriptlon Figure 9: 2H:1V Regraded Slope —Long term —Section B
Drawn By Scale 1:487 Company
8.014 Date Me Name Section B_2H_1V regrade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8.
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
Material Name
Color
Unit Weight
(kN/m3)
Strength Type
phi
(deg)
Topsoil .
®.
16
Mohr -Coulomb
26
Engineered Fill
■
20
Mohr -Coulomb
30
Glacial Till
■
20
Mohr -Coulomb
35
Silt
■
19
Mohr -Coulomb
32
Gravel
■
20
Mohr -Coulomb
34
Silty Sand
20
Mohr -Coulomb
35
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L D E R Analysis Descaptlon Figure 10: 2H_1V Regraded Slope —Short term —Section C
Drawn By Scale 1:558 Company
8.014 Date File Name Section C_2H_1V regrade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0+
Material Name
Color
Unit
(kr
Topsoil
e
Engineered Fill
■
Glacial Till
■
Silt
■
Gravel
■
Silty Sand
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L D E RAnalysis Descgvtlon Figure 11: 2.5H_1V Regraded Slope_Long term —Section C
Drawn 6y scale 1:556 company
8.014 Date Me Name Section C_2.5H_1V regrade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
6.0d
Material Name
Color
Unit Weight
(kN/m3)
Strength Type
Phi
(deg)
Topsoil
®
16
Mohr -Coulomb
26
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L D E RAnalysis Descrptlon Figure 12: 2H_1V Regraded Slope —Long term —Section D
Drawn By Scale 1: 588 Company
8.014 Date File Name Section D_21-1_1V regrade_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.1
0.3
0..4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.0+
Unit Weight
phi
Material Name
Color
(kN/m3)
Strength Type
(deg)
Topsoil
16
Mohr -Coulomb
26
"Upper Silty Sand
19
Mohr -Coulomb
32
Glacial Till
20
Mohr -Coulomb
35
Silt
19
Mohr -Coulomb
32
Gravel
" 20
Mohr -Coulomb
32
Lower Silty Sand
20
Mohr -Coulomb
35
"Granular Backfill
■
' 20
Mohr-Cdulomb
' 32
Reinforced Soil
■
20
Mohr -Coulomb
1 35
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
G0 L D E RAnalysis Description Figure 13: Reinforced Soil wall —Long term_Section A
Drawn By Scale 1:579 Company
8.014 Date Me Name Section A_Reinforced Soil_longterm.slmd
Safety Factor
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
1.7
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.0
12.00 kN/m2
�
4 . 3
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
W
5.5
5.8
6.0+
g
W
o
Support Name Color Type Force Application Material Friction Tensile Strength
o
Dependent Angle (deg)
(kN/m)
Geogrid ■ GeoTextile Passive (Method B) No 35
25
80 -70
-60
-50
-40
-30 -20 -10 0 10
20 30
Project
SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE
19132686
1000
G0 L D E
R
Analysis Descgvt/on
Figure 14: Reinforced Soil wall —Long term —Section C
Drawn By
Scale 1:457
Company
Dare
Me Name Section C Reinforced Soil
Ion term.slmd
g
SMEINTERPRET 8.014
Unit Weight
Phi
Material Name
Color
Strength Type
(kN/m3)
(deg)
Topsoil
e
16
Mohr -Coulomb
26
Granular Backfill
■
20
Mohr -Coulomb
32
Glacial Till
�
20
.Mohr -Coulomb
35
Silt
�
19
Mohr -Coulomb
32
Gravel
�
20
Mohr -Coulomb
34
Silty Sand
�
20
Mohr -Coulomb
35
Reinforced Soil
■
20
Mohr -Coulomb
35
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000)
The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020
APPENDIX A
Methods of Soil Classification
Abbreviations and Terms Used
List of Symbols
Record of Boreholes (131-12O-1 to BH2O-6)
GOLDER
METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Organic
Soil
Gradation
D60
(Da.)'
Organic
USCS Group
or
Group
Type of Soil
or Plasticity
_
Cu Ll �
Cc - DroxDbo
Content
Symbol
Group Name
Inorganic
o m E
Gravels
with
Poorly
Graded
<4
51 or>_3
GP
GRAVEL
y c E
512%
Well Graded
>A
1 to 3
GW
GRAVEL
E
uj o
fines
m£
(by mass)
Gravels
Below
SILTY
E
�_ o
t
o °
with
Line
n/a
GM
GRAVEL
z'co)
Lu
`m
>12%
fines
Above A
CLAYEY
V
Z rn
(by mass)
Line
n/a
GC
GRAVEL
<_30 %
E
Sands
with
Poorly
<6
51 or z3
SP
SAND
z_
o
U
w y
u)
NcE
512%
Graded
Well Graded
z6
1 to 3
SW
SAND
O
o E
o,
U a
m
Z
(by mass)
Sands
Below
n/a
SM
SILTY SAND
e
o
u) o N
v
o m
with
Line
ON $ m
>12%
Above A
n/a
SC
CLAYEY
E
fines
(by mass)
Line
SAND
Organic
Field Indicators
Tou hness
g
or
Soil
Type of Soil
Laboratory
Organic
USCS Group
Primary
Inorganic
Group
p
Tests
Dilatancy
Dry
Shine
Thread
(of 3 mm
Content
Symbol
y
Name
Strength
Test
Diamete
thread
N/A (can't
_o
Rapid
None
None
>6 mm
roll 3 mm
<5%
ML
SILT
£
°
Liquid Limit
thread
Slow
None to
Low
Dull
3mm to
6 mm
None to low
<5%
ML
CLAYEY SILT
E
° d
m o
w
n
J Z
<50
Slow to
Low to
Dull to
3mm to
Low
5 % to
OL
ORGANIC
E
u) o
a ¢ m a
a
U
O m
N "
rn u o a
N a ° U
very slow
medium
slight
6 mm
30 %
SILT
Slow to
Low to
3mm to
Low to
z M
0
O a
z
a
Liquid Limit
very slow
medium
Slight
6 mm
medium
<5%
MH
CLAYEY SILT
c
£
o
z
250
Medium
Dull to
1mmto
Medium to
5%to
ORGANIC
z U
y
None
to high
slight
3 mm
high
30 %
OH
SILT
'c
z
LL E
c
Liquid Limit
None
Low to
Slight
- 3mm
Low to
0%
CL
SILTY CLAY
>,
o o m
<30
medium
to shiny
medium
O
c U .-.
to
o
} o
2^
Liquid Limit
None
Medium
Slight
1 mm to
Medium
30 %
Cl
SILTY CLAY
30 to 50
to high
to shiny
3 mm
nl
U m .N a
(see
a a° m
Liquid Limit
None
High
Shiny
<1 mm
High
Note 2)
CH
CLAY
250
o
Peat and mineral soil
30 %
SILTY PEAT,
} U M y
mixtures
tO
SANDY PEAT
JZ� c n N
J N
75%
2 Q
1
O 21 E
Predominantly
PT
C�
0
peat,
7t /
x
O o
may contain some
PEAT
c>
mineral soil, fibrous or
100%
amorphous peat
"° P,„ a
ty�
Hih G
Dual Symbol —A dual symbol is two symbols separated by
a hyphen, for example, GP -GM, SW -SC and CL-ML.
For non -cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when
the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify
m
/ORGA
transitional material between "clean" and "dirty" sand or
gravel.
- sltrY Gar CLAY
For cohesive soils, the dual s mbol must be used when the
Y
liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area
" 4
of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left).
SILTY ELM
a
Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols
CLAYEY SILT ML
separated by a slash, for example, CUCI, GM/SM, CL/ML.
ORGANIC 51LT OL
A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil
5ILry vv Y- AvE v T, ci_ I
has been identified as having properties that are on the
AT ML{Sea Nala x}
transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline
ID ao w .o -
symbol may be used to indicate a range of similar soil types
uquld uarlr ILLl
within a stratum.
Note 1 - Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with
slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non -plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are
named SILT.
Note 2 - For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor "trace organics" for soils with
between 5 % and 30% organic content include the prefix "organic" before the Primary name.
