Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd. Foothills Zone 8 West Path Delivery 2023 Attachment 13
Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Attachment 13
BGC ENGINEERING INC. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY
FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) LTD.
BRITISH COLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP NO.2 NPS 48 ELKO SECTION
DESKTOP GEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
FINAL
FHBC PROJECT BGC PROJECT NO.: 0098187 01190 NO.: DOCUMENT NO.: 01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00 DATE: July 24, 2020
Attachment 13
BGC ENGINEERING INC. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY Suite 500 - 1000 Centre Street NE Calgary, AB Canada T2E 7W6 Telephone (403) 250-5185 Fax (403) 250-5330
July 24, 2020 Project No.: 0098187
Joni Lei G. Cardona, P.Eng. Project Manager Canada Gas Projects - Pipeline TC Energy Corporation 450 – 1 Street SW Calgary, AB T2P 5H1
Dear Joni Lei, Re: British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section, Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - Final
Please find attached our above-referenced final report. Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at the number listed above.
Yours sincerely,
BGC ENGINEERING INC. per:
Luc Toussaint, PG.Dip., P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been retained by Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd. (Foothills) to conduct a desktop geohazard assessment for the British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section as part of the Foothills Zone 8 West Path Delivery 2023 program. The desktop geohazard assessment consisted in identifying credible geohazard threats to the buried pipeline and above-ground infrastructure and assigning a hazard rating to each credible threat. The hazard rating indicates the level to which each geohazard is expected to impact the design and construction of the pipeline, in terms of additional, more detailed assessment work and overall effort in mitigation. Where required, those more detailed assessments and mitigation designs are planned as part of subsequent stages of the pipeline design process. Geohazards included in this study are classified into the following types: • Landslide (including rockfall, rockslide, rock avalanche, debris slide, earth landslide, debris flow, debris flood, snow and ice avalanche, and outburst flood) • Hydrotechnical (including channel scour and channel degradation) • Seismic (including ground shaking, liquefaction, co-seismic landslides and fault rupture) • Subsidence (including karst, compressible soils, mining and fluid withdrawal) • Geotechnical (including problematic soils, permafrost degradation, and peat/organic soils) • Geochemical (including acid rock drainage and metal leaching). This document presents the methodology employed in developing the geohazard inventories associated with each of the geohazard types. The rating of the hazards followed the following framework: • Low Hazard: Standard construction practice and typical designs are likely adequate to manage the geohazard, with a relatively low level of effort. We found 102 discrete Low hazard pipeline segments between all geohazard types. • Moderate Hazard: Field review and generic mitigation designs are likely required to manage the geohazard, with an intermediate level of effort. We found 47 discrete Moderate hazard pipeline segments between all geohazard types. • High Hazard: Detailed field review and site-specific mitigation are likely required to manage the geohazard, with a relatively high level of effort. We found 13 discrete High hazard pipeline segments. The results of the assessment are described and qualified in the text herein and presented in tabulated and drawing form.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page i BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... ii LIST OF TABLES ...... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv LIST OF DRAWINGS ...... iv LIMITATIONS ...... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 Elko NPS 48 Section ...... 1 1.2. Terms of Reference ...... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 2 2.1. Authorship ...... 3 3.0 BACKGROUND ...... 4 3.1. Jurisdiction ...... 4 3.2. Physiographic and Topographic Setting ...... 4 3.3. Climate and Hydrology ...... 4 3.4. Geological Setting ...... 5 3.5. Historic Geohazard Events ...... 6 3.6. Background Data ...... 6 4.0 METHODOLOGY BY GEOHAZARD TYPE ...... 7 4.1. Terrain Mapping ...... 7 4.2. Landslide Hazards ...... 7 4.2.1. Hazard Rating ...... 8 4.3. Hydrotechnical Hazards ...... 9 4.3.1. Hydrotechnical Hazard Description ...... 9 4.3.2. Hydrotechnical Hazard Mapping Objective ...... 9 4.3.3. Hydrotechnical Hazard Mapping Methodology ...... 10 4.4. Seismic Hazards ...... 11 4.4.1. Seismic Shaking ...... 11 4.4.2. Liquefaction ...... 13 4.4.3. Earthquake-Triggered Landslides ...... 13 4.4.4. Surface Faulting ...... 15 4.5. Subsidence Hazards ...... 16 4.5.1. Hazard rating ...... 16 4.6. Geotechnical Hazards ...... 16 4.6.1. Hazard rating ...... 17 4.7. Geochemical Hazards ...... 17 4.7.1. Geologic Unit Permissive Likelihood ...... 18 4.7.2. Mineral Occurrences ...... 19 4.7.3. Desktop Geochemical Hazard Rating ...... 19 5.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 21
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page ii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
5.1. Landslide Hazards ...... 21 5.2. Potential Hydrotechnical Hazard Sites...... 22 5.3. Seismic Hazards ...... 25 5.4. Subsidence Hazards ...... 28 5.5. Geotechnical Hazards ...... 29 5.6. Geochemical Hazards ...... 29 6.0 UNCERTAINTIES ...... 33 6.1. Landslide Hazard Assessment ...... 33 6.2. Hydrotechnical Hazard Assessment ...... 33 6.3. Seismic Hazard Assessment ...... 33 6.4. Subsidence Hazard Assessment ...... 34 6.5. Geotechnical Hazard Assessment: ...... 34 6.6. Geochemical Hazard Assessment...... 35 7.0 FUTURE WORK ...... 36 7.1. Landslide Hazards ...... 36 7.2. Hydrotechnical Hazards ...... 36 7.3. Seismic Hazards ...... 36 7.4. Subsidence Hazards ...... 37 7.5. Geotechnical Hazards ...... 37 7.6. Geochemical Hazards ...... 37 8.0 CLOSURE ...... 38 REFERENCES ...... 39
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Landslide hazard types included in this study...... 7 Table 4-2. General application of the hazard ratings for landslide hazards...... 9 Table 4-3. Hydrotechnical hazard classification typical indicators...... 11 Table 4-4. Map units, lithologic descriptions, interpreted site classes, and interpreted geologic groups along the Elko Section. Geology from Stockmal and Fallas (2015)...... 12 Table 4-5. Combination rules for rock and soil site classes where rock is between 1 and 3 m below ground surface...... 12 Table 4-6. Relative liquefaction hazard derived from liquefaction susceptibility and
PGAsite...... 13 Table 4-7. Geologic groups by surficial material...... 14 Table 4-8. Subsidence hazard types included in this study...... 16 Table 4-9. General application of the hazard ratings for subsidence hazards...... 16 Table 4-10. Geotechnical hazard types included in this study...... 17
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page iii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 4-11. General application of the hazard ratings for geotechnical hazards...... 17 Table 5-1. Potential landslide hazard inventory...... 21 Table 5-2. Potential hydrotechnical hazard site inventory...... 23 Table 5-3. Locations recommended for bathymetric and/or topographic survey...... 25 Table 5-4. High hazard seismic hazard crossings...... 28 Table 5-5. Potential subsidence hazard inventory...... 29 Table 5-6. Potential geotechnical hazard inventory...... 29 Table 5-7. Desktop geochemical hazard assessment for the Elko Section, BC...... 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Climate normal data (1981 to 2010) for Sparwood Environment and Climate Change Canada climate station...... 5 Figure 4-1. Critical acceleration versus slope angle for three geologic groups and two groundwater conditions. From Wilson and Keefer (1985)...... 14 Figure 4-2. Geochemical hazard rating criteria...... 20 Figure 5-1. Reference-condition (site class C) PGA hazard curve...... 27 Figure 5-2. Reference-condition (site class C) uniform hazard response spectra for 1:100, 1:475, 1:1000, and 1:2,475 annual exceedance probabilities...... 27
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DRAWING 01 LOOP SECTION OVERVIEW DRAWING 02 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY MAP DRAWING 03 BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAP DRAWING 04A TERRAIN MAPPING - KP 0+000 to KP 12+500 DRAWING 04B TERRAIN MAPPING - KP 12+500 to KP 23+500 DRAWING 04C TERRAIN MAPPING - KP 20+000 TO KP 31+277 DRAWING 04D TERRAIN MAP LEGEND DRAWING 05 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS MAP DRAWING 06A POTENTIAL HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD SITE MAP KP 0+000 to KP 12+500 DRAWING 06B POTENTIAL HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD SITE MAP KP 12+500 to KP 23+500
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page iv BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
DRAWING 06C POTENTIAL HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD SITE MAP KP 20+000 TO KP 31+277 DRAWING 07 SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP DRAWING 08 SUBSIDENCE HAZARDS MAP DRAWING 09 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS MAP DRAWING 10 GEOCHEMICAL HAZARDS MAP
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A DESCRIPTIVE LIST OF ALL GEOHAZARD CLASSES AND TYPES APPENDIX B RATIONALE FOR CLASSIFICATION FOR LANDSLIDE, SUBSIDENCE, GEOTECHNICAL, AND SEISMIC HAZARDS RATING APPENDIX C LANDSLIDE HAZARDS INVENTORY APPENDIX D POTENTIAL HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD SITE INVENTORY APPENDIX E SEISMIC HAZARDS INVENTORY APPENDIX F SUBSIDENCE HAZARDS INVENTORY APPENDIX G GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS INVENTORY APPENDIX H GEOCHEMICAL HAZARDS INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page v BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
LIMITATIONS
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared this document for the account of Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd. (Client). Any use which a third party makes of this document or any reliance on decisions to be based on it is the responsibility of such third party. BGC accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document. For clarity and for the purpose of this paragraph third parties do not include affiliates, partners, consultants, contractors, suppliers, vendors or subcontractors of the Client engaged by or with the Client for the associated purposes of the document.
0L2ZXX~G Page vi BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
1.0 INTRODUCTION BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been engaged by Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd. (Foothills) to provide applied earth science services in support of the Foothills Zone 8 West Path Delivery 2022 Project (the Project). The Project involves looping a section of the existing British Columbia Mainline System with a new 48-inch diameter gas lines. BGC understands that the Foothills project team has set a preliminary route, and is currently in the stages of permitting, field investigations planning and conceptual design for implementation in 2020 and beyond.
1.1. British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 Elko NPS 48 Section The British Columbia Mainline Loop No. 2 NPS 48 Elko Section (Elko Section) is 31,277 m long, located entirely in British Columbia, and runs approximately north to south from an existing Foothills valve site facility at the north end (BC NTS Unit 25-C/82-G-10) to an existing tie-in flange located near the Lodgepole Rd, approximately 13.5 km east of Elko, BC. The proposed alignment runs parallel to existing Foothills British Columbia Mainline MLV 1-2 (NPS 36 1961) and British Columbia Mainline Loop (NPS 36 1980), except from KP 6+800 to KP 8+200 and KP 10+300 to KP 12+300 to avoid complicated terrain, and from KP 24+600 to KP 30+200 to take advantage of an existing access road over the very steep southern aspect of the Flathead Range. The Elko Section considered in this report is illustrated in Drawing 01. The work discussed in this report focuses on the Elko Section and was based on a proposed route alignment (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Rev B) received from Foothills on December 11, 2019.