GOLDER June2018 1/3
Revision 5
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS
PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS
Soil
Particle
Inches
Constituent
Size
Millimetres
(US Std. Sieve Size)
Description
BOULDERS
Not
>300
>12
qpp
licaCOBBLES
gppNot
licaGRAVEL
75 to 300
3 to 12
Coarse
19 to 75
0.75 to 3
Fine
4.75 to 19
(4) to 0.75
Coarse
2.00 to 4.75
(10) to (4)
SAND
Medium
0.425 to 2.00
(40) to (10)
Fine
0.075 to
(200) to (40)
0.425
SILT/CLAY
Classified by
<0.075 < (200)
plasticity
MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Percentage
Modifier
by Mass
>35
Use'and'to combine major constituents
i.e., SAND and GRAVEL
> 12 to 35
Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY,
CLAYEY" as applicable
> 5 to 12
some
s 5
trace
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
aienudtu reneuauun fcebisiance (SPT), N:
The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.)
required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split -spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm
(12 in.). Values reported are as recorded in the field and are uncorrected.
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of
10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip
resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded
electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals.
Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd:
The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive
uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a
distance of 300 mm (12 in.).
PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure
PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure
WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer
WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod
NON -COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS
Compactness'
Term
SPT'N' blows/0.3m'
Very Loose
0 to 4
Loose
4 to 10
Compact
10 to 30
Dense
30 to 50
Very Dense
>50
1. SPT 'N' in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for the effects of
overburden pressure.
2. Definifion of compactness terms are based on SPT 'N' ranges as provided in
Terzaghi, Peck and Mesd (1996). Many factors affect the recorded SPT 'N'
value, including hammer efficiency (which may be greaterthan 60 % in automatic
trip hammers), overburden pressure, groundwater conditions, and grainsize. As
such, the recorded SPT 'N' value(s) should be considered only an approximate
guide to the soil compactness. These factors need to be considered when
evaluating the results, and the stated compactness terms should not be relied
upon for design or construction.
Field Moisture Condition
Term
Description
Dry
Soil flows freely through fingers.
Moist
Soils are darker than in the dry condition and
may feel cool.
Wet
As moist, but with free water forming on hands
when handled.
SAMPLES
AS
Auger sample
Block sample
BS
CS
Chunk sample
DID
Diamond Drilling
DO or DP
Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube
sampler — note size
IDS
Denison type sample
GS
Grab Sample
MC
Modified California Samples
MS
Modified Shelby (for frozen soil)
RC
Rock core
Sc
Soil core
SS
Split spoon sampler— note size
ST
Slotted tube
TO
Thin -walled, open — note size (Shelby tube)
TP
Thin -walled, piston — note size (Shelby tube)
WS
Wash sample
SOIL TESTS
w
water content
PL, wp
plastic limit
LL , wL
liquid limit
C
consolidation (oedometer) test
CHEM
chemical analysis (refer to text)
CID
consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test'
CIU
consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with
porewater pressure measurement'
DR
relative density (specific gravity, Gs)
DS
direct shear test
GS
specific gravity
M
sieve analysis for particle size
MH
combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis
MPC
Modified Proctor compaction test
SPC
Standard Proctor compaction test
OC
organic content test
SO4
concentration of water-soluble sulphates
UC
unconfined compression test
UU
unconsolidated undrained triaxial test
V (FV)
field vane (LV-laboratory vane test)
y
unit weight
1. Tests anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU.
COHESIVE SOILS
Consistency
Term
Undrained Shear
Strength kPa
SPT'N11•2
blows/0.3m
Very Soft
<12
0 to 2
Soft
12 to 25
2 to 4
Firm
25 to 50
4 to 8
Stiff
50 to 100
8 to 15
Very Stiff
100 to 200
15 to 30
Hard
>200
>30
1. SPT'N' in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure
effects; approximate only.
2. SPT 'N' values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to
consistency; for sensifive clays (e.g., Champlain Sea clays), the N-value
approximation for consistency terms does NOT apply. Rely on direct
measurement of undrained shear strength or other manual observations.
Water Content
Term
Description
w < PL
Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic
Limit.
w — PL
Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic
Limit.
w > PL
Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic
Limit.
G O L D E R ,tune 2018 2/3
Revision 5
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows
I.
GENERAL
(a)
Index Properties (continued)
w
water content
7u
3.1416
wi or LL
liquid limit
In x
natural logarithm of x
wp or PL
plastic limit
Iog10
x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10
Ip or PI
plasticity index = (wi — wp)
g
acceleration due to gravity
NP
non -plastic
t
time
Ws
shrinkage limit
IL
liquidity index = (w — wp) / Ip
IC
consistency index = (wi — w) / Ip
emax
void ratio in loosest state
emin
void ratio in densest state
ID
density index = (emax — e) / (emax - emin)
II.
STRESS AND STRAIN
(formerly relative density)
y
shear strain
(b)
Hydraulic Properties
4
change in, e.g. in stress: 4 6
h
hydraulic head or potential
s
linear strain
q
rate of flow
Ev
volumetric strain
v
velocity of flow
t1
coefficient of viscosity
i
hydraulic gradient
u
Poisson's ratio
k
hydraulic conductivity
6
total stress
(coefficient of permeability)
6'
effective stress (6' = 6 - u)
j
seepage force per unit volume
6'vo
initial effective overburden stress
61, 62, 63
principal stress (major, intermediate,
minor)
(c)
Consolidation (one-dimensional)
Cc
compression index
6oct
mean stress or octahedral stress
(normally consolidated range)
= (61 + 62 + 63)/3
Cr
recompression index
T
shear stress
(over -consolidated range)
u
porewater pressure
Cs
swelling index
E
modulus of deformation
Ca
secondary compression index
G
shear modulus of deformation
my
coefficient of volume change
K
bulk modulus of compressibility
cv
coefficient of consolidation (vertical
direction)
ch
coefficient of consolidation (horizontal
direction)
Tv
time factor (vertical direction)
III.
SOIL PROPERTIES
U
degree of consolidation
6'p
pre -consolidation stress
(a)
Index Properties
OCR
over -consolidation ratio = 6'p / 6'vo
P(Y)
bulk density (bulk unit weight)*
pd(yd)
dry density (dry unit weight)
(d)
Shear Strength
p,,(y,,)
density (unit weight) of water
Tp, Tr
peak and residual shear strength
ps(ys)
density (unit weight) of solid particles
t
effective angle of internal friction
y
unit weight of submerged soil
angle of interface friction
(y' = y - Y.)
µ
coefficient of friction = tan S
DR
relative density (specific gravity) of solid
c'
effective cohesion
particles (DR = ps / pW) (formerly Gs)
a, so
undrained shear strength 0 analysis)
e
void ratio
p
mean total stress (61 + 63)/2
n
porosity
p'
mean effective stress ((Y'1 + 6'3)/2
S
degree of saturation
q
(61 - (53)/2 or (6'1 - (5'3)/2
qu
compressive strength (61 - (53)
St
sensitivity
Density
symbol is p. Unit weight symbol is y
Notes: 1
T = c' + 6' tan
where y = pg (i.e. mass density multiplied by
2
shear strength = (compressive strength)/2
acceleration due to gravity)
GOLDER June2018 3/3
Revision 5
rn
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-1 SHEET 1 OF 3
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: May 13 and 14, 2020
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
N
rU
F
W
20 40 60 BO
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
� W
�
z
DESCRIPTION
a
¢
~
ELEV.
w
ap
j
W
o.
o
N
F W
o m
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
w
z
DEPTH
Q
rem -
WP I 6W I WI
a
ca
gym)
z
m
rn
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE
124.42
TOPSOIL
~~
0.00
1A
O
50 mm Diameter
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel at
0.15
0.8 m; brown, organic inclusion, trace
'
1B
SS
3
O
PVC Monitoring
rootlets; disturbed; non -cohesive, moist,
123.94
Well
y ,
0.48
1c
very loose
O
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel, light
brown; organic inclusions, trace rootlets;
non -cohesive, moist, very dense
2
SS
65
Auger grinding at a depth of 0.9 m
4.