1.2. Terms of Reference This work was carried out under the Master Service Agreement (MSA) No. 4600007427, Amending Agreement No. 02 currently in place between Foothills and BGC, and under PO# 4500309882.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK This desktop assessment had the objective of identifying credible geohazard threats to the buried pipeline and above-ground infrastructure and assigning to each credible threat a hazard rating. The hazard rating indicates the level to which each credible geohazard is expected to impact the design and construction of the pipeline, in terms of additional, more detailed assessment work and overall effort in mitigation. Where required, those more detailed assessments and mitigation designs are planned as part of subsequent stages of the pipeline design process. For the purpose of this work, the term ‘geohazard’ includes geological conditions and processes that could threaten the integrity of the pipeline. Geohazards included in this study are classified as: • Landslide (including rockfall, rockslide, rock avalanche, debris slide, earth landslide, debris flow, debris flood, snow and ice avalanche, and outburst flood) • Hydrotechnical (including channel scour and channel degradation) • Seismic (including ground shaking, liquefaction, co-seismic landslides and fault rupture) • Subsidence (including karst, compressible soils, mining and fluid withdrawal) • Geotechnical (including problematic soils, permafrost degradation, and peat/organic soils) • Geochemical (including acid rock drainage and metal leaching). Appendix A provides a description of each geohazard type. This is not a comprehensive list of all possible geohazards globally; rather, it represents a set of geohazards and geohazard scenarios which, at a screening level, we expect could be present along the loop. Geohazards associated with volcanic activity, as an example, are not included as there are no known volcanic sources regionally. Volcanic geohazards are therefore considered non-credible, in general, to the Elko Section. The geohazards listed in Appendix A are all expected to have some credible potential to occur somewhere along the section. The purpose of this report is to document the preliminary desktop-level geohazard assessment for the Elko Section. It presents an inventory of credible geohazards along the pipeline, each rated qualitatively on potential impacts to the proposed pipeline. It provides a basis for further, more detailed studies and, where required, mitigation design. BGC has developed a three-level hazard rating system which has been applied to each of the geohazard types: • Low Hazard: Standard construction practice and typical designs are likely adequate to manage the geohazard, with a relatively low level of effort. • Moderate Hazard: Field review and generic mitigation designs are likely required to manage the geohazard, with an intermediate level of effort. • High Hazard: Detailed field review and site-specific mitigation are likely required to manage the geohazard, with a relatively high level of effort. The specific criteria for assigning the hazard rating to a site or pipeline segment are different for each geohazard type and are detailed further in Section 4.0.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
This is not a risk assessment, nor was it informed by any specific field investigation or data collection. BGC relied on spatial and other data provided by Foothills, and on publicly available resources such as geological reports and maps.
2.1. Authorship This work was a collaborative effort conducted by several qualified subject matter experts, each of whom takes professional responsibility for their specific geohazards and sections of this report. Responsible authors and relevant sections are listed below. • Dave Gauthier, Ph.D., P.Geo. (BC), P.Eng. (BC): Landslide, subsidence, and geotechnical geohazards • Rebecca Lee, P.Eng. (BC, AB), P.Geo. (BC): Hydrotechnical geohazards • Martin Zaleski, M.Sc., P.Geo. (BC, AB): Seismic geohazards • Sharon Blackmore, Ph.D., P.Geo. (BC): Geochemical geohazards. In addition, technical review was conducted by: • Pete Quinn, Ph.D., P.Eng. (AB, BC): Overall content, with focus on landslide, subsidence, and geotechnical geohazards • Pascal Szeftel, Ph.D., P.Eng. (BC, AB): Hydrotechnical geohazards • Bevin Harrison, M.A.Sc., P.Geo. (BC): Geochemical geohazards.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1. Jurisdiction BGC understands that the Project, located entirely in BC, is under the authority of the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and is expected to meet the Onshore Pipeline Regulation (OPR) and CSA Z662 standard.
3.2. Physiographic and Topographic Setting The Elko Section is located in the Southern Rocky Mountains, west of the front-ranges in Alberta, southeast of the Elk River valley, and east of Fernie BC. Both the northern and southern ends of the section are part of the Elk River watershed. The middle approximately 20 km of the section however is in the headwaters area of the Flathead River, which drains broadly south to the US border and beyond. Elevations range between approximately 1,300 m and 2,000 m along the alignment. Except for the descent from Flathead Ridge near the south end of the section the alignment generally traverses broad ridges and undulating, forested terrain and valley bottoms.
3.3. Climate and Hydrology
The climate in the Elk Valley reflects the interaction between regional-scale weather systems, topography/elevation, distance from the Pacific Ocean, prevailing winds, and season. Although large-scale airflows moving in from the coast bring moist, marine air from west to east, the study area is located in a rain shadow. Low pressure systems force cold, arctic air into the valley, and high winds are common (DeMarchi, 2011). Figure 3-1 presents climate normals for the Sparwood climate station1, located 25 km north of the section, for the years 1981 to 2010. Precipitation exhibits moderate variability in monthly totals throughout the year, with November and June being the wettest months. The lowest monthly average daily temperature occurs in December/January (-7°C) and the highest occurs in July/August (15°C).
1 Latitude 49.44 N, Longitude 114.53 W, Elevation 1,138 m. Station meets the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standards.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Figure 3-1. Climate normal data (1981 to 2010) for Sparwood Environment and Climate Change Canada climate station.
Climatedata.ca (June 3, 2020) estimates that average annual precipitation for the 1981 to 2010 period was 643 mm. Under a high-emissions-scenario climate change projection (RCP 8.5)2, this is predicted to increase by 10% for the 2051-2080 period. For 1981 to 2010, Climatedata.ca estimates an average annual temperature of 5.5°C, which is projected to increase to 9.3°C for the 2051-2080 period under a high emissions scenario3. Hydrology within the Elk Valley is dominated by the spring freshet; however, additional peaks in flow can occur in the spring and autumn due to rain-on-snow flood events. DataBC (June 3, 2020) does not identify any regulated dams upstream of the project area.
3.4. Geological Setting The South Rockies area is in the Foreland Belt of the Canadian Cordillera, which is almost entirely underlain by sedimentary rocks. The oldest exposed rocks are carbonate rocks and shale deposited near the ancient North American continental margin in Cambrian through Jurassic time. Between Late Cretaceous and Paleocene time, marine and non-marine clastic rocks were deposited in a foreland basin that developed in response to right-lateral transpression and uplift
2 As defined by Climatedata.ca (2020), “This scenario assumes that greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to increase at approximately the same rate as they are increasing today. Under this scenario, the planet’s radiative forcing will have increased by 8.5 W/m2 by the year 2100, relative to 1750 (and continues to rise well after 2100). In the scientific literature, this scenario is referred to as “RCP8.5.” Of the four greenhouse gas pathways (RCP8.5, RCP6.0, RCP4.5, RCP2.6) used by the IPCC for its 5th Assessment Report, this pathway results in the most severe global warming and climate change.” 3 For Elko, BC. 49.3ºN, 115.1º W.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
of terranes accreted to the west. As the basin-fill clastic rocks were being formed, they were incorporated into a fold-and-thrust belt to form the Rocky Mountain Main and Front Ranges and Foothills (Monger & Price, 1978, 2002). The majority of the Elko route is located within the Flathead Graben (Monger & Price, 1978, 2002), bounded by normal faults and synclinal folds of Jurassic and Cretaceous rock. Fault slip and folding along west-dipping fault structures placed erosion-resistant carbonates on top of younger, relatively erodible clastic rocks, yielding a general pattern of homoclinal ridges with west-facing, moderately steep dip slopes and rugged, east-facing escarpments. The dip slopes and escarpments are both known to produce rockfall, rockslide, and rock avalanche regionally (Geertsema et al., 2010). In addition, potentially soluble bedrock may result in karst (dissolution) features and associated hazards locally (Stokes et al., 2010; Ford, 1979) while mountain-building and post-glacial tectonic activity has generated potential mineralization prone to acid-generation and faulting along with modern seismic hazard. The Pleistocene and early Holocene epochs (approximately 126,000 to 11,700 years before present) represent a time of repeated advances and retreats of glaciers across North America. Thick glaciers covered most of southeastern British Columbia during the most recent glaciation, between approximately 25,000 and 10,000 years ago. The Front and Main Ranges were influenced by Cordilleran ice advancing from the west, montane glaciers from local peaks, and Laurentide ice advancing across the Plains (Bobrowski & Rutter, 1992). The various geohazard processes observed within the study area are consequences of the landscape formed by tectonics and glaciers. For the Elko area geohazard occurrences are dominated by potential deep-seated movement of steep valley side-slopes, and shallower movements in the colluvial aprons on the lower slopes. Regional surficial geology is depicted on Drawing 02. Bedrock geology is shown on Drawing 03.
3.5. Historic Geohazard Events The fatal Frank Slide of 1903 occurred in the Crowsnest Pass area (McConnell and Brock, 1904), west of the Elko section. Although we aren’t aware of additional historic events directly in the Elko area, there is evidence of many past geohazards on the landscape, identified on available geological mapping and visible in lidar and imagery reviewed in the course of the current study.
3.6. Background Data The following data were available as a general foundation for the technical work: • LiDAR-derived topography provided by Foothills (from Airborne Imaging, July 2005 vintage; horizontal resolution 1 m by 1 m, vertical resolution 0.1 m) • Selected air photos (2005, 1:30,000) • Photographs and notes gathered during a route reconnaissance completed in the fall of 2019 • Published surficial and bedrock geology maps
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
• Published government and academic reports and papers.
4.0 METHODOLOGY BY GEOHAZARD TYPE
4.1. Terrain Mapping Terrain mapping is the subdivision of the landscape into geomorphic units with similar features. Criteria used to delineate terrain polygons include surficial geology, landforms, deposit thickness, surface water drainage, terrain stability, and geomorphic processes. Terrain mapping methods were based on guidelines described by the Resources Inventory Committee (1996) and used the terrain classification system of Howes and Kenk (1997). Data fields describing material types, drainage, and terrain stability were included for all terrain polygons. Mapping was completed at a nominal scale of 1:15,000 for a 500 m wide corridor in areas of low relief or from valley wall to valley wall in high relief areas. Mapping was completed using available LiDAR and orthophoto imagery. Drawings 04A to 04C present the terrain interpretations for the Elko Section and Drawing 04D provides a legend of terrain map symbols.
4.2. Landslide Hazards Landslide hazards are those that involve mass movements of rock, debris, or earth. Impacts to buried pipelines or above-ground infrastructure may arise through direct impact (e.g., debris hitting the pipeline), differential ground movement (e.g., at the margins of an earth landslide), or other loading scenarios (e.g., rockslide deposit runs out onto a buried pipeline). The geohazard types analyzed in this report are listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Landslide hazard types included in this study. Landslide Type Description Rock fall Fragments or large mass of rock detach from a steep rock face and travel downslope independently with a free falling, bouncing, or rolling motion. Includes seismically triggered events. Rockslide Fragments or large mass of rock detach from a steep rock face and travel downslope rapidly as a coherent mass before breaking up with increased travel distance from the source area. Includes seismically triggered events. Rock avalanche Large coherent rock mass releases from a steep mountainside, breaking up and developing flow-like behavior and long travel distance. Includes seismically triggered events. Earth landslide A mass of soil or very weak, highly weathered rock that moves primarily by sliding on a basal shear surface, potentially accompanied by internal deformation. Includes all deep-seated, slowly and rapidly moving landslides in soil or very weak rock. Often associated with saturation with water. May accelerate and move suddenly several meters or tens of meters or develop flow-like behaviour. Includes earth flow/slide/spread/slump. Includes seismically triggered events.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Landslide Type Description Debris A shallow layer of weak soil or weathered rock overlying more competent soil slide/avalanche or bedrock that detaches and slides rapidly down a steep slope. Debris slides/avalanches may entrain additional material as they slide down slope and can evolve into debris flows if they enter a channel with sufficient water. Includes seismically triggered events. Snow/ice avalanche Extremely rapid to rapid release of snowpack layers or seasonal/glacial ice and snow which break up and develop flow-like behaviour and long runouts. May be wet or dry. Debris flow Granular debris/water mixed flows (debris dominated) which emanate from upslope basins or existing aggraded channels and run onto lower angle terrain, forming colluvial cones and fans. Debris flood Granular debris/water mixed flows (water dominated) which emanate from upslope basins and run onto lower angle terrain, forming alluvial fans. Outburst flood Debris-rich flows in existing river network generated by sudden release and rapid drainage of upstream storage in landslide-dammed, moraine-dammed, beaver-dammed, proglacial or subglacial lakes.