123.05
(SM) gravelly SILTY SAND, trace gravel;
1.37
slightly plastic; brown, oxidation staining,
sand pocket (TILL); non -cohesive, moist,
a
dense to very dense
3
ss
36
O
2
a
- Auger grinding between depths of
a
°
a
ss
az
MH
1.8mand 2.6m
a
3
Q
4,
5
SS
43
O
- Auger grinding between depths of
a
3.4mand 4.Om
a
4
a..
.•
rn
4
z -
4
U
—
11
6
SS
51
O
5
.d.
0
4
Bentonite
= o
E
H E
a
E
E
Auger grinding at a depth of 5.6 m
c
6
c
a.
7
SS
71
O
- Auger grinding between depths of
6.4mand 7.3m
q•'
d..
7
d..
q..
8A
SS
59
6
11644
O
(ML) SILT, trace sand to sandy; brown;
7.98
non -cohesive, wet to moist, very dense
- Auger grinding between depths of
8.2mand 8.5m
9
- Auger grinding at a depth of 10.1 m
9
SS
5
0/
0.08
10
— — — — — — — — — — —
_ —
—
—
— —
—
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — — — —
E
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
rn
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-1 SHEET 2 OF 3
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: May 13 and 14, 2020
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
N
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' to
ZO y
OR
W
�
z
DESCRIPTION
a
¢
~
ELEV.
w
00
j
W
a
o
N
F W
o
m
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
w
z
DEPTH
Q
rem -
WP I 6W I WI
a
ca
gym)
z
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
-- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE---
10
(GP) GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines;
grey; non -cohesive, moist, very dense
0
SS
Q 0/
O
11
112.93
(SM) SILTY SAND, some fines; trace
11.49
gravel to 13.8 m, brown; non -cohesive,
moist to wet, very dense
12
SS
50/
0.08
Bentonile
13
12
SS
500/
O
y'
14
a
o rn
..y
U
Sand June 2/20
15
O
E
13
SS
50/
O
MH
E
E
0.08
16
14
SS
5 01
O
Screen and Sand
17
0.08
18
IV
IV
15
SS
5
0.13
O
19
•y
Bentonite
a'
16
SS
0
O
20
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— —
0.13
—
—
— —
—
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — — —
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
DEPTH SCALE 1 G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
0CHECKED: AJH
w
U
H
0
O
U
z
O
z
z
a
J
U
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-1 SHEET 3 OF 3
LOCATION: See Figure 2
BORING DATE: May 13 and 14, 2020 DATUM: Geodetic
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
a m
rU
F
W
20 40 60 BO
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
a
ELEV.
w
00
w
a
o
m
F W
o
mg
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
oo
DEPTH
z
rem -
WP I 6W I WI
a
m
N
�n1�
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
-- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE --
20
(SM) SILTY SAND, some fines; trace
gravel to 13.8 m, brown; non -cohesive,
"
moist to wet, very dense
•a�
21
•.y'
17
SS
500/
O
22
o rn
U
A•
•y •
18
$$
50/
O
23
0
0.1
Bentonite
O
E
y'
F E
E F
y
E
24
Wet at a depth of 24.4 m
$$
o oa
O
25
•'y ,
96.44
50/
z6
END OF BOREHOLE
25.98
NOTES:
1. Borehole was advanced with 200 mm
O.D. hollow stem augers and abandoned
at 8.5 mbgs due to auger refusal.
27
2. Relocated borehole was drilled about
1 m southeast of staked borehole using
mud rotary technique.
3. Water encountered at a depth of
7.6 m during drilling.
4. Groundwater level was measured in
28
monitoring well at 14.8 mbgs (El.109.6m)
on June 2, 2020.
29
30
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 ,� CHECKED: AJH
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-2 SHEET 1 OF 3
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: May 22 and 23, 2020
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
N
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
� W
�
z
DESCRIPTION
a
¢
~
ELEV.
w
00
j
w
a
o
N
F W
o
m
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
w
z
DEPTH
Q
rem -
WP I 6W I WI
a
ca
gym)
z
m
N
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE
124.36
°
TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND, dark
0.00
brown; trace rootlet, trace organic;
50 mm Diameter
non -cohesive, moist, loose
1
SS
7
O
PVC Monitoring
Well
123.67
(ML) SILT and SAND, trace gravel,
0.69
slightly plastic, brown; oxidation staining;
1
containing rock fragments; wet silt seam
z
ss
zs
O
a
(TILL); non -cohesive, moist, compact to
E
3
very dense
Q
—
0
=
6
4
3
SS
33
O
E
2
4
4.
4
4
SS
66
O
3
Q
Q
5
SS
62
O
MH
a
4
NP
4
s
120.32
(SM) SILTY SAND, brown;
4.04
non -cohesive, wet, very dense
'
rn
119.69
6A
SS
50/
0
(ML) SILT, some sand, brown, oxidation
4.67
6B
0.1
O
—
staining; sand pockets; non -cohesive,
5
N
wet, very dense
Bentonite
E
118.87
(GP) GRAVEL, sandy to trace sand,
5.49
trace to some fines; grey and brown;
non -cohesive, moist to wet, very dense
6
2i
7
SS
51
O
7
E
Wet at a depth of 7.6 m
8
SS
o
O
8
116.03
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel to
8.33
gravelly, brown; non -cohesive, wet, very
dense
9
- Gravelly between depths of 9.1 m and
; ,:
9
SS
50/
O
MH
9.2 m
0.03
10
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— _
—
—
— —
—
—
—
— —
— —
— —
—
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
T
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-2 SHEET 2 OF 3
LOCATION: See Figure 2
BORING DATE: May 22 and 23, 2020 DATUM: Geodetic
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
m
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
¢
ELEV.
w
00
w
a
o
m
F W
o
mg
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
oo
DEPTH
z
rem -
Wp I 6W I WI
a
m
N
(m)
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
-- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE --
0
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel to
gravelly, brown; non -cohesive, wet, very
'
dense
10
ss
0/
a
O
11
12
11
ss
5 0/
O
y'
June 2/20
13
2
SS
50/
0.13
14
0
z
15
a U
y
Bentonite
E
FE
13SS
50/
o
0.13
E
E
16
108.31
(ML) SILT, trace sand; grey;
16.05
non -cohesive, wet, very dense
ss
50/
O
17
0.13
106.68
(ML) sandy SILT, trace gravel; grey
17.56
(TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense
.'4
18
4
SS
50/
O
4
0.08
19
4
4
- Auger grinding between depths of
19.2mand 19.4m
a
4
4
Ss
505
O
MH
Sand
20
— — — — — — — — — _ — —
— —
—
—
— —
—
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — — — — .
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
W
U
H
0
O
U
Z
O
z
z
J
U
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-2 SHEET 3 OF 3
LOCATION: See Figure 2
BORING DATE: May 22 and 23, 2020 DATUM: Geodetic
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
¢ m
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
¢
ELEV.
w
00
w
a
o
m
F W
o
mg
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
oo
DEPTH
z
rem -
WP l 6W I WI
a
m
N
�n1)
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
-- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE --
20
(ML) sandy SILT, trace gravel; grey
Sand
(TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense
a
4
21
m
_ Auger grinding at a depth of 22.9 m
Q
4
=
0
4
17
SS
50/
O
0.13
U
V
Screen and Sand
' N
a
zz
$ o
- Auger grinding between depths of
s
23.2 m and 23.6 m
E
4
4
0
ss
0.1
O
23
Inferred boulders at a depth of 23.5 m
4
r
Slough
100.81
50/
END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL)
23.55
0.01
NOTES:
24
1. Water encountered at a depth of
4.6 m during drilling.
2. Borehole caved to a depth of 23.2 m
upon completion of drilling.
3. Groundwater level was measured in
monitoring well at 12.7 mbgs (El.111.7m)
25
on June 2, 2020.
4. NP = Non -plastic
26
27
26
29
30
s`
LH
SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
CHECKED: AJH
rn
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-3 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Figure 2
BORING DATE: May 12,2020 DATUM: Geodetic
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
a m
rU
F
W
20 40 60 BO
106 105 10' to
ZO y
OR
� W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
a
ELEV.
w
00
w
a
o
m
F W
o
mg
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
oo
DEPTH
z
rem -
WP I 6W I WI
a
m
N
(m)
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE
99.73
°
TOPSOIL - (SM) organic SILTY SAND,
0.00
Zb mm lame er
dark brown; rootlets; non -cohesive,
PVC Monitoring
Well
moist, loose
ss
3
s4.
Bentonile
p
98.82
2A
SS
5
0
Sand
1
=
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; light
0.91
98.59
2B
O
brown, contains rootlets; organic
1.14
nclusions, disturbed; non -cohesive,
.rune 2/2a
m0lst, compact
3
SS
46/
O
Screen and Sand
(GP) sandy GRAVEL, some fines; light
9815
0.2
brown; non -cohesive, wet, dense
Sa
SILTY SAND, trace gravel, grey
1.63
TM)
ILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense
END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL)
2
NOTES:
1. Water encountered at a depth of
1.2 m during drilling.
2. Borehole advanced with split spoon
3
and hammer blows to refusal.
3. Borehole depths between samples
advanced using split spoon and hammer
blows.
4. SPT blowcounts recorded were
halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account
for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg.
4
5. Groundwater level was measured in
monitoring well at 1.1 mbgs (El.98.63m)
on May 22 and June 2, 2020.
5
6
7
8
9
10
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-4 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: May 12,2020
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
a m
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' lo'
ZO y
OR
� W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
a
ELEV.
w
00
w
a
o
m
F W
o
mg
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
oo
DEPTH
z
rem -
WP l 6W I WI
a
m
(m�
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE
10427
PVC Monitoring
°
TOPSOIL - (SM) organic SILTY SAND,
0.00
Well June 2/2o
brown; contains wood fragments and
rootlets; non -cohesive, wet, compact
1
ss
7
~~
103.74
Bentonite
(SM) SILTY SAND, some sand, trace
0.53
ogravel,
brown; contains rootlets,
T,
y�
O
disturbed; oxidation staining;
103.36
Ss
6
Sand
1
=
non -cohesive, moist, loose
O
0.91
28
(SM) gravelly SILTY SAND, grey, trace
rootlet to 1.1 m (TILL); non -cohesive,
moist, very dense
3
SS
0 26
O
Screen and Sand
02.75
O
N P
END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL)
1.52
0.2
MH
NOTES:
2
1. Water encountered at ground surface
during drilling.
2. Borehole advanced with split spoon
and hammer blows to refusal.
3. Borehole depths between samples
advanced using split spoon and hammer
3
blows.
4. SPT blowcounts recorded were
halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account
for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg.
5. Groundwater level was measured in
monitoring well at 0.1 m (El.104.2 m) on
4
May 22, 2020.
6. Groundwater level was measured in
monitoring well at ground surface
(El.104.3 m) on June 2, 2020.
7. NP=Non-plastic
5
6
7
6
9
10
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-5 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: May 12,2020
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
m
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
� W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
¢
ELEV.
w
00
w
a
o
m
F W
o
mg
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
oo
DEPTH
z
rem -
WP I 6W I WI
a
m
N
(m)
m
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE
100.88
o
TOPSOIL- (SM) organic SILTY SAND,
0.o0
Zb mm lame er
dark brown; contains rootlets;
ss
4
PVC Monitoring
Well
non -cohesive, moist, loose
111.
Bentonite
Sand
2A
SS
8
99 ss
66.
(GP) GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines;
1.02
2B
O
Screen and Sand
brown; non -cohesive, moist to wet,
compact to very dense
yy.�
3A
SS
50/
O
0.2
50/
O
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey
1.42
(TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense
1.55
0.15
June 2/20
END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL)
2
NOTES:
1. Water encountered at a depth of
1.0 m during drilling.
2. Borehole advanced with split spoon
and hammer blows to refusal.
3
3. Borehole depths between samples
advanced using split spoon and hammer
blows.
4. SPT blowcounts recorded were
halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account
for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg.
5. Groundwater level was measured in
4
monitoring well at 0.6 mbgs (El.100.3 m)
on May 22, 2020.
6. Groundwater level was measured in
monitoring well at 1.5 mbgs (EI.99.4 m)
on June 2, 2020.
5
6
7
8
9
10
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
U
PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-6 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: May 12,2020
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL
SOIL PROFILE
SAMPLES
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
W
O
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m `
k, cm/s
a z
PIEZOMETER
F
O
M
a N
rU
F
W
20 40 60 80
106 105 10' 10'
ZO y
OR
W
z
DESCRIPTION
a
a
~
ELEV.
w
00
j
W
a
o
N
F W
o m
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - •
Cu, kPa V. ® U O
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
w
z
DEPTH
Q
rem -
WP l 6W I WI
a
ca
(m)
z
m
N
20 40 60 80
10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE
100.21
0
TOPSOIL
, '
0.08
1B
Ss
7
O
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey;
contains rootlets and organic inclusions,
disturbed; non -cohesive, wet
99.66
(GP) GRAVEL, trace sand, trace fines;
0.53
brown; non -cohesive, wet, very dense
99.35
2n
47/
O
ss
0.25
(SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; grey
0.88
2B
O
(TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense
99.14
50/
O
END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL)
1.07
NOTES:
1. Water encountered at a depth of
0.1 m during drilling.
2
2. Borehole advanced with split spoon
and hammer blows to refusal.
3. Borehole depths between samples
advanced using split spoon and hammer
blows.
4. SPT blowcounts recorded were
3
halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account
for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg.
5. Borehole caved to a depth of
0.9 mbgs upon completion of drilling.
6. Groundwater level was measured in
open borehole at 0.5 m (El.99.7 m) upon
4
completion of drilling.
s
6
7
8
9
10
s`
DEPTH SCALE
G O L D E R LOGGED: TO
1:50 CHECKED: AJH
Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng.