4.2.1. Hazard Rating For each landslide hazard scenario we considered the location of the source area relative to the pipeline and considered whether there was a credible chance of the geohazard, if it occurs, reaching the pipeline. This is obvious when the pipeline crosses a source area (e.g., an earth landslide), but for more remote, upslope sources (e.g., rockslide) we made a judgment based on past experience and available data to determine whether the threat to the pipeline was credible. For the current study the focus was on identifying evidence of past landslide events in the landscape and potential for future events, through terrain mapping, imagery review, and examination of bare-earth terrain models. Past events of different geohazard types may have a different legacy on the landscape, meaning that evidence of past events may be more or less visible at present. For example, we might expect the deposit of a large rock avalanche to be recognizable on the landscape for many thousands of years; however, evidence of a debris slide may only persist for a few years or tens of years. In this study we used evidence of past events and estimated potential of future events to identify locations with a credible hazard, and to estimate the impact of each on the project. As described in Section 2.0, the three-level hazard rating approach is consistent across all geohazard types. Table 4-2 describes in general how these ratings were applied. Appendix B presents the rationale for classification for landslide geohazards (and other types).
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 8 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 4-2. General application of the hazard ratings for landslide hazards. Hazard Rating Landslide hazard application Low Hazard Generally applied where potential source areas are present, but there is little evidence of past events Moderate Hazard Generally applied where source areas are recognized, and there is some evidence of past events High Hazard Generally applied where source areas are present and are active, or there is evidence for fresh or incipient events Non-credible Captures locations of interest that were deemed to not have potential to generate impacts to the pipeline
4.3. Hydrotechnical Hazards
4.3.1. Hydrotechnical Hazard Description Hydrotechnical hazards are a class of geohazards that are related to the movement of water in and around a watercourse. Hydrotechnical hazards of a sufficient magnitude can result in an exposure or free span of the pipeline. An exposed pipeline in a watercourse may be physically impacted by an object transported in the flow, leading to pipeline failure. A pipeline free-spanning in the flow may also be subjected to hydrodynamic forces, or vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) leading to pipeline failure. It was assumed that trenchless crossing methods (e.g., horizontal directional drill) are not currently proposed for watercourse crossings. Hydrotechnical hazard mechanisms included in the scope of work result from clear-water flood flows generated by rainfall, snow melt, or a combination. Other hazard mechanisms, such as ice jams or blocked culverts have not been examined. The types of hydrotechnical hazards that were identified in the scope of work included: • Scour of the channel bed • Degradation of the channel bed • Bank erosion (pipeline alignment traverses the watercourse) • Encroachment (bank erosion where the pipeline alignment is adjacent to the watercourse) • Avulsion. Hydrotechnical hazards to a buried pipeline are present where the alignment either crosses, or is adjacent to, a watercourse, floodplain, or alluvial fan.
4.3.2. Hydrotechnical Hazard Mapping Objective The two key pipeline design parameters are minimum depth of cover (min. DoC) and the KP stationing that min. DoC applies to. TCPL has several standard watercourse crossing designs
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
that will be used for the project4. Min. DoC is 1.8 m or the 100-year vertical scour depth5, whichever is greater. Min. DoC can be reduced for special circumstances: • 1.3 m for shallow, competent bedrock • 1.5 m for irrigation/drainage ditches where limited erosion potential can be demonstrated. Site-specific design is required where there is: • Evidence of bank instability, erosion, scour, shifting channel bed • Anticipated bank erosion • An outside meander bend (requires bank erosion assessment). For the deliverable herein, hydrotechnical hazard sites were classified into one of two categories based on a desktop-level, preliminary assessment of potential hydrotechnical hazards to the proposed pipeline: Low Hazard: generally stable conditions with low potential for hazardous vertical or horizontal erosion. Moderate Hazard: unstable crossing site, high energy flows with potential for hazardous vertical and/or horizontal erosion. High Hazard is reserved for very complex hydrotechnical hazard sites that would require trenchless or atypical trenched construction methods; none were observed in the Elko Section.
4.3.3. Hydrotechnical Hazard Mapping Methodology Initial watercourse crossing lists were developed by Midwest Surveys (surveyors) and Stantec Consulting Ltd. (environmental consultant) and provided to BGC on March 30, 2020, which indicated 38 hydrotechnical hazard sites. BGC reviewed the list and identified 24 additional potential hydrotechnical hazard sites. Sites were then classified as either Low or Moderate hydrotechnical hazard based on typical indicators such as those shown in Table 4-3.
4 TransCanada Design Standard Dwg No. STDS-03-ML-03-101 Rev 02, and TransCanada North Montney Mainline NPS 42 (2015) Aitken Creek Section. Dwg. No. 18142-03-ML-10-003 Rev. 03. Case B – Rock Below River Bed. 5 Based on TCPL standard watercourse crossing typical details.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 10 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 4-3. Hydrotechnical hazard classification typical indicators.
Parameter Low Hazard Moderate Hazard
Stream type Low energy High energy Local Geometry Straight to gentle bend(1) Moderate(2) to 90° Bend Observed Bank None Undercut banks, slumping, erosion Erosion Alluvial Fan Absent Present Side channels Absent Wide, poorly confined floodplain with Confined Channel meander bend scars, oxbow lakes Bankfull width Narrow (<2 m) Wide Notes: (1) Typically a sinuosity < 1.5 (2) Typically a sinuosity > 1.5.
4.4. Seismic Hazards
4.4.1. Seismic Shaking Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN) provides reference-condition peak ground acceleration
(PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak 5%-damped spectral acceleration (Sa(T), where T is fundamental period in seconds) for a range of exceedance probabilities at 10 km spacing across Canada (Halchuk et al., 2015a). These data were prepared for the 2015 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC; National Research Council of Canada, 2015) and comprise the basis for mapping the expected distribution of strong earthquake shaking along the Elko Section. Incoming seismic waves may be amplified where they pass through near-surface soils. The potential for amplification or damping is estimated from site classes that are based on expected shear-wave velocity (Building Seismic Safety Council, 1994). In the absence of detailed subsurface information, as may be obtained through borehole drilling, we assign preliminary site class ratings based on the terrain mapping and mapped bedrock geology. Where bedrock is within 1 m of ground surface, site class is inferred from rock types mapped by Stockmal and Fallas (2015) as per Table 4-4. Site classes A and B refer to hard rock and rock, respectively.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 11 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 4-4. Map units, lithologic descriptions, interpreted site classes, and interpreted geologic groups along the Elko Section. Geology from Stockmal and Fallas (2015). Map Unit Lithologic Description Site Class Geologic Group Beaver Mines Formation Sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, conglomerate B A Gladstone Formation Sandstone, mudstone, limestone, siltstone B A Cadomin Formation Conglomerate, sandstone A A Elk Formation Sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, coal, B B conglomerate Mist Mountain and Sandstone, shale, mudstone, siltstone, coal, B B Morrissey formations conglomerate Fernie Formation Shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone B C Spray River Group Siltstone, sandstone, dolostone, limestone, B B shale, conglomerate, breccia, evaporite
Where bedrock is >3 m below ground surface, site class is inferred from surficial material type described on project-specific terrain maps as follows: • Class C (very dense soil): basal till • Class D (stiff soil): ablation till, glaciofluvial deposits, talus • Class E (soft soil): active channel beds and bars, colluvium, lakes, lacustrine and glaciolacustrine deposits, organic deposits. Where bedrock is between 1 and 3 m below ground surface, classes are inferred as per Table 4-5, using the rock classifications described in Table 4-4 and soil classifications in the preceding bullet list.
Table 4-5. Combination rules for rock and soil site classes where rock is between 1 and 3 m below ground surface. Rock Site Soil Site Class Class C (very dense soil) D (stiff soil) E (soft soil) A (hard rock) A B B B (rock) B B C C (soft rock) C C C
Amplification factors for each site class (National Research Council of Canada, 2015) were applied to obtain site-specific PGA values. To account for topographic effects, PGA was multiplied by 1.3 where the slope angle is between 10 and 30 degrees and 1.5 where the slope angle exceeds 30 degrees (Rathje and Bray, 2001; Ashford and Sitar, 2002; Bray and Macedo, 2019). This method was applied to earthquake-triggered landslides but omitted from the liquefaction assessment, as liquefiable terrain is confined to low-angle valley bottoms.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 12 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
4.4.2. Liquefaction Liquefaction can occur where loose, saturated soils are subjected to strong earthquake shaking, causing a sudden increase in pore-water pressure, decrease in effective stress, and loss of shear strength. Liquefied soils can experience vertical settlement or large horizontal permanent ground displacement (PGD) as lateral spreads and flows. Liquefaction susceptibility was assigned to terrain polygons following a system proposed by Quinn et al. (2015). Liquefaction hazard was estimated by combining liquefaction susceptibility and PGA experienced at site (i.e., reference-condition PGA multiplied by site-class amplification factor) as per Table 4-6.
Table 4-6. Relative liquefaction hazard derived from liquefaction susceptibility and PGAsite. Amplified 1:2,475 Liquefaction susceptibility PGA (PGAsite) None Low Moderate High ≥0.2g None Low Moderate High 0.1-0.2g None Low Low Moderate <0.1g None Low Low Low
4.4.3. Earthquake-Triggered Landslides
6 Landslides can occur where PGA experienced in an earthquake (PGAsite ) exceeds a slope’s critical acceleration (ac), which is the horizontal acceleration required to reduce the factor of safety against sliding below unity. This preliminary assessment employs generalized relationships between geology, expected saturation, slope angle, and critical acceleration developed by Wieczoriek et al. (1985) and Wilson and Keefer (1985). The generalized methodology omits structural, lithologic, and topographic details that might impact local seismic stability conditions; thus, the interpreted landslide potential on specific slopes is subject to considerable uncertainty, but the distribution of mapped hazard should give insight into the regional prevalence of earthquake-triggered landslide potential. Many details that are necessarily omitted in this assessment of earthquake-triggered landslide potential are incorporated into the assessment of static landslide hazard; combined, they should provide sufficient detail for hazard identification. Mapped soil units (from project-specific terrain maps) and bedrock (from Stockmal and Fallas, 2015) are generalized into strongly cemented rocks (Group A), weakly cemented rocks and soils (Group B), and argillaceous rocks and soils, including existing landslides (Group C). Where bedrock is 1 m deep or more, the geologic group assignment is based on primary surficial material (Table 4-7); otherwise, the assignment is based on bedrock type (Table 4-4). Critical acceleration, ac, is determined as shown in Figure 4-1.
6 For earthquake-triggered landslides, PGAsite incorporates amplification factors for both site class and topography.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 13 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Terrain polygons identified as having active ground movement processes (e.g., slumps, earth flows, earth slides, rock slides, rock falls) are assigned to Group C. The process-based assignment supersedes those based on soil or rock type and thickness, as described above.
Table 4-7. Geologic groups by surficial material. Symbol Description Geologic Group A Anthropogenic C C Colluvium C Aeolian sand B E Loess C F Fluvial B FA Active Fluvial B FG Glaciofluvial B L Lacustrine C LG Glaciolacustrine C M Till B O Peat C R Bedrock See Table 4-4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 CRITICAL ACCELERATION ACCELERATION (g) CRITICAL -
Ac 0.1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 SLOPE ANGLE (DEGREES)
A-DRY A-WET B-DRY B-WET C-DRY C-WET
Figure 4-1. Critical acceleration versus slope angle for three geologic groups and two groundwater conditions. From Wilson and Keefer (1985).
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 14 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Earthquake-triggered landslide potential is classified based on the ratio between ac and PGAsite over a range of exceedance probabilities as follows:
• Class 5 if ac/(1:100 PGAsite) ≤1.0
• Class 4 if ac/(1:475 PGAsite) ≤1.0
• Class 3 if ac/(1:1,000 PGAsite) ≤1.0
• Class 2 if ac/(1:2,475 PGAsite) ≤1.0
• Class 1 if ac/(1:2,475 PGAsite) >1.0 Earthquake-triggered landslide hazard was classified based on the distribution of landslide potential as follows: • No Hazard present where pipeline segments cross only Class 1 rated terrain. • Low Hazard where pipeline segments cross mostly Class 2 and Class 3 terrain, and Class 4 and Class 5 terrain is absent around the RoW. • Moderate Hazard where Class 5 terrain is absent and Class 4 terrain comprises less than 50% of the terrain around the RoW. • High Hazard where the pipeline crosses at least 50% Class 4 and Class 5 rated terrain.