The Municipality of Clarington
Project No. 19132686 (1000)
September 17, 2020
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results
(Figures 131 to B6)
GOLDER
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MTO LS-702
FIGURE 131
(SM) SILTY SAND
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
6" 41/." 3"
1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200
100
90
80
70
z
60
w
w
z
LL 50
H
z
LU
40
w
a
30
20
10
0
100
10 1 0.1
0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
COBBLE
COARSE
FINE
COARSE MEDIUM FINE
SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE
SIZE
SAND SIZE
FINE GRAINED
LEGEND
SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE
DEPTH(m)
• 20-1 13
15.0 - 15.2
■ 20-2 9
9.0 - 9.2
Project Number: 19132686
Checked By: TO
Golder Associates
Date: 06-Jul-20
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MTO LS-702
FIGURE B2
(SM) SILTY SAND (TILL)
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
6" 41/." 3"
1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200
100
90
80
70
z
1-- 60
LU
z
LL 50
H
z
LU
X 40ill
LU
a
30
20
10
0—]
100
10 1 0.1
0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
COBBLE
COARSE
FINE
COARSE MEDIUM FINE
SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE
SIZE
SAND SIZE
FINE GRAINED
LEGEND
SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE
DEPTH(m)
• 20-4 3
1.2 - 1. 4
■ 20-1 4
2.3 - 2.7
Project Number: 19132686
Checked By: TO
Golder Associates
Date: 06-Jul-20
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MTO LS-702
FIGURE B3
(ML) SILT and SAND (TILL)
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
6" 41/." 3"
1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200
100
90
80
70
z
60
LU
z
LL 50
H
z
LU
0 40
LU
a
30
20
10
0
100
10 1 0.1
0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
COBBLE
COARSE
FINE
COARSE MEDIUM FINE
SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE
SIZE
SAND SIZE
FINE GRAINED
LEGEND
SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE
DEPTH(m)
• 20-2 5
3.1 - 3.5
Project Number: 19132686
Checked By: TO
Golder Associates
Date: 06-Jul-20
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MTO LS-702
FIGURE B4
(ML) Sandy SILT (TILL)
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
6" 41/." 3"
1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200
100
90
80
70
z
60
IY
LU
z
L 50
H
z
LU
X 40
LU
a
30
20
0-
0-]0
100
10 1 0.1
0.01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
COBBLE
COARSE
FINE
COARSE MEDIUM FINE
SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE
SIZE
SAND SIZE
FINE GRAINED
LEGEND
SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE
DEPTH(m)
• 20-2 16
19.5 - 19.6
Project Number: 19132686
Checked By: TO
Golder Associates
Date: 06-Jul-20
Appendix C: Trail Alignment and Profile
APPROXIMATE
A CREEK LOCATION
LIMIT OF EL20 99,73
TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY
BH20-4
__ — -- -- - O EL. = 104.271
,- BH2O-5
EL. = 100.88 I
LIMIT OF GRADING /
SH2O-1 (WITHOUT RETAINING 8< �
O EL. = 124.42 WALL
I
ARMOUR STONE
RETAINING WALL ;
I
PROPOSED (OPTIONAL) ;
O TRAIL 09Ltb
-_ O
O O
/
# 51 # 49
# 53 ---
B EIH2O-2 — 36
o
EL. 124.`� '.•. O
#47i
_ I
# 45
39
# 43 STORMWATER — r�
IFS # 41 MANAGEMENT
POND
a
125 125
24 124
123 123
122 122
121 - 121 DATE BY ISSUES REVISIONS �
119 120
19 9 _uwff
118 118
117 117
PROJECT:
116 116
115 115 FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL
114 - -- - _ _ _-- - 114 2020 WORKS
112 112
DRAWING:
11 111
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
110 110
109 _ 109 DRAWN BV: CHECKED BV: PROJECT
G. MASK D. CAMPBELL C14-0287
108 108
DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY DRAWING No. �
D. CAMPBELL D. CAMPBELL -
N It CO 00 O N It c0 OD O N (0 00 O N
CHAINAGE + + + + + +) + + +� co w � co � + + CHAINAGE H: 1:500
SCALE: DATE:
V: 1:100 JUNE 2020
126
PROPOSED TRAIL
12
zs
E.L. = 119.47
z6
124
ARMO R STONE RETAINING
124
120
WALL (0 TIONA)
120
118
PR POSE 2:1 LOPE
118
Q
116
(W THOU RETA NING ALL)
114
z
na
11a
O
F
nz
ORIGINAL G OUND -
z
U
110
110
Lu
(p
108
_ _ -
108
106
APPROXIMA E
106
104
104
102 -' 102
100
--- //
100
98
- -_--
998
9675
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50
-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
5 10 15 20 25
306
128
128
PRCPOSED TRAIL
126
`rE.L. = 116.2---
___
126
124
ARMCUR STONE R TAINI G
124
122
WALL (OPTIONAL)
122
zo zo
PROPOSED :1 SLOPE
118
(WITHOUT FETAINING WALL)
118
m
116
116
z
114
ORIGINA L GRO JND
114
0112
_ _ ''
112
(-)
110
- - -
110
m 10s APPROXIMATE: oa
EDGE F CREEK
— —
os
108
104
_--�_---
104
102
-'
102
100
-
100
98
998
9675
-70 -65 -60 -55 -50
-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
5 10 15 20 25
306
128
128
126
PRO OSED RAIL
126
24
� E. = 115.34
24
122
ARMOUR TONE RETAI ING
122
s
20
ALL OPTIO AL
20
116
PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE
116
U
( ITHO T RET INING WALL)
z
O
114
114
0 IGINA GROU D --' 110
U
o
_
—
---
W108--A
-- ----
108
PROXI ATE
os E GE 0 CREE os
104
104
DATE
BY
ISSUES REVISIONS
£
102
102
100
-- --- ---- —/
100
98
98
9675
—70 —65 —60 —55 —50
—45 —40 —35 —30 —25 —20 —15 —10 —5 0
5 10 15 20 25
3�6
122
122
PROJECT:
120
PROPOSED TRAIL_
120
E. = 115.25
'— SWM POND
11e
.
118
FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL
114
ARMOUR STONERETAINING
WALL (OPTIONAL) —
114
2020 WORKS
z
11z
PROPOSED 2:1 LOPE
( ITHOU RETAINING ALL) —''
112
i
O
110
0 IGINA
GROUND ___— --
110
DRAWING:
U 108 — —_ 108
Lu
U)
106
106
CROSS SECTIONS
04
--'
04
102
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT
100 1°°
98
gg
G. MASK
D. CAMPBELL
C14-0287 %
DESIGNED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DRAWING No. H
96g
75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 396
D. CAMPBELL
D. CAMPBELL
-
SCALE:
H: AS NOTED
DATE:
2V:
AS NOTED
JUNE 2020
lira ma s 9A w upm 6PECInC PROPER a of Tpr(a PR0Dms (GE mps, mwE 1
cowpo 1168 mD ono umN} wNICN 0 Pb'OP VAW To TmVfx 0E0SwMEIM wO.
4M HORNER zwr, ]AROMO, �ERARp, NO 4WD. W 9.leSDWfM OF THE SPECIFIED
PRODUCES WILL 1W & MTE THIS D15". M W WW IS BANG FWN9iED FAR W ON 1146
SPECIRC MWECF WILY. ANY PAW ACCEPIINQ IM D0Ci10,1ERT DOES SO N MNFW CE HIV
AWIM THAT fT MUU NOT BE fAIAf.ICATFD NRIOI.E OR IN PATR, NOR n6CE05fD TO 07NFA5,
YTnIDOT THE L04i5EHT Oi TERPAFIX CEDCiYN11iE71PS WC,
MlYRIM 2000, IERRII (GE05511ThUM X
PROPOSED .HANDRAIL
(BY OTHERS)
SEE FADINGf in. t3.5rrr
DETAIL "A'!� F1HiSHED GRADE
/,_(0Y OTHERS)
WWF
CUT OPENING
ZllGEOGRID FOR
'_S0N0 TUBE (BYNCTTHERS)
r—,
UNITFILL
REINFORCED
BATYPE II)
FINISHED GRADE
(BY OTHERS)
DESIGN' HEIGHT
VARIES
Max. IZ.Bm LIMIT OF
SET BACK f 26mm REFER TO ELEVATION VIEW FOR GEOGRID REINF0RCED
AT EA[ H 120 ' f3FTAILS (LENGTH, -TYPE AND ELEVATION) SOIL
I/
l
terrafix
geasynthe#ics inc.
455 Horner Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M8W 4W9
Tel:(416) 674-0363
� �S 5C PERFORATEDDRAIN PIPE WITH
FINISHED GRADE SOCK DRAIN TO POSITIVE
0UT1..ET(S)
T.0 r. RLTAINED
} SOIL —LAMir, 4.4m 360R GE0TEXTILE
.ram--F0UNDATI0N 5a2k�_z
LEVELING PAD TERRASTEEP 900 TYP. CROSS SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
lWAl
REVISIONS \ ISSU
O 07 12 1 S ISSOED FOR REVIEW
T� 8 0 ° MILL STREET PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
07/12/118 TERRA5TEEP-90 RSS WAIF
",a,* CLARINGT0N ONTARI❑
As Shawn
w"y" 4
pb1 Sheet dumber
T.A. TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 4 OF C
A THIN LAYER OF LEVELING COURSE
*100mm TO 150mm (19-mm CRUSHED CLEAR STONE OR SIMILAR)
GABION STONE
AP FOLD BACfmS VjLlDR.TM
SET BACK 20mm REINfRCEd SOIL
AT EACH LIFT 1 GRANULAR R'TYPE II)
WWF FACING 360R
UNIT (BASKET)
GEOTE?STILE
SG GEOGRI,13
REINFORCEMENT'
TERRASTEEP 900 FACING DETAIL "A"
NOT TO SCALE
Tip MIGN IS BIND UPON SPECIFIC PROPEFRIES OF iFRR M PRflCI= [OEti>G M, DEWNAX
COkPO M AND EROSION EIEDW, WHO ARE PROPRIETARY lO M.
4&S PORER AYME. TOR M, ONTARIO, FFN 09. ANY SU9SEnUI%N of THE SAECIn—
PRODlM WILE DHAMW THS DESIGN. THIS MWNO Is BONO FURNISHED FOR USE ON THIS
SPECIFIC PRCUECF ONLY. ANY RM ALCUMNIG THIS 00rlJWNT DDES SO IN CONFIDENCE AND
AGREES lHAT IF SNAL NO] DE DUPLICATED 1MOLE OR IN PART, MDR DACUM TO OT}FRS.
ATDIm FRE ODdRw OF mgmix fFRLYUE im IW,
COF' Wff 2009, TERWIX CEWMi= ING.
rterrafix
geosynthetics Inc.
455 Horner Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M8W 4W9
Tel:(416) 674-0363
wl���vll
2" (50mm)
(ONE END ONLY)
AI (SEE SECTION)
�I I� 4" (T 00mm)
9'—B" (2948mm) A
EFFECTIVE LENGTH
CENTER TO CENTEY
OF OUTSIDE WIRES
10' (3048mm)
LEVATION VIEW
04 GALVANIZED
STEEL WELDED
WIRE MESH
IW1.l
640mm +/— 6,35mm
�— (MEASURED INSIDE HOOK — INSIDE HOOK)
STEEL WIRE
ni innnnr nrni it
SUPPORT STRUT DETAIL
SUPPORT STRUT
(SEE DETAIL)
BUTT VERTICAL WIRE
(OVERLAP HORIZONTAL WIRE 2" (50mm)
VERTICAL WIRES OF ADJACENT FDRMS
SHALL BE TIED TOGETHER AT BUTT
LOCATION. PROVIDE SUPPORT STRUT AT
ALL BUTT LOCATIONS).
SUPPORT STRUT (SEE
DETAIL) PLACED ALONG
LENGTH OF WIRE FORM
AT MAX. 0,5m SPACING.
FIELD ADJUST AS
REQUIRED.
18"
(457mm)
�1 gr
(NOM,)
f 4" [luummy
191, (457mm)
1 SECTION A —A
WIRE FORM FACING UNIT DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
REVISIONS \ ISSUE
0 07 t2 t8 ISSUED FOR REVIEV
a
MILL STREET
PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY
t. 47//I�g
TERRASTEEP-90 RSS WALL
1�*
CLARINGTON
ONTARIO
As Shown
N
UH
Sheet Pfumt,ar
DETAILS
5 OF 6
ITATYPICAL
Appendix D: Works Cost Estimate
Municipality of Clarington
Farewell Creek Trail - Phase 2B
COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
Cost Apportionment Based on Engineer's Estimate
Revised [02-26-2021]
CIMA Protect No. C14-0287
Description
Estimate _T
Comments
Construction Costs (Estimated)
Part'A' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000
$ 10,600.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430
$ 59,430.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'A1' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT (Tendere
$ 41,868.28
CIMA Estimate
Part'C1' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT
$ 481,670.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'D 'Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000
$ 385,228.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'E1': Retained Soil System Wall - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT
$ 664,393.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'F' General Items
$ 55,000.00
CIMA Estimate
Sub -Total Construction
$ 1,698,189.28
1.76% Net HST
$ 29,888.13
$ 1,728,077.41
Total Construction Costs
Other Project Costs
4.0% Design and Tendering
$ 84,000.00
CIMA Estimate
7.0% Contract Administration and Inspection
$ 120,965.42
CIMA Estimate
2.0% Material Testing
$ 34,561.55
CIMA Estimate
10% Contingencies
$ 172,807.74
Permits and Fees
$ 3,500.00
CLOCA
Sub -Total Other Costs
$ 415,834.71
1.76% Net HST
$ 7,318.69
$ 423,153.40
Total Other Costs
Total Protect Cost Incl. Net HST
$ 2,151,230.81
Available Funding
Add Account Details
$ -
Other Sources
$ -
Total Funding
$ -
Funds Remaining / Over -run
-$ 2,151,230.81
Tree Compensation
$ 394,000.00
Municipality of Clarington
Farewell Creek Trail - Phase 2B
ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
Cost Apportionment Based on Engineer's Estimate
Revised [02-26-2021]
CIMA Project No. C14-0287
Description
Estimate
Comments
Construction Costs (Estimated)
Part'A' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000
$ 10,600.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430
$ 59,430.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'A2' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGNIAL ALIGNMENT (Tender
$ 24,393.10
CIMA Estimate
Part'C2' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
$ 433,900.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'D 'Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000
$ 385,228.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'E2': Retained Soil System Wall- ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
$ 77,175.00
CIMA Estimate
Part'F' General Items
$ 55,000.00
CIMA Estimate
Sub -Total Construction
$ 1,045,726.10
1.76% Net HST
$ 18,404.78
$ 1,064,130.88
Total Construction Costs
Other Project Costs
4.0% Design and Tendering
$ 50,000.00
CIMA Estimate
7.0% Contract Administration and Inspection
$ 74,489.16
CIMA Estimate
2.0% Material Testing
$ 21,282.62
CIMA Estimate
10% Contingencies
$ 106,413.09
Permits and Fees
$ 3,500.00
CLOCA
Sub -Total Other Costs
$ 255,684.87
1.76% Net HST
$ 4,500.05
$ 260,184.92
Total Other Costs
Total Project Cost Incl. Net HST
$ 1,324,315.80
Available Funding
Add Account Details
$ -
Other Sources
$ -
Total Fundin
$ -
Funds Remaining / Over -run
-$ 1,324,315.80
Tree Compensation $ 212,000.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
In accordance with the first paragraph of this Tender, the Contractor hereby offers to complete the work specified for
Contract No. CL20XX-XX for the following unit prices.
Spec. - The numbers in this column refer to the applicable issue of OPS Specs
SP - Refers to Special Provisions
(P) - Plan Quantity Payment Item
MOC - Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
Part 'A ' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000 (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender)
SP
PART B: 4+107.48 to 4+430
LS
100%
-
-
SP
PART D: 4+720 to 5+000
LS
100%
10,600.00
10,600.00
Total Part 'A' Carried to Summary
10,600.00
Part 'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430
MUNI 182,
Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
MUNI201,
Staging
MUNI 510,
SP
MUNI 201
i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing
LS
100%
-
SP
ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal,
LS
100%
1,000.00
1,000.00
Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees
MUNI 805
Light Duty Silt Fence
m
150.0
12.00
1,800.00
SP
Catch basin Silt Trap
ea
150.00
-
MUNI 801
Tree Protection Fencing
m
75.0
15.00
1,125.00
SP
MUNI 805
Straw Bale Flow Check Dams
ea
1.0
270.00
270.00
SP
SP
Layout by Contractor
LS
100%
2,000.00
2,000.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
MUNI 206
Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and
SP
Grading
i) Trail Alignment
m3
220.0
30.00
6,600.00
(P)
MUNI 1860
Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack
m2
530.0
3.00
1,590.00
SP
200W)
MUNI 314
Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95%
t
400.0
35.00
14,000.00
SP, MOC
SPMDD (300mm depth)
MUNI501
Provisional Item
m3
51.0
30.00
1,530.00
Water For Compaction
MUNI 310,
Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth)
t
77.0
150.00
11,550.00
SP,
MOC
MUNI310,
Provisional Item
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP,
Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance
MOC
DET-1
3300mm x 1200mm Concrete Pad c/w
ea
2.0
2,500.00
5,000.00
Prefabricated Bench and Pressure Treated
Pine Wheelchair Barrier
MUNI802,
Topsoil
m2
185.0
8.00
1,480.00
SP
MUNI804,
Seed
m2
185.0
5.00
925.00
SP, MOC
710
Pavement Markings
SP
i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint
m
140.0
4.00
560.00
Total Part 'B' Carried to Summary
59,430.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
Part 'D 'Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000
MUNI 182,
Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and
LS
100%
15,000.00
15,000.00
MUNI201,
Staging
MUNI 510,
SP
MUNI 201
i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP
ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal,
LS
100%
10,000.00
10,000.00
Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees
MUNI 805
Light Duty Silt Fence
m
560.0
12.00
6,720.00
SP
MUNI 801
Tree Protection Fencing
m
100.0
15.00
1,500.00
SP
MUNI 805
Straw Bale Flow Check Dams
ea
5.0
270.00
1,350.00
SP
SP
Layout by Contractor
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
MUNI 206
Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and
SP
Grading
i) Trail Alignment
m3
790.0
50.00
39,500.00
(P)
MUNI206
Provisional Item
m3
90.0
70.00
6,300.00
SP, MOC
Additional Depth Excavation for Trail
Construction in Wet Condition
MUNI 1860
Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack
m2
1,180.0
3.00
3,540.00
SP
200W)
MUNI 1860
Provisional Item
m2
350.0
4.00
1,400.00
SP
Non -Woven Geotextile (Terrafix 420R)
SP
Provisional Item
t
220.0
60.00
13,200.00
53mm Minus Clear Stone (300mm Depth)
MUNI 314
Import Granular B Fill
t
2,024.0
40.00
80,960.00
SP, MOC
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
MUNI 314
Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95%
t
890.0
45.00
40,050.00
SP, MOC
SPMDD (300mm depth)
MUNI501
Provisional Item
m3
116.0
30.00
3,480.00
Water For Compaction
MUNI 421
1030x740mm dia. CSPA Culvert (Incl.