4.4.4. Surface Faulting Surface faulting refers to PGD that occurs at the ground surface along the trace of a fault that slips in an earthquake. In this desktop assessment, we looked for potentially active surface faulting by comparing the locations of historical earthquakes (Halchuk et al., 2015b; Mueller, 2018; Stern et al., 2018; NRCAN, 2020; U.S. Geological Survey, n.d.) and topographic lineaments (visible on available lidar, orthophoto, DEM, and Google Earth™ data) against mapped bedrock faults (Stockmal and Fallas, 2015). Surface faulting hazard was assigned as follows: • High Hazard where Holocene faulting is suspected: ○ Pronounced topographic lineaments expressed in late- or post-glacial deposits that follow a mapped bedrock fault or cannot be explained by another credible landscape-forming process ○ Historical seismicity following a topographic lineament or mapped fault. • Moderate Hazard where Quaternary faulting is suspected: mapped bedrock faults with topographic lineaments expressed in Pleistocene (glacial) deposits but masked by Holocene (postglacial) deposits, or for which published literature indicates possible Quaternary activity. • Low Hazard along interpreted pre-Quaternary bedrock faults or those masked by Pleistocene (glacial) deposits. • No Hazard present where there are no mapped faults, fault-related lineaments, or aligned historical earthquakes.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 15 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
4.5. Subsidence Hazards Subsidence hazards include the vertical movement, collapse, or loss of foundation soils due to some underlying condition, both geological and anthropogenic. The geohazard types analyzed here included those listed in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Subsidence hazard types included in this study. Hazard Type Description Karst subsidence Vertical movement, collapse or loss of foundation soils due to presence of subsurface voids, caves, caverns in soluble bedrock. Mine subsidence Vertical movement, collapse or loss of foundation soils due to the presence of subsurface mine workings. Thick compressible soils Vertical movement caused by the settling of a compressible layer. Fluid-withdrawal Differential vertical movement due to hydrocarbon extraction or subsidence groundwater withdrawal (high capacity water wells can cause widespread subsidence) nearby.
4.5.1. Hazard rating The pipeline alignment was evaluated for the presence of the required conditions for each subsidence hazard (e.g., soluble bedrock for karst hazard). The primary source of information was topography, terrain mapping and published geological reports and maps (Ford, 1979; Stokes et al., 2010). Where the required condition was met, the hazard was rated according to the three-level system described in Section 2.0. The hazard ratings for subsidence are based on evidence for past or on-going subsidence, given that the required condition is (or may be) present. The LiDAR hillshade models are the key input for this, as we would expect some expression in the landscape of past or active subsidence. Table 4-9 describes in general how these ratings were applied. Appendix B presents the rationale for classification of subsidence hazards (and other types).
Table 4-9. General application of the hazard ratings for subsidence hazards. Hazard Rating Subsidence hazard application (Non-credible) Required condition not met Low Hazard Generally applied where the required condition is (or may be) present Moderate Hazard Generally applied where there is evidence of past subsidence events High Hazard Generally applied where active subsidence is recognized or where there is good reason to expect future subsidence, for example over known underground mine workings.
4.6. Geotechnical Hazards Geotechnical hazards are those which could lead to foundation or other shallow instability issues, or reduced soil restraint on a buried pipeline. These are typically related to the interaction between
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 16 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
naturally occurring geological conditions and ground disturbance through pipeline construction. The geohazard types analyzed here included those listed in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10. Geotechnical hazard types included in this study. Hazard Type Description Problematic (Expansive or Soils with a propensity to swell or collapse with changes in water content, collapsible) soils and associated stability challenges. Permafrost degradation Unstable conditions induced by thawing of permafrost. Peat/organic soils Organic soils and associated poor foundation conditions, including buoyancy and subsidence issues.
4.6.1. Hazard rating The pipeline alignment was evaluated for the potential presence of the required conditions for each geotechnical hazard (e.g., presence of permafrost). The primary sources of information were terrain mapping and published geological reports and maps (e.g., Geertsema et al., 2010). Anywhere with a credible potential for the condition to be present, the hazard was rated according to the three-level system described in Section 2.0. The hazard ratings for subsidence are based on confidence or likelihood that the condition is present; it is implicitly assumed that some sort of site-specific management will be required wherever the conditions are met. Table 4-11 describes in general how these ratings were applied. Appendix B presents the rationale for classification for geotechnical hazards (and other types).
Table 4-11. General application of the hazard ratings for geotechnical hazards. Hazard Rating Geotechnical hazard application Low Hazard Generally applied where the required condition is unlikely to be present Moderate Hazard Generally applied where the required condition may be present High Hazard Generally applied where the required condition is known to be present Non-credible Required condition not present
4.7. Geochemical Hazards Geologic units can host mineral compositions that are more ‘permissive’ of producing acid rock drainage (ARD) and/or metal leaching (ML) conditions if bedrock is exposed or disturbed during pipeline construction. Specifically, ARD refers to the generation of acidity from the oxidation of sulphide minerals upon exposure to oxygen and water. In general, pyrite (FeS2) is the most common sulphide mineral present in the environment; however other sulphide minerals may oxidize and produce acidity (e.g., pyrrhotite Fe1-XS; chalcopyrite CuFeS2).
Carbonate minerals (e.g., calcite CaCO3; dolomite CaMg(CO3)2) can readily neutralize acidity generated from sulphide oxidation and buffer pH values to near neutral conditions. Other minerals (e.g., silicates, oxides) also bear a neutralization capacity, but typically react at a much slower rate relative to sulphide oxidation or carbonate dissolution and buffer to lower pH conditions. The
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 17 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
ratio or relationship between acid-generating and acid-buffering minerals within rock units can help identify those assemblages that have the potential for producing ARD/ML conditions. Metal leaching may occur as a result of sulphide oxidation and/or dissolution of associated minerals. Although many metals are more mobile under acidic pH conditions (e.g., Co, Cu, Pb), some metals and metalloids are more mobile at neutral pH conditions (e.g., As, Mo, Se). If released, both acidic-pH and neutral-pH mobile elements may cause adverse impacts to a receiving environment. This assessment describes ‘permissive’ geologic units as those units anticipated to contain acid- generating minerals in proportions that may outpace or overwhelm the proportion of acid- neutralizing minerals and/or have the potential to release metals at significantly higher concentrations relative to site-specific background levels. In this desktop assessment, the mineral composition of a geologic unit and the alignment’s proximity to known anomalous mineral occurrences (MINFILE, BC) are used to assess the potential for ARD and/or ML conditions during construction. These methods are discussed in the following subsections (Sections 4.7.1 to 4.7.3), with results presented in Section 5.6. Guidance for the desktop approach used in the assessment is derived from several documents, as listed below, and are conducted on a site-specific basis. • Policy for Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Mine Sites in British Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines (BCMEM), 1998) • Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials (Mine Environmental Neutral Drainage (MEND), 2009) • Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide (INAP, 2012).
4.7.1. Geologic Unit Permissive Likelihood Geologic units intersected along the proposed Elko Section were delineated using KPs (see Drawing 03). The geologic units intersecting the alignment and their lithologic description were identified using publicly available geological maps of BC (Stockmal and Fallas, 2015) and satellite imagery visualization software (i.e., Google Earth). BGC established the following qualitative criteria to classify a geologic unit as having a “High”, “Moderate”, “Low”, “Minimal” or “Unknown” likelihood to be permissive of ARD/ML conditions, based on its lithologic description, which is applied in this assessment: • High: Assemblages containing pyritic occurrences or coal. Pyrite is known to be locally associated with coal seams or units. • Moderate: Shale or shaley interbedded assemblages. Pyrite, or sulphides, are commonly found along bedding planes of finer-grained sediments (e.g., shale) and may be present. Units known to contain porphyry or skarn assemblages. • Low: Units containing both shaley units and carbonate sequences. Carbonate-rich material provides neutralization capacity that may buffer acidity generated from sulphides that may be associated with finer-grained assemblages. • Minimal: Units comprising mostly carbonate assemblages with lesser silicate rock types.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 18 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
• Unknown: Units typically comprising igneous material, without mention of acid-generating and/or acid-neutralizing carbonate minerals.
4.7.2. Mineral Occurrences Mineral occurrences were identified from the BC MINFILE database7. The occurrences were highlighted as potentially ‘permissive’ for ARD/ML conditions if located within an arbitrary 2 km boundary on either side of the alignment, for a total of 4 km width. Mineral occurrences are typically associated with sulphide-bearing rocks, which can undergo sulphide oxidation, release metals and generate acidity. However, other mineral occurrences are documented in this database, such as industrial minerals (e.g., limestone, phosphate) and coal. A slightly wider ‘corridor of interest’ of 10 km on either side of the alignment (for a total of 20 km) was applied to those mineral occurrences referring to operational and/or closed mine developments. These boundaries are similar to those applied in previous desktop pipeline assessments (e.g., MESH, 2006; AMEC, 2014; TMEP, 2015).
4.7.3. Desktop Geochemical Hazard Rating A desktop geochemical hazard rating, developed by BGC, combines the geologic unit’s permissive likelihood with the presence of sulphide, coal or metal-bearing mineral occurrences near the proposed alignment to assess the its ARD/ML potential. Based on these inputs, alignment segments are identified as having a ”High”, ”Moderate”, ”Low”, or “Minimal” ARD/ML geochemical hazard rating, as listed below and shown in Figure 4-2: • High Hazard: Geologic units with numerous mineral occurrences and unknown, low, moderate or high permissive likelihood characterization. This classification also includes units with a high permissive likelihood and one or two mineral occurrences. • Moderate Hazard: High permissive likelihood units with no documented mineral occurrences. Geologic units with one or two mineral occurrences and unknown, minimal, low and moderate permissive likelihood. • Low Hazard: Geologic units with low or unknown permissive likelihood and no mineral occurrences. • Minimal Hazard: Geologic units with minimal permissive likelihood and no mineral occurrences.
7 BC MINFILE is an inventory of geological, location, and economic information on over 13,000 metallic, industrial mineral and coal mines, deposits and occurrences in BC (http://minfile.gov.bc.ca/)
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 19 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Geologic Unit ‘Permissive’ Likelihood Low or High Moderate Minimal Unknown
> 2 High High High Moderate
1 - 2 High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mineral Moderate Occurrences 0 Moderate Low Minimal Figure 4-2. Geochemical hazard rating criteria.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 20 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
5.0 RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results are presented in Appendices C to G and Drawings 04 to 10, as referenced in the sections below.
Each entry in the geohazard inventory for this study contains unique pipeline segments having relatively uniform potential for geohazard impact. The entire section was assessed for each hazard type, and only those segments with credible exposure to a given geohazard were listed in the inventory. Some segments (or parts of segments) may be exposed to more than one geohazard; in that case, each geohazard would be assessed separately. In the drawings, only the highest rated geohazard is shown in the case of overlap between geohazard subtypes.
5.1. Landslide Hazards A total of 17 segments were identified with credible exposure to landslide hazard threats. Seven of these segments were classified as Moderate and 10 as Low hazard. Rockfall, earth landslide, debris slide, debris flow, debris flood, and snow avalanche geohazards were identified. There is a higher concentration at the north and south ends of the alignment. The landslide hazard sites are summarized in Table 5-1 and detailed in Appendix C and Drawing 05.