SP
Excavation, Frost Taper, Bedding and Backfill)
i) 1030x740mm dia. CSPA Culvert
m
30.0
700.00
21,000.00
MUNI 511
Rip -Rap Rock Protection 150-300mm of
t
40.0
85.00
3,400.00
SP
450mm depth at Culvert Inlet/Outlets
MUNI 310,
Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth)
t
154.0
175.00
26,950.00
SP,
MOC
MUNI310,
Provisional Item
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP,
Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance
MOC
Steel Safety Railing (not a guard)
a) Galvanized Steel Safety Railing as per
m
280.0
250.00
70,000.00
OPSD 980.101 MOD., incl. Mounting on Base
Plates
DET-1
3300mm x 1200mm Concrete Pad c/w
ea
2.0
2,500.00
5,000.00
Prefabricated Bench and Pressure Treated
Pine Wheelchair Barrier
SP
Plant Material
LS
100%
7,500.00
7,500.00
MUNI 802,
Topsoil
m2
566.0
8.00
4,528.00
SP
MUNI804,
Seed
m2
566.0
5.00
2,830.00
SP, MOC
710
Pavement Markings
SP
i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint
m
280.0
4.00
1,120.00
SP
Supply and Install Erosion Control Blanket
m2
125.0
20.00
2,500.00
Total Part'D' Carried to Summary
382,828.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
Part 'F ' General Items
SP
Bonds, Insurance and Maintenance Security
LS
100%
15,000.00
15,000.00
SP
Mobilization and Demobilization, incl. Traffic
Staging
LS
100%
40,000.00
40,000.00
Total Part 'F' Carried to Summary
55,000.00
SUMMARY
Part'A' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000 (Tendered
separately prior to Trail Tender)
$ 10,600.00
Part'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430
$ 109,213.08
Part 'D ' Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000
$ 382,828.00
Part'FGeneral Items
$ 55,000.00
Total (excluding HST)
$ 557,641.08
HST (13% of Total)
$ 72,493.34
Total Estimate Amount
$ 630,134.42
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
In accordance with the first paragraph of this Tender, the Contractor hereby offers to complete the work specified for
Contract No. CL20XX-XX for the following unit prices.
Spec. - The numbers in this column refer to the applicable issue of OPS Specs
SP - Refers to Special Provisions
(P) - Plan Quantity Payment Item
MOC - Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
Part 'A1' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender)
SP
PART Cl: 4+430 to 4+720
LS
100%
41,868.28
41,868.28
Total Part'A' Carried to Summary
41,868.28
Part'C1' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT
MUNI 182,
Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and
LS
100%
25,000.00
25,000.00
MUNI201,
Staging
MUNI 510,
SP
MUNI 201
i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP
ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal,
LS
100%
20,000.00
20,000.00
Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees
MUNI 805
Light Duty Silt Fence
m
290.0
12.00
3,480.00
SP
MUNI 801
Tree Protection Fencing
m
100.0
15.00
1,500.00
SP
MUNI 805
Straw Bale Flow Check Dams
ea
5.0
270.00
1,350.00
SP
SP
Layout by Contractor
LS
100%
7,500.00
7,500.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
MUNI 206
Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and
SP
Grading
i) Trail Alignment
m3
2,530.0
55.00
139,150.00
(P)
MUNI 1860
Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack
m2
1,220.0
3.00
3,660.00
SP
200W)
MUNI 314
Import Granular'B' Fill
t
20.0
45.00
900.00
SP, MOC
MUNI 314
Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95%
t
920.0
45.00
41,400.00
SP, MOC
SPMDD (300mm depth)
MUNI501
Provisional Item
m3
116.0
30.00
3,480.00
Water For Compaction
MUNI 407,
Precast Catch Basin (C-104 & C-105 c/w
ea
4.0
3,500.00
14,000.00
SP, MOC
OPSD 400.010)
MUNI 421
300mm dia. CSP Culvert
m
24.0
500.00
12,000.00
SP
MUNI 511
Rip -Rap Rock Protection 150-300mm of
t
120.0
85.00
10,200.00
SP
450mm depth at Culvert Inlet/Outlets
Rip -Rap Rock Protection 100-200mm of
m2
180.0
30.00
5,400.00
300mm depth in Ditch incl. Woven Geotextile
base (Terratrack 200W )
MUNI 310,
Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth)
t
160.0
200.00
32,000.00
SP,
MOC
Concrete Curb and Gutter
m
260.0
150.00
39,000.00
MUNI310,
Provisional Item
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP,
Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance
MOC
SP
Plant Material
LS
100%
7,500.00
7,500.00
MUNI802,
Topsoil
m2
2,180.0
8.00
17,440.00
SP
MUNI804,
Seed
m2
2,180.0
5.00
10,900.00
SP, MOC
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
710
Pavement Markings
SP
i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint
m
290.0
4.00
1,160.00
SP
Supply and Install Erosion Control Blanket
m2
2,180.0
20.00
43,600.00
SP
Pond Spillway Erosion Protection Extension
m2
270.0
115.00
31,050.00
Total Part'C1' Carried to Summary
481,670.00
Part'E1': Retained Soil System Wall - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT
SP
Retaining wall system
1860
511
a) TensarTech Retaining Wall System
m2
680
750.00
510,000.00
MUNI 1004
Provisional Item:
m2
350
7.50
2,625.00
b) Tensar Triax TX160-375 Geo Grid
Provisional Item:
m2
350
3.48
1,218.00
c) Terrafix 360R Geotextile
Provisional Item:
t
450
59.00
26,550.00
d) Shotrock
Provisional Item:
t
200
50.00
10,000.00
e) 25mm to 37mm Clearstone
SP
Prefabricated Handrail
m
240
475.00
114,000.00
MUNI 908
Total Part 'E1' (Carried to Summary)
$ 664,393.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213
In accordance with the first paragraph of this Tender, the Contractor hereby offers to complete the work specified for
Contract No. CL20XX-XX for the following unit prices.