Table 5-1. Potential landslide hazard inventory. Geohazard ID KP From KP To Geohazard Type Hazard Class E-L-01 0+050 0+140 Rockfall Low E-L-02 0+150 1+600 Earth landslide Moderate E-L-03 0+325 1+200 Earth landslide Low E-L-04 0+675 1+600 Debris slide Low E-L-05 0+975 1+600 Snow avalanche Moderate E-L-06 1+150 1+200 Debris flow Low E-L-07 1+575 1+600 Debris flood Low E-L-08 2+275 2+400 Debris flow Moderate E-L-09 2+600 2+700 Debris flood Low E-L-10 3+700 4+750 Earth landslide Low E-L-11 4+750 5+000 Earth landslide Moderate E-L-12 5+125 5+250 Debris slide Low E-L-13 11+975 12+250 Earth landslide Moderate E-L-14 12+250 12+700 Earth landslide Low E-L-15 24+900 25+700 Snow avalanche Low E-L-16 25+700 26+800 Rockfall Moderate E-L-17 25+700 26+400 Snow avalanche Moderate
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 21 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
One rockfall segment (E-L-01) is located at the northern terminus of the section, with a potential source area identified in terrain mapping upslope of the alignment. The remaining rockfall geohazard segment (E-L-16) is located at the south end of the section, at the crest of the Flathead ridge and descent toward the terminus. This is a steep, rocky stretch with the potential for natural rockfalls and rock cuts. Field review of specific locations of elevated hazard is recommended. Note that there may be steep rock cuts required to construct the pipeline grade, some of which could produce rockfalls. These have not been captured in this assessment but should be considered as construction proceeds. Five earth landslide sections were identified. Two of these (E-L-02, E-L-03) substantially overlap, with potential landslide hazard on both sides of a relatively narrow valley near the east end of the section. These are slopes showing evidence of distress and potential deep-seated landslide displacement, although no clear evidence for current activity was identified. Additional segments to the west (E-L-11, E-L-13) traverse below similarly distressed slopes. A detailed review in the field of conditions at these locations would help better characterize the landslides and potential for movement. Near the middle of the section the alignment is in a sidehill configuration across a relatively steep slope showing clear landslide morphology (E-L-14). Detailed field review at this location and the adjacent segment (E-L-15) is required to understand the landslide character and identify potential mitigations, if required. Two debris slide segments were identified (E-L-4, E-L-12) at locations where potential debris slide scars were noted in the available imagery, suggesting that future events are possible. The proposed alignment is within the debris slide deposition zones. The true nature of these scar features should be verified in the field. Within the section there are several steep creeks crossed by the proposed alignment near the east end. None show evidence of an active fan nor have obvious quantities of available debris. However, the potential exists for debris flow and/or debris flood at those locations (E-L-07 to E-L-09), each of which should be reviewed in the field to confirm activity and debris sources. Several snow avalanche paths and areas of steep terrain with assumed snow avalanche potential are identified near both the north and south ends of the section (E-L-05 and E-L-17). Human-triggered snow avalanches are possible elsewhere (e.g., during construction or operations). Buried pipeline infrastructure is not typically vulnerable to snow avalanche hazard, although valves and other above-ground elements may be affected by avalanche hazard.
5.2. Potential Hydrotechnical Hazard Sites Of the 62 potential hydrotechnical hazard sites identified on this section, 38 were classified as Low hydrotechnical hazard, and the remainder as Moderate hazard. The potential hydrotechnical hazard sites are summarized in Table 5-2 and detailed in Appendix D and Drawings 06A-C.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 22 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 5-2. Potential hydrotechnical hazard site inventory. Geohazard ID KP* Hazard Type Hazard Class E-H-01 0+130 Crossing Low E-H-02 0+610 Crossing Low E-H-03 0+980 Crossing Low E-H-04 01+000 Crossing Low E-H-05 01+057 Crossing Moderate E-H-06 01+103 Crossing Low E-H-07 01+173 Crossing Low E-H-08 01+185 Crossing Low E-H-09 01+605 Crossing Moderate E-H-10 02+093 Crossing Low E-H-11 02+405 Crossing Moderate E-H-12 02+513 Crossing Moderate E-H-13 02+662 Crossing Moderate E-H-14 02+896 Crossing Low E-H-15 03+050 Encroachment Low E-H-16 03+380 Crossing Low E-H-17 03+480 Crossing Low E-H-18 03+593 Crossing Moderate E-H-19 04+738 Crossing Low E-H-20 05+467 Crossing Moderate E-H-21 05+750 Encroachment Moderate E-H-22 05+800 Crossing Moderate E-H-23 06+441 Crossing Low E-H-24 06+500 Encroachment Low E-H-25 07+047 Crossing Moderate E-H-26 07+983 Crossing Moderate E-H-27 08+434 Crossing Moderate E-H-28 10+330 Crossing Moderate E-H-29 11+108 Crossing Moderate E-H-30 12+604 Crossing Low
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 23 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Geohazard ID KP* Hazard Type Hazard Class E-H-31 12+849 Crossing Low E-H-32 12+973 Crossing Low E-H-33 12+991 Crossing Low E-H-34 13+084 Crossing Low E-H-35 13+588 Crossing Low E-H-36 13+720 Crossing Low E-H-37 13+825 Crossing Low E-H-38 13+994 Crossing Low E-H-39 14+141 Crossing Moderate Avulsion, Low E-H-40 14+200 Encroachment E-H-41 15+961 Crossing Low E-H-42 16+360 Encroachment Low E-H-43 16+484 Crossing Moderate E-H-44 16+680 Crossing Low E-H-45 18+070 Crossing Low E-H-46 18+884 Crossing Moderate E-H-47 19+810 Crossing Low E-H-48 20+320 Crossing Low E-H-49 20+450 Crossing Low E-H-50 21+549 Crossing Moderate E-H-51 21+920 Crossing Moderate E-H-52 22+026 Crossing Low E-H-53 23+460 Crossing Low E-H-54 23+774 Crossing Low E-H-55 23+901 Crossing Moderate E-H-56 24+327 Crossing Moderate E-H-57 24+840 Crossing Low E-H-58 28+440 Crossing Low E-H-59 28+528 Crossing Moderate E-H-60 28+564 Crossing Moderate
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Geohazard ID KP* Hazard Type Hazard Class E-H-61 28+865 Crossing Moderate E-H-62 30+769 Crossing Low Note: * KP based on Rev B Alignment. As LiDAR is available for most of the proposed pipeline corridor, BGC recommends bathymetric and/or topographic survey only for the locations identified in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Locations recommended for bathymetric and/or topographic survey.
Geohazard ID KP Watercourse Name
E-H-20 05+467 Leach Creek E-H-22 05+800 Leach Creek E-H-25 07+047 Leach Creek E-H-29 11+108 McEvoy Creek E-H-58 28+440 Unnamed E-H-59 28+528 Pioneer Creek E-H-60 28+564 Unnamed Tributary, Pioneer Creek E-H-61 28+865 Unnamed Tributary, Pioneer Creek E-H-62 30+769 Unnamed Tributary, Pioneer Creek
5.3. Seismic Hazards The section is within a region with the highest seismic hazard in western Canada away from the west coast of British Columbia (Halchuk et al., 2015b). U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (USGS-MBM) (n.d.) map several strands of the Mission fault around Flathead Lake, MT, about 160 km south of the section, and ascribe latest Quaternary (<15,000 years old) ages to them. The Quaternary (<1.6 million years old) Swan and South Fork Flathead faults are mapped east of Flathead Lake, extending to 135 km south of the Elko Section. BC Hydro (2012) identifies three normal fault earthquake sources (i.e., assumed Quaternary or younger age) continuing northward, as follows (Drawing 07): • The Whitefish fault from the Mission fault to about 24 km north of the international boundary along the Galton Range front, on the east side of the Rocky Mountain Trench. The mapped earthquake source passes 18 km southwest of the section. • The Flathead fault to about 13 km north of the international boundary along the Lewis Range front. The mapped earthquake source terminates 48 km south of the section. Price (2013) and Stockmal and Fallas (2015) map the structure as continuing farther north along the range front, bending west to follow the Flathead River and McEvoy Creek, and bending north again to follow the Leach and Michel creek valleys to the Crowsnest Highway.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 25 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Neither Price (2013) nor Stockmal and Fallas (2015) describe Quaternary activity along the Flathead fault. The fault follows the section within the Leach Creek valley (between stations 2+300 and 8+900). • The Nyack fault along the west side of the Flathead River valley to about 16 km south of the international boundary, or about 57 km south of the section. BC Hydro (2012) describes this fault as antithetic to, and thus likely coeval with, the Flathead fault. The absence of known mapped Quaternary faults north of those mapped by BC Hydro (2012) and USGS-MBM (n.d.) could imply that no faults closer to the section have experienced late- or post-glacial surface ruptures, that faults have slipped since deglaciation but have not manifested detectable surface traces in the landscape, or that fault traces are undetected due to a lack of investigative effort. Available LiDAR and orthophoto data around the section shows mapped bedrock faults truncated by Pleistocene (glacial) and Holocene (postglacial) deposits; this implies that the latest activity pre-dates the latest Cordilleran glaciations and is at least pre-Holocene. Historical earthquakes have clustered around Flathead Lake, 155 km south of the section, with recorded moment magnitudes (M) up to 5. Halchuk et al. (2015b) report an M 4.7 earthquake in 1984 along the BC-AB border, 10 km east of the Flathead fault trace mapped by Price (2013), 17 km north of the Flathead fault source mapped by BC Hydro (2012), and 39 km southeast of the section. Otherwise, within about 200 km of the section, earthquakes have been sparse with M generally less than 4.0. Historical seismicity is not aligned with mapped bedrock faults around the Elko Section. The Rocky Mountain Foothills, east of the section, have experienced induced seismicity related to oil and gas production. At Cardston, events up to M 2.8 are interpreted by the Alberta Geological Survey (n.d.) as due to hydraulic fracturing. The Turner Valley cluster, 120 km to the northwest, includes events up to M 3.5, interpreted by Baranova et al. (1999) as induced by high-pressure wastewater injection. Similar clusters of induced seismicity have occurred farther north in the Rocky Mountain Foothills around Rocky Mountain House (Wetmiller, 1986; Baranova et al., 1999) and Brazeau River (Schultz et al., 2014). Reference-condition PGA at 1:2,475 annual frequency of exceedance (i.e., the NBCC design value) is 0.117 g (Halchuk et al., 2015a). Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 present the reference-condition PGA hazard curve and uniform hazard response spectra respectively.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 26 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02
1.E-03 Annual exceedance probability exceedance Annual
1.E-04 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 Peak ground acceleration (g)
Figure 5-1. Reference-condition (site class C) PGA hazard curve.
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
(g) 0.1
0.05 damped spectral acceleration - 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Peak 5% Peak Spectral period (s)
1:2,475 1:1,000 1:475 1:100
Figure 5-2. Reference-condition (site class C) uniform hazard response spectra for 1:100, 1:475, 1:1000, and 1:2,475 annual exceedance probabilities.
Appendix E lists 61 earthquake triggered PGD hazards (liquefaction, landsliding, and surface faulting) along the section. Fault crossings are tabulated as single locations (i.e., same from and to location along the pipeline); however, fault zones might be tens to hundreds of metres wide on the ground. Earthquake hazards along the pipeline are illustrated in Drawing 07. High-rated seismic hazard crossings are summarized in Table 5-4.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 27 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 5-4. High hazard seismic hazard crossings. Chainage Geohazard ID (080307-2019-SH-08-0004 Rev 1) Length (m) Hazard Type From To E-Se-02 850 2500 1650 Landslide E-Se-05 2400 2700 300 Liquefaction E-Se-06 2850 3650 800 Liquefaction E-Se-09 5440 5520 80 Liquefaction E-Se-11 6300 6600 300 Liquefaction E-Se-12 7000 7070 70 Liquefaction E-Se-14 7940 8060 120 Liquefaction E-Se-22 11060 11250 190 Liquefaction E-Se-24 11980 12500 520 Landslide E-Se-45 26380 26750 370 Landslide E-Se-48 27050 27400 350 Landslide E-Se-57 28900 29800 900 Landslide
Ground reconnaissance is recommended at High and Moderate hazard crossings to check assumed deposit types, soil textures and densities, local topography, and groundwater conditions. Site-specific investigations of liquefaction triggering and ground displacement potential may be recommended where loose, saturated deposits occur on topography that favours lateral spreads or flow slides. Site-specific investigations of landslide triggering and ground displacement potential may be recommended where the field reconnaissance confirms the desktop-interpreted hazard. These investigations might include subsurface geotechnical investigations and numerical modelling.
5.4. Subsidence Hazards One location (E-S-01) was identified as a potential karst hazard, based on observations of landforms adjacent to the right of way that could be karstic in nature. The hazard class is Moderate. According to available geological mapping (e.g., from Stockmal and Fallas 2015) limestone (i.e., soluble bedrock) is indicated as a minor unit in the Gladstone Formation which is likely present at this location. However, the Blairmore group is dominated by clastic sedimentary rocks, which, if present at this location, probably preclude the presence of karst. These features and the local bedrock should be reviewed in the field to validate this hazard. The location is indicated on Drawing 08, Table 5-5, and Appendix F. Note that one additional area of potential karst was identified in the terrain mapping, adjacent to the right-of-way. The proposed alignment does not traverse this polygon, and in the area of the right of way there exists some thickness of surficial cover over bedrock. As such, no karst hazard was identified for the pipeline in that area.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 28 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 5-5. Potential subsidence hazard inventory. Geohazard ID KP From KP To Hazard Type Hazard Class E-S-01 18+350 18+500 Karst Moderate
No potential subsidence due to mine workings or fluid withdrawal were identified in this section.
5.5. Geotechnical Hazards Eleven areas of peat/organic soils were identified as potential hazards, two at the Moderate hazard class and the remaining nine were Low hazard. These are listed in Table 5-6, Drawing 09 and Appendix G. These are spread along the alignment, with a minor concentration toward the south end. Each of these were identified as wetland areas in the terrain mapping (Drawings 04A to 04D). Several intersections with short intervals of mapped organic soils adjacent to watercourse crossings were not included in this inventory, under the assumption that those would be managed as part of the crossing construction.
Table 5-6. Potential geotechnical hazard inventory. Geohazard ID KP From KP To Geohazard Type Hazard Class E-G-01 3+350 3+610 Peat/organic soils Moderate E-G-02 6+375 6+425 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-03 7+940 8+000 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-04 11+050 11+260 Peat/organic soils Moderate E-G-05 16+460 16+490 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-06 21+540 21+600 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-07 22+010 22+030 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-08 23+425 23+540 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-09 24+270 24+330 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-10 28+525 28+575 Peat/organic soils Low E-G-11 28+880 28+920 Peat/organic soils Low
No permafrost is expected along the alignment, and no expansive or compressible soils were identified.
5.6. Geochemical Hazards The proposed Elko Section intersects nine formations (Table 5-7). These units include Triassic to Lower Cretaceous marine and non-marine clastic rocks. The individual descriptions for each formation are provided in Table 5-7. Based solely on the lithologic descriptions, segments intersecting the Kootenay Group – Elk Formation (KE) and Morrisey and Mist Mountain Formations (JKMoM) are labeled with a high permissive likelihood, primarily due to the occurrence of bituminous coal. The remaining seven formations are classified as having a low permissive likelihood due to the presence of carbonate and shaley units (Table 5-7).
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 29 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
There are three mineral occurrences documented in BC within 2 km of the Elko Section (Table 5-7). Two (of the three) are non-sulphide or non-metal occurrences (i.e., phosphate). The other mineral occurrence is associated with a coal anomaly and is classified as a sulphide/metal occurrence due to the common association between coal and sulphur-bearing species. Based on the Stockmal and Fallas (2015) map, the coal occurrence is located within an area associated with clastic sedimentary assemblages of the Blairmore Group - Beaver Mines Formation (KBM) that are not described as coal-bearing. However, the data inventory for the coal occurrence identifies the host rock as the Mist Mountain Formation, which is coal-bearing and the host formation for numerous coal prospects and projects in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains (Vessey and Bustin, 2000). The presence of this geologic discrepancy between the coal mineral occurrence and the geology presented on the Stockmal and Fallas (2015) map supports conservatively ranking the entire section of the Beaver Mines Formation, from KP 8+200 to 18+300, as a moderate geochemical hazard and until a field assessment can be completed. The Mist Mountain Formation is intersected between KP 25+900 and KP 26+400 and, although there are no mineral occurrences within this segment, it has been classified as a High geochemical hazard due to the potential occurrence of elevated selenium concentrations within this unit (Ryan and Dittrick, 2001; Vessey and Bustin, 2000). Specifically, the Mist Mountain Formation has an average selenium abundance of 1.6 ppm, which is over an order of magnitude higher than average crustal abundances of 0.05 to 0.1 ppm (Taylor, 1964). The overall desktop geochemical hazard rating for the Elko Section, shown in Drawing 10 and tabulated in Table 5-7 and Appendix H, is characterized as Low, Moderate, and High for 47%, 51%, and 2% of the alignment, respectively.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 30 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table 5-7. Desktop geochemical hazard assessment for the Elko Section, BC.
KP Description Mineral Occurrences Desktop 1 Geologic Geochemical Geologic Unit From Nearest Lithology1 Permissive Commodity3 Hazard KP 4 To Likelihood2 Rating Blairmore Group: Gladstone Formation: sandstone: quartz; siltstone and mudstone; 0+000 - Gladstone Formation (KG) mudstone: quartz sandstone; mudstone, siltstone and subordinate Low - 0+900 Low (Lower Cretaceous) sandstone: calcareous; limestone. Blairmore Group: Cadomin 0+900 Cadomin Formation: conglomerate: chert and quartzite clasts; quartz Formation (KCd) Low - - 1+100 sand matrix; quartz arenite, carbonaceous. Low (Lower Cretaceous) Kootenay Group: Elk 1+100 Elk Formation: sandstone; siltstone: carbonaceous; mudstone: silty, Formation (KE) (Lower High - - 4+300 carbonaceous; coal: bituminous. Moderate Cretaceous) Blairmore Group: Cadomin 4+300 Cadomin Formation: conglomerate: chert and quartzite clasts; quartz Formation (KCd) Low - - 4+500 sand matrix; quartz arenite, carbonaceous. Low (Lower Cretaceous) Blairmore Group: Gladstone Formation: sandstone: quartz; siltstone and mudstone; 4+500 Gladstone Formation (KG) mudstone: quartz sandstone; mudstone, siltstone and subordinate Low - - 8+200 Low (Lower Cretaceous) sandstone: calcareous; limestone. Blairmore Group: Beaver 8+200 Beaver Mines Formation: feldspathic wacke, sandstone, and Coal Mines Formation (KBM) Low 14+900 18+300 mudstone. (082GSE023) Moderate (Lower Cretaceous) Blairmore Group: Gladstone Formation: sandstone: quartz; siltstone and mudstone; 18+300 Gladstone Formation (KG) mudstone: quartz sandstone; mudstone, siltstone and subordinate Low - - 19+500 Low (Lower Cretaceous) sandstone: calcareous; limestone. Blairmore Group: Beaver 19+500 Beaver Mines Formation: feldspathic wacke, sandstone, and Mines Formation (KBM) Low - - 20+500 mudstone. Low (Lower Cretaceous) Blairmore Group: Gladstone Formation: sandstone: quartz; siltstone and mudstone; 20+500 Gladstone Formation (KG) mudstone: quartz sandstone; mudstone, siltstone and subordinate Low - - 21+600 Low (Lower Cretaceous) sandstone: calcareous; limestone. Blairmore Group: Cadomin 21+600 Cadomin Formation: conglomerate: chert and quartzite clasts; quartz Formation (KCd) Low - - 21+900 sand matrix; quartz arenite, carbonaceous. Low (Lower Cretaceous) Kootenay Group: Elk 21+900 Elk Formation: sandstone; siltstone: carbonaceous; mudstone: silty, Formation (KE) (Lower High - - 22+600 carbonaceous; coal: bituminous. Moderate Cretaceous) Blairmore Group: Cadomin 22+600 Cadomin Formation: conglomerate: chert and quartzite clasts; quartz Formation (KCd) Low - - 23+000 sand matrix; quartz arenite, carbonaceous. Low (Lower Cretaceous)
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 31 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
KP Description Mineral Occurrences Desktop 1 Geologic Geochemical Geologic Unit From Nearest Lithology1 Permissive Commodity3 Hazard KP 4 To Likelihood2 Rating Blairmore Group: Gladstone Formation: sandstone: quartz; siltstone and mudstone; 23+000 Gladstone Formation (KG) mudstone: quartz sandstone; mudstone, siltstone and subordinate Low - - 23+400 Low (Lower Cretaceous) sandstone: calcareous; limestone. Blairmore Group: Cadomin 23+400 Cadomin Formation: conglomerate: chert and quartzite clasts; quartz Formation (KCd) Low - - 24+000 sand matrix; quartz arenite, carbonaceous. Low (Lower Cretaceous) Kootenay Group: Elk 24+000 Elk Formation: sandstone; siltstone: carbonaceous; mudstone: silty, Formation (KE) (Lower High - - 25+900 carbonaceous; coal: bituminous. Moderate Cretaceous) Kootenay Group: Morrissey Morrissey Formation: sandstone; minor shale and mudstone: and Mist Mountain 25+900 carbonaceous. High - - Formations (JKMoM) (Upper 26+400 Mist Mountain Formation: shale and mudstone: carbonaceous; High Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous) siltstone; sandstone: carbonaceous; coal: bituminous. Fernie Formation: basal sandstone, phosphatic, dolomitic, lower Fernie Formation 26+400 shale and mudstone, middle sandstone quartzose overlain by shale Low - - (JF) (Lower Jurrasic) 30+800 and limestone phosphatic grading upward to shale; upper shale with Low siltstone and sandstone, local sandstone. Whitehorse Formation: dolostone and limestone: sandy, quartzose, Spray River Group: variegated, light weathering; sandstone and siltstone; calcareous or Whitehorse and Sulphur 30+800 dolomitic; evaporite: gypsum and anhydrite. Low - - Mountain Formations (TSR) 31+100 Low Sulphur Mountain Formation: siltstone and sandstone: dolomitic or (Triassic) calcareous, silty; minor shale: carbonaceous, silty; phosphate. Fernie Formation: basal sandstone, phosphatic, dolomitic, lower Fernie Formation 31+100 shale and mudstone, middle sandstone quartzose overlain by shale Phosphate Low 31+000 (JF) (Lower Jurrasic) 31+200 and limestone phosphatic grading upward to shale; upper shale with (082GSE005) Low siltstone and sandstone, local sandstone. Whitehorse Formation: dolostone and limestone: sandy, quartzose, Spray River Group: variegated, light weathering; sandstone and siltstone; calcareous or Whitehorse and Sulphur 31+200 Phosphate dolomitic; evaporite: gypsum and anhydrite. Low 31+277 Mountain Formations (TSR) 31+277 (082GSE062) Low Sulphur Mountain Formation: siltstone and sandstone: dolomitic or (Triassic) calcareous, silty; minor shale: carbonaceous, silty; phosphate. Notes: KPs reference the April 9, 2020 alignment. 1. Units and lithology provided from Stockmal and Fallas (2015). Bracketed information represents the geologic age of the unit. 2. Refer to Section Error! Reference source not found. for description of criteria used to assess permissive likelihood. 3. Mineral occurrence reference number presented in brackets. 4. Desktop Geochemical Hazard Ranking references criteria presented in Section 4.7.3.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 32 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
6.0 UNCERTAINTIES The desktop-level geohazards preliminary assessment has produced inventories of potential geohazard sites. Desktop-level assessments necessarily rely on whatever desktop data are available, and normally do not have the benefit of field review or investigations. This results in recognized uncertainties in the assessment results, which are typically addressed at later stages in the project. Common across all geohazard types in this assessment are uncertainties related to accuracy (and scale or resolution) of topographic data, imagery, geological mapping, and published reports. Given these uncertainties, the desktop assessment is conducted at a coarse scale, with the intention to identify and inventory potential hazards, and focus on higher priority hazard locations at a more detailed level in later project phases. Aside from these general uncertainties, several geohazard-specific uncertainties are discussed in the following sub-sections.
6.1. Landslide Hazard Assessment The landslide hazard assessment relies heavily on the terrain mapping and the available topographical and terrain data. Neither of these have been checked in the field, and it is possible that some geohazards have been misidentified or not identified. Field review is a critical step in reducing this uncertainty and refining the assessment.
6.2. Hydrotechnical Hazard Assessment The hazard class assigned to each of the hydrotechnical hazards is preliminary and potentially conservative. The assessment relied upon limited data to infer a distinction between Low Hazard and Moderate Hazard classes. The standard watercourse crossing designs provided by TCPL require a detailed analysis for all watercourse crossings regardless of Hazard class. If the alignment of the proposed pipeline is revised, the observations made as part of this desktop assessment may change, potentially affecting the hazard rating. Potential hydrotechnical hazard sites are identified by a single point, however the hazard extends up and down the chainage from the point to include the width of the channel, floodplain, or alluvial fan. The length of the hazard will be evaluated as part of the future work (Section 7.2).