Spec. - The numbers in this column refer to the applicable issue of OPS Specs
SP - Refers to Special Provisions
(P) - Plan Quantity Payment Item
MOC - Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
Part 'A2' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGNIAL ALIGNMENT (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender)
SP
PART C2: 4+430 to 4+720
LS
100%
24,393.10
24,393.10
Total Part 'A' Carried to Summary
24,393.10
Part'C2' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
MUNI 182,
Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and
LS
100%
15,000.00
15,000.00
MUNI201,
Staging
MUNI 510,
SP
MUNI 201
i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP
ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal,
LS
100%
10,000.00
10,000.00
Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees
MUNI 805
Light Duty Silt Fence
m
290.0
12.00
3,480.00
SP
MUNI 801
Tree Protection Fencing
m
200.0
15.00
3,000.00
SP
MUNI 805
Straw Bale Flow Check Dams
ea
2.0
270.00
540.00
SP
SP
Layout by Contractor
LS
100%
7,500.00
7,500.00
MUNI 206
Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and
SP
Grading
i) Trail Alignment
m3
1,480.0
45.00
66,600.00
(P)
MUNI 1860
Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack
m2
1,220.0
3.00
3,660.00
SP
200W)
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
MUNI 314
Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95%
t
920.0
40.00
36,800.00
SP, MOC
SPMDD (300mm depth)
MUNI501
Provisional Item
m3
116.0
30.00
3,480.00
Water For Compaction
Rip -Rap Rock Protection 100-200mm of
m2
80.0
30.00
2,400.00
300mm depth in Ditch incl. Woven Geotextile
base (Terratrack 200W )
MUNI 310,
Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth)
t
160.0
160.00
25,600.00
SP,
MOC
MUNI310,
Provisional Item
LS
100%
5,000.00
5,000.00
SP,
Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance
MOC
MUNI 511,
Armour Stone Retaining Walls (3.5t min.)
t
480.0
275.00
132,000.00
SP
MUNI 511,
G-10 Gabion Stone Filter Stone at Retaining
t
190.0
170.00
32,300.00
MUNI 1860
Walls, Incl. Non -woven GeoTextile
SP
Steel Safety Railing
a) Galvanized Steel Safety Railing as per
m
90.0
250.00
22,500.00
OPSD 980.101 MOD., incl. Mounting on Base
Plates
DET-1
3300mm x 1200mm Concrete Pad c/w
ea
1.0
2,500.00
2,500.00
Prefabricated Bench and Pressure Treated
Pine Wheelchair Barrier
SP
Plant Material
LS
100%
7,500.00
7,500.00
MUNI 802,
Topsoil
m2
960.0
8.00
7,680.00
SP
MUNI804,
Seed
m2
960.0
5.00
4,800.00
SP, MOC
710
Pavement Markings
SP
i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint
m
290.0
4.00
1,160.00
SP
Supply and Install Erosion Control Blanket
m2
620.0
20.00
12,400.00
SP
Pond Spillway Erosion Protection Extension
m2
200.0
115.00
23,000.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
Total Part 'C2' Carried to Summary
433,900.00
Part'E2': Retained Soil System Wall- ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
SP
Retaining wall system
1860
511
a) TensarTech Retaining Wall System
m2
65
750.00
48,750.00
MUNI 1004
Provisional Item:
m2
50
15.00
750.00
b) Tensar Triax TV 60-375 Geo Grid
Provisional Item:
m2
50
6.00
300.00
c) Terrafix 360R Geotextile
Provisional Item:
t
75
90.00
6,750.00
d) Shotrock
Provisional Item:
t
75
75.00
5,625.00
e) 25mm to 37mm Clearstone
SP
Prefabricated Handrail
m
30
500.00
15,000.00
MUNI 908
Total Part'E2' (Carried to Summary)
$ 77,175.00
The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office
CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B
Item
No.
Spec No.
Description
Unit
Qty
Unit Price
Total
SUMMARY
Part'A2' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGNIAL ALIGNMENT (Tendered
separately prior to Trail Tender)
$ 24,393.10
Part'C2' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
$ 433,900.00
Part'E2': Retained Soil System Wall- ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT
$ 77,175.00
Total (excluding HST)
$ 535,468.10
HST (13% of Total)
$ 69,610.85
Total Estimate Amount
$ 605,078.95
Appendix A: Photo Logs
0�
. . . . . . . . . . .
OW,
woo
- �a�;atrfiYyP
_ice l.r.:rr .- - �-
•hiY4YP .'
Ems.
6H�.i..��-Lebi7a•
.-N.�i.LF.;n: �A.�i.a.
;.I :�f
kit
e (,
daC `��-?�-ate. :- � �`. i•-�. -IL
'�.. 11y:1`,;F� :� I'�' , t':.;•-.a .c- f a�:' - '•ae�''��: '� � ',i:�,."f', .;4 �.' `�� - j�
It
Ar
!• ���rr Z�1 ty •- � �+ :_ -- -�_r i�'z�� i`444' ,,t .���_� _ � _ice. ._ - l -.- '' - a -J
' ,. •y�'� �.� ' �+c aiy -r �, � �.iT� - .t �?L' �+R4Y _ � �4yF- y y �- y�•.�a ti' � - , ■ 1:
t �' _ _. -�� � ��••�.i ••' 1 7' � as
41 v
��..R. �- h x,• . �-- -x �'J ��.- AY•E �. „It s •' 'ir ! � �� � ,. �� r •. `, v. r .
4`:Y. 'r.t .•. �•ff 'r:, iki-.Y ''�,�� ���L'�.ill•��_ - - ,�?�'' 1'
12w � rFj-
y�yr •y ]r -���� tee' 1 rCv /�i �i N.
mil'.
! {J
4a aka.
Sri ~!�� � �� Mi r -4 -=t_. L - .* � '�_d4 �:.- •� _ .=,. -
-MIR , rut,
VL
IL 7;
Alt
� _ .5� arty :. ._ �.`�.i`$`_ - \. �i. ,r •yr
xa - -
X � � �;,. al. �, � • - _s,�'�,+�' . �s= i �k's., � '•4 :.� ,Nits• - z.
r-� � .. k _ --- - �.- jam' . _ - r�•,p:"r.f: - �!�.. •j - - _ _ '`.,
iL
f — ' _ — - ���+ - , i'!� � � � � - � !`�• •7. ' ..•N _'°ram, h. ._ � ' - � �. -
IF Ohl I
- fq� � � ■ I � T { •M �
41
WWI
Al
VjV
IA
IlV
ter_ '.�':. .�r•t � '- } ., c ` -'~�. ,a � - �� .___ - .' w-••�I.-� - .. _... �-
'
iR`;- �P �'j 1� fix. .•..'P`s]'.. `.-r ,'-,.`,a-1 �j �=�1-1''�-a�. P�
WTI
IN ,
MG,
=
y� I INx
I OF V s J
will
IF�" �s.' �.'yct.�+ L ••i.. ,,.. :� ,� i.. �.i.y� �' � - . � "�p�' .,. _.'�!'�� - ate.
' ±���__�. 1-r-a.'.- _ -.•_. '�•.. �'�..*..: Sid - � �f� � -•�•".
. � ,�. ^:^'" ��',� � :_ter.. .• 'yw+ .ur 1.3� ; 'v�- �
¢. .- ![w. - - :•v-
':•`.�.r�.r-fir �.' _iy. �- -� r.:�';�'"' -.-� �, --• ..- � �Li' - - -
OF
•�. �- . , •.''� . ♦! .•=_Slur :�:'_ - •.'� - • _ �' 1� .. ., _ .
��.:,p .._ ,.� h «•T ',y,.-..-c - _ `f J ram- ^ •�•• - , .l ' �. ri: 'y > rF. _
NO
-M1yi� �.. •rh L
�. ' - ...rC •'� •"jam-�'1-� - '-�-_/ � _ ��-•
' rrx • ' 'V,NMY 'IL
071
IL
tl
AL
- ,•l., y•-_'ram - �y ..'�J -�r� ,. _ -. �`� .
46
p0
�aiv.
• -
.
a�fa r�
...w.y . .A
low
10,
T IN
MEL
r3i7 1. �' _ . -r • T
" 4y4y4
d. v0i�
.Al,'
1
rs C� $
r
� Y w i
10 1-1
.�: �'•-' �� �'' Apr' r,..
O .y � _ %,. �!r ;��s. y�.'pyq � �' �•�'+S'_I�'�� .w.�Yt �1.J..$" ±,� ..rg62^: �� '
' .nAr-•
��Zr Grp.._ ��
- '�
^i14•� b._7�- ��T•W��� ,rye ,
! �` f �.,� . Ar,•. is y� .-.. '
:. g•: r -r3i•
n v: e AY
_ _,�.:s;l J �'1;� y( ; . ��'; �as.�� "�rrS -�'` _ . „�"� ', i `---��� �! r�-� `' '_• �`i 4 r
- fir. - _aliT +�,�- •fs'��' .r a� �' ..� --: � - ..
lj
i be
WN
Fj
INC
Joi
RorAr
77 y: _ - _ v� 1• _ ..._,fit;. '.4:.'..li:�..�
VW
NZA
ol
i
,_. - .,.:•ram—,.� � �.�� ___ � _. s t_,�-w_� �.:!�;� ¢; � '�• :,j��'�j�;' ��