6.3. Seismic Hazard Assessment The assessment of liquefaction potential relied upon project-specific terrain maps. In the absence of reliable groundwater data, all valley-bottom soils were assumed to be saturated. However, the degree of saturation is a key input into liquefaction triggering. Furthermore, at this stage, the objective was to identify terrain that might liquefy, whereas pipeline damage is typically a function of the magnitude of large PGD. Not all liquefied soils will flow or spread; other local topographic and geologic conditions, which typically require field verification, are required. By assuming saturation and limiting the assessment to triggering potential (not PGD potential), the results are inherently conservative with respect to pipeline integrity.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 33 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
The assessment of landslide potential relied upon regional, coarse-resolution digital elevation models, assumed saturation conditions, and binning geological units into broad strength classes. The assessment excluded consideration of local structural features and strength heterogeneity which in practice would have a large impact on the results. Thus, the assessment is meant only as a rough guide to the kinds of terrain that might experience earthquake-triggered landslides, and not as a definitive statement on whether a particular landform will slide in an earthquake. The assessment of surface faulting potential relied upon available earthquake catalogs, published inventories of Quaternary faults, and published geological maps. Owing to the distribution of populations and seismograph stations in space and time, the earthquake record is necessarily limited: no earthquakes that might have occurred before about 1890 are catalogued, and smaller-magnitude earthquakes may have eluded detection back when seismographs were less common and less sensitive. Thus, the utility of the historical earthquake record in identifying potentially active faults is limited. Paleoseismology – the use of the geological record to study historic and prehistoric earthquakes – has been deployed over the past few decades in seismically active regions but has not been a priority of the geological research community in Canada until the past few years. Thus, the absence of mapped Quaternary faults around the study area might not be because the Quaternary faults themselves are not there; rather, it may simply be because nobody has looked for them. The glaciated landscape of western Canada presents unique challenges to paleoseismic investigations, particularly around the study area where tectonic strain rates are low: landforms take time to develop through repeated events, but the time span since glaciation (when the landscape slate was essentially wiped clean) has been relatively short. Furthermore, dense forest cover obscures small landforms, further compromising detectability. In recent years, lidar has proven to be an effective tool in identifying small surface-faulting landforms in vegetated and glaciated terrain. For LiDAR to be effective in characterizing fault activity, the data sets should extend away from the section such that they show fault crossings of Quaternary deposits. The Elko Section lacks a broader data set; accordingly, the preliminary assessment of fault activity has considerable uncertainty.
6.4. Subsidence Hazard Assessment The subsidence hazard assessment relied on terrain mapping, geological and karst mapping, and evidence of subsidence on the landscape. The key uncertainty is probably related to the latter: it’s not certain that all existing or incipient subsidence would be detected visually. Key indicators are often best observed on the ground through field review, expressed as subtle evidence of ground deformation or distress.
6.5. Geotechnical Hazard Assessment: The geotechnical hazard assessment relied heavily on the terrain mapping, which has not been field-checked and may not have captured every potential hazard. Some field fitting may be
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 34 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
required during construction to manage geotechnical hazards as they arise where not identified in the desktop study or field review stages of the project.
6.6. Geochemical Hazard Assessment There is a geologic discrepancy between the host unit associated with the coal occurrence (082GSE023) located near KP 14+900 and the associated clastic sedimentary Beaver Mines Formation denoted in Stockmal and Fallas (2015). The 2016 MINFILE Record Summary8 indicates this coal occurrence is within the Mist Mountain Formation on Flathead Ridge, which is noted at approximately 10 kilometers southeast of coal anomaly location (as shown in Stockmal and Fallas, 2015). This discrepancy should be assessed as part of future work as it effects the geochemical hazard assessment from KP 8+200 to KP 18+300 intersecting the Beaver Mines Formation (Table 5-7). The desktop ranking to assess geochemical hazards is dependent on the type of geologic units the proposed route intersects and the number of mineral occurrences located nearby. If the alignment of the Elko Section is revised, the observations made as part of this desktop assessment may change and influence the geochemical hazard rating. The intersection KPs for the various geologic units identified as part of this assessment should be considered approximate as the scales used for geological mapping are typically much greater than that of the alignment. In addition, desktop rating assumes all aspects of the unit-specific lithologic descriptions apply equally to their respective intersection segments of the Elko Section.
8 https://minfile.gov.bc.ca/Summary.aspx?minfilno=082GSE023
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 35 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
7.0 FUTURE WORK In general, more detailed, site-specific analysis is expected to follow field review and field-checking of the desktop assessment and terrain mapping. The priority would be to focus most of the attention on the highest-rated hazards from this assessment. Specific recommendations vary with geohazard type, as outlined in the following sections.
7.1. Landslide Hazards A general field review is recommended to check the desktop assessment and determine whether the inventory is complete. Further field-based assessment and field mapping of moderate-rated sites would be required in order to evaluate the need for mitigation and to initiate design where required. Subsequent analytical work and design would be informed by the findings of the field work. We do not currently anticipate that subsurface investigation will be needed to evaluate landslide geohazards, but the field mapping may indicate otherwise.
7.2. Hydrotechnical Hazards Based on TCPL standard designs, all sites will require a scour analysis, and select sites (Moderate hazard) require an evaluation of lateral channel stability. A field inspection program will be developed as part of the next scope of work. Following detailed analysis and ground-truthing of the preliminary inventory, BGC will provide an updated hydrotechnical hazard sites inventory which may result in some hazard sites being removed from the inventory (non-credible), or the addition of new sites. The updated inventory will also include a recommended min. DoC, and the KP stationing that min DoC applies to, for each site.
7.3. Seismic Hazards Moderate-rated seismic liquefaction and landslide hazards are recommended for site reconnaissance to check the desktop assessment and determine if follow-up site-specific investigations and mitigation design are warranted. High-rated liquefaction and landslide hazards will warrant ground reconnaissance to check assumed deposit types, soil textures and densities, local topography, and groundwater conditions. Site-specific investigations of liquefaction triggering and ground displacement potential may be recommended where loose, saturated deposits occur on topography that favours lateral spreads or flow slides. Similarly, site-specific investigations of landslide triggering may be recommended where the field reconnaissance confirms the desktop-interpreted hazard. These investigations might include subsurface geotechnical investigations and numerical modelling. Suspected Quaternary fault crossings have not been identified; however, this might be a result of the absence of regional high-resolution lidar and orthophoto data. The collection and analysis of these data is recommended, and all mapped faults should be examined in the field for evidence of Holocene activity.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 36 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
7.4. Subsidence Hazards The key next step for the subsidence geohazards is a careful field review of the area identified as potential karst in this assessment. Field mapping and detailed assessment of the existing linear depressions, and a careful review of the alignment for subtle surface expressions of subsidence is recommended.
7.5. Geotechnical Hazards Field review of the potential geotechnical geohazard sites would support the development of a mitigation selection algorithm for hazards that are encountered during construction. This would allow the project to recognize and manage previously unrecognized hazard sites efficiently.
7.6. Geochemical Hazards Field investigations will focus sampling near areas where previous coal mineral occurrences have been identified through this desktop geochemical hazard assessment. Samples will be taken along KP 8+200 to 18+300 and 25+900 to 26+400 to assess the geologic discrepancy (discussed in Sections 5.6 and 6.6) between the mapped Beaver Mines Formation unit (from Stockmal and Fallas, 2015) versus the host formation associated with the nearby coal mineral occurrence (i.e., Mist Mountain Formation). As well, the location of the coal occurrence will be ground-truthed to assess the presence of Mist Mountain Formation near the alignment. Further field efforts will be focused where the ditch-line is anticipated to encounter shallow bedrock, particularly along segments with a Moderate and High geochemical hazard rating, as site-specific handling and management of excavated materials may be required as part of construction. Sample collection and testing will target the unit’s dominant mineral composition, acid potential and neutralizing potential, metal abundance and water-soluble (short-term) leaching rates.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 37 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothilis Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Seetion July24,2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
8.0 CLOSURE
We trust the above satisfies your requirements at this time. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely,
BGC ENGINEERING INC. per:
Dave Gauthier, Ph.D., P.Geo. (BC), P.Eng. (BC; AB) Rebecca Lee, ?.Eng. (BC, AB), P.Geo. (BC) Senior Geological Engineer Senior Water Resources Engineer
Martin Zaleski. M.Sc., P.Geo. (BC, AB) Sharon Blackmore, Ph.D., P.Geo. {BC, AB) Senior Engineering Geologist Senior Hydrogeochemist
Reviewed by:
Pete Quinn. Ph.D., P.Eng. (BC, AB) Principal Geotechnical Engineer
LT/PQ/rnp/js
01190·BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No,2 Elko Section_ Oe$ktOp Geonazards Preliminary Assessment Page36 BGC ENGINEERING INC, Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
REFERENCES
Alberta Geological Survey. (n.d.). Earthquakes in Alberta [Web site]. Retrieved from https://ags.aer.ca/activities/earthquakes-in-alberta.html AMEC (2014). Assessment of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage Potential of the Westcoast Connector Gas Transmission Project. Prepared for: Spectra Energy Transmission Inc. Prepared by: AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure. 45p. Ashford, S.A., & Sitar, N. (2002). Simplified method for evaluating seismic stability of steep slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(2): 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:2(119) Baranova, V., Mustaqeem, A., & Bell, S. (1999). A model for induced seismicity caused by hydrocarbon production in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 36, 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1139/e98-080 BC Hydro. (2012, November). Dam Safety - Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Model (Engineering Report No. E658). BC Ministry of Energy and Mines (BCMEM). (1998). Policy for Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Mine-sites in British Columbia. Issued by: Ministry of Energy and Mines and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, July 1998. Bobrowski, P.T., & Rutter, N. M. (1992). The Quaternary geologic history of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Geographie Physique et Quaternaire, 46(1), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.7202/032887ar Bray, J.D., & Macedo, J. (2019). Procedure for estimating shear-induced seismic slope displacement for shallow crustal earthquakes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145(12), 04019106. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002143 Building Seismic Safety Council. (1994). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings, Part 1: Provisions. Retrieved from https://www.nibs.org/page/bssc_1994pubs Climatedata.ca (2020, June 3). Climate Data for a Resilient Canada – Lundbreck, AB. Version 1.8. Online: https://climatedata.ca/explore/location/?loc=IAFJZ&location-select- temperature=tx_max&location-select-precipitation=rx1day&location-select-other=frost_days DataBC. (2020, June 3). B.C. Dams. online: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bd632217-35f9-4d01-8e57-a6dbc454f236 Demarchi, D.A. (2011). Ecoregions of British Columbia, Third Edition Ford, D.C. (1979). A review of alpine karst in the southern Rocky Mountains of Canada: National Speleological Society Bulletin, v. 41, p. 53-65. Geertsema, M., Schwab, J., Jordan, P., Millard, T., and Rollerson, T. (2010). Hillslope processes. In: Pike, R., Redding, T., Moore, R., Winker, R., and Bladon, K. (Eds.) 2010. Compendium of
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 39 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry, Forest Science Program, Victoria B.C., and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C., Land Management Handbook 66. Halchuk, S.C., Adams, J.E., & Allen, T.I. (2015a). Fifth generation seismic hazard model for Canada: grid values of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada (GSC Open File 7893). https://doi.org/10.4095/297378 Halchuk, S., Allen, T.I., Rogers, G.C., & Adams, J. (2015b). Seismic hazard earthquake epicentre file (SHEEF2010) used in the fifth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada (GSC Open File 7724). https://doi.org/10.4095/296908 Howes, D.E., and Kenk, E. (eds.). (1997). Terrain Classification System for British Columbia, Version 2. A system for the classification of surficial materials, landforms and geological processes of British Columbia. Resource Inventory Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Province of B.C. Victoria, B.C. 100 pp. International Network of Acid Prevention (INAP). (2012). The Global Acid Rock Drainage (GARD) Guide. International Network for Acid Prevention. http://www.gardguide.com/index.php?title=Main_Page McConnell, R.G., and Brock, R.W. (1904). Report on the great landslide at Frank, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Department of Interior, Annual Report, 1902–1903, Part 8. Mine Environmental Neutral Drainage (MEND). (2009). Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic Materials. Mine Environment Neutral Drainage. MEND Report 1.20.1, December, 2009. MESH. (2006). Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Assessment for the Proposed Kitimat Summit Lake Natural Gas Pipeline Looping Project. Prepared for Pacific Trail Pipelines. Prepared by: MESH Environmental Inc. 42p. Monger, J.W.H., & Price, R.A. (1978). Geodynamic evolution of the Canadian Cordillera – progress and problems. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 16, 770-791. https://doi.org/10.1139/e79-069 Monger, J., & Price, R. (2002). The Canadian Cordillera: geology and tectonic evolution. CSEG Recorder, 27(2), 17-35. Mueller, C.S. (2018). Earthquake catalogs compiled for the USGS National Seismic Hazard Models [Data]. US Geological Survey data release, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P26X4R National Research Council of Canada. (2015). National building code of Canada 2015. Ottawa, ON: NRCC Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN). (2020). Search the earthquake database [Web page]. Retrieved from https://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/stndon/NEDB-BNDS/bulletin-en.php
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 40 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Price, R.A. (2013). Geology, Fernie, British Columbia-Alberta [Map]. Scale 1:125,000. GSC Map 2200A. https:/doi.org/10.4095/292659 Quinn, P., Zaleski, M., Mayfield, R., Karimian, H., and Waddington, B. (2015, September). Liquefaction susceptibility mapping derived from terrain mapping; experience on a linear project in British Columbia, Canada. GEOQuébec 2015. Paper presented at the 68th Canadian Geotechnical Conference and the 7th Canadian Permafrost Conference, Québec, QC. Rathje, E.M., & Bray, J.D. (2001). One- and two-dimensional seismic analysis of solid-waste landfills. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38(4), 850-862. https://doi.org/10.1139/t01-009 Ryan, B. and Dittrick, M. (2001). Selenium in the Mist Mountain Formation of Southeast British Columbia. British Columbia Geological Survey, Geological Fieldwork 2000, Paper 2001-1. Resources Inventory Committee. (1996). Guidelines and standards for terrain mapping in British Columbia. Government of British Columbia, Victoria Schultz, R., Stern, V., & Gu, Y.J. (2014). An investigation of seismicity clustered near the Cordel Field, west central Alberta, and its relation to a nearby disposal well. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119, 3410-3423. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JB010836 Stern, V.H., Schultz, R.J., Shen, L., Gu, Y.J., & Eaton, D.W. (2018, April 3). Alberta earthquake catalogue, version 6.0 [GIS data]. Retrieved from https://ags.aer.ca/publications/ DIG_2013_0017.html Stockmal, G.S. and Fallas, K.M. (comp.). (2015). Geology, Chinook South, Alberta–British Columbia [Map and GIS data]. Scale 1:100,000. GSC Open File 7476. https://doi.org/10.4095/297169 Stokes, T., Griffiths, P., Ramsey, C. (2010). Karst geomorphology, hydrology, and management. In: Pike, R., Redding, T., Moore, R., Winker, R., and Bladon, K. (Eds.) 2010. Compendium of forest hydrology and geomorphology in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forestry, Forest Science Program, Victoria B.C., and FORREX Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources, Kamloops, B.C., Land Management Handbook 66. Taylor, S.R. (1964). Abundance of chemical elements in the continental crust: a new table. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 28, Iss. 8, pp. 1273-1285. TransMountain Expansion Pipeline Project (TMEP). (2015). Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Potential. Prepared for: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Prepared by: BGC Engineering. 179p. U.S. Geological Survey. (n.d.). Search earthquake catalog [Web page]. Retrieved from https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. (n.d.). Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States [Web page]. Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/natural- hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults.
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 41 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Vessey, S.J. and Bustin, R.M. (2000). Sedimentology of the coal-bearing Mist Mountain Formation, Line Creek, Southern Canadian Cordillera: relationships to coal quality. International Journal of Coal Geology 42, 2-3, January 2000, pages 129-158. Wetmiller, R.J. (1986). Earthquakes near Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, and their relationship to gas production facilities. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 23, 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1139/e86-020 Wieczoriek, G.F., Wilson, R.C., & Harp. E.L. (1985). Map showing slope stability during earthquakes in San Mateo County, California [Map]. Scale 1:62,500. USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1257-E. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/1257e/plate- 1.pdf Wilson, R.C., and Keefer, D.K. (1985). Predicting areal limits of earthquake-induced landsliding. In J. Ziony (Ed.), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region – An Earth Science Perspective (USGS Professional Paper 1360, pp. 316-345). https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1360
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment Page 42 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
DRAWINGS
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\01_Loop_Section_Overview_Map.mxd
2100
6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 1600 1900 2000 1900 650,000 660,000
THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
1,000 1800 MARTEN CREEK MARTEN
1700 2100
1700
ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1900 1900 2000 1800 1600
BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 2000 CORBIN RD CORBIN
TOWARDS
0 1900 2100
1900 0+000 ! 1700 SCALE 1:75,000 SCALE
2100 1500 1600 0+500 METRES
1800 ! 1,000 1+500 ! 1+000 1700 ³ ! 2+500 1600
2000 2,000 1500 2200 ! 2+000
1400 CREEK 2100 1900 COAL PASS !
3+000 ! 3,000 4+000
3+500 !
1900
1300 1800 2100
1200 2000 ! RIDGE LEACH 5+000
4+500
2000 ! 1900 2100 !
5+500 ! 6+500 FERNIE ROAD COAL 6+000 ! 7+000
! 7+500
!
! 2000 8+000 2100 ! 8+500
10+500 ! 5,480,000 5,480,000 11+000 2000 2100 9+000 ! 1900
UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE ! 1800 ! ! 9+500 10+000 ! 1700 12+000
12+500 !
11+500
1900 13+000 1800
1900 1900 MCEVOY CREEK FSR CREEK MCEVOY 13+500 ! 2000
MCEVOY ! CREEK ! 14+500 FSR
2100 ! ! 14+000
! 15+500
1900 ! 15+000
2000 !
1600 2000 1600
2100 16+500
! 16+000 2000 1900 ! 1900 17+500
! 17+000 1900 MORRISSEY FSR MORRISSEY ! 2000 18+500
! 18+000
! 1600 19+500
! 19+000 1300
!
20+500 1800
! 20+000 1900
! 21+500
2000 ! 21+000 LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE
!
5,470,000 1000 22+500 5,470,000
! 22+000 1100 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
!
23+500 2000 1500 23+000 2100
RIVER FSR RIVER !
1700 1800
! 2100 JUN2020 25+000 1:75,000 24+500 24+000 ! LGT STT ! DG 25+500 ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET
CLIENT: ! B COLUMBIA 26+500 FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.)
BRITISH G ! 2000
HWY3 1900 FLATHEAD C ! Kingsgate 27+000 ! 26+000 PEAK
1300 Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B ! 30+500 AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED !
Yahk
31+000 1800
1900 2000 HWY95 TCENERGY
! ! 2000
! 27+500
! !
! ! HWY95 2000 30+000 ! Moyie 1800 ! Cranbrook
31+277 ! 29+500 ! HWY95A 29+000 !
28+500 ! 28+000
2200
2100
1400 1900
2000 1700 HWY93 2000
2000
2100 KOOTENAY 1200 LODGEPOLE CREEK 2100
LAKE
PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: 1900 2200 DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
LEGEND 1400
1500 2300
1500 Fernie Hosmer HWY93 ! ! 1600 ! 0098187 ! Grasmere Roosville
BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP 1700 1100 ! LOOPSECTION OVERVIEW MAP 1800 NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE ! Sparwood
HWY3 1700
1600 1700
SECTION
1400
2000 ELKO 1800
1700 1200 DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
1900 1900
1700
ALBERTA 1000
5,460,000 5,460,000 1700
01 1800 Lundbreck
2100 HWY22
2200 !
1600
650,000 660,000 1600 1900
1800 1900 2000
2200 1800 1700 1900
1800 2200 ³ 2100 1200 X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\02_Surficial_Geology_Map.mxd
6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS MAY ON 2020. 27, 5.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) 4.SURFICIAL GEOLOGY DATA FROM GEOLOGICAL BC SURVEY FILE OPEN 2019-03. DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 1600 C 650,000 660,000 THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
1,000 1900 2100 CREEK MARTEN 2200 1800 ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE C
1700 2100
BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 1800
2100 2100
CORBIN RD CORBIN
0+000 1500 TOWARDS 0 ! 2100
2200 1:75,000 SCALE
2000 0+500 2000
METRES !
2000 1700 1,000 1900 1+500
1800 1900 1800 ! 1+000
2000 ³ 1700
! 2+500 1600 1700 M 2,000 M
2100 ! 2200 2+000
CREEK 2000 COAL PASS
C ! 1900
1400 3+000 !
1800 3,000 4+000 F
3+500 !
1900
1300 2000 1200 ! M RIDGE LEACH
1900 F 1600 5+000 1500 4+500
C ! 2000 2200 ! 2100
2100
5+500 ! FERNIE ROAD M COAL
6+000 ! 2000
6+500
2100 !
1700 7+500 1900
1600 ! 7+000
M 2000 ! M 8+000
2100 ! 8+500
C 10+500 ! 5,480,000 5,480,000 2000 1900 11+000 2100
! 9+000
UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE ! ! ! 9+500
2000 10+000 ! 12+000
12+500 ! 11+500 13+000 C 2000 C MCEVOY CREEK FSR CREEK MCEVOY 2000 13+500 !
2100 MCEVOY 1900 !
CREEK
! 1900 R 1900 FSR C ! F 2100 C
15+000 !
14+000
2000 1900
! 14+500 1800 1900
! 16+000
15+500 1900
! 2100 2000
2100 1600 C
M ! 16+500 1900
! 17+500
R 1900
! 17+000 MORRISSEY FSR MORRISSEY ! 1900 2000 2000 2000
! 18+000 2000 1900
2000 19+000
F ! 1600 18+500
! 19+500 R
F ! M 20+500
1400 ! 20+000
1600 1500 1900 M 1900 2000 C ! M 1700 R C 21+500 21+000 E 2000 ! 1900
LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE 2000 1000 ! L
5,470,000 5,470,000 22+500
22+000
1000 ! 2000
2000 1700 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: ! R M 23+500 23+000
RIVER FSR RIVER ! 2100 1100 2000 ! F 24+000 JUN2020 25+000 1:75,000 C 2100 24+500 1700 ! LGT STT ! DG ! 2100 (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET M
CLIENT: !
B 1900 COLUMBIA
FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.)
BRITISH G ! 2100 HWY3 Yahk FLATHEAD C
! 2000 26+000 Kingsgate 27+000 ! PEAK R Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B 1600 ! 30+500 AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED
! 26+500
1400 30+000 31+000 2000 C HWY95 TCENERGY ! 2100 !
1700 M 1500 M R !
! ! 27+500
! ! HWY95 !
Moyie 1900 1800 1800 2100 ! Cranbrook 29+500 ! HWY95A 29+000
1300 1200 !
2200 28+500 ! 1400 28+000 1500 2000
M 1500
2000
C 1500
1900 2000 2100
1200 C R HWY93 2000 2100 L LODGEPOLE CREEK KOOTENAY LAKE
PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: 2300 M DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT R SURFICIAL GEOLOGY LEGEND
C 2100 C
Fernie 2400 HWY93 ! ! ! R 0098187 ! Grasmere
Roosville 2000 BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP F !
Hosmer NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - 2200 M NOT CLASSIFIED TILL (M) (L) LACUSTRINE (FG) GLACIOFLUVIAL FLUVIAL (F) (C) COLLUVIUM (R) BEDROCK (E) AEOLIAN WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE ! SURFICIALGEOLOGY MAP Sparwood HWY3
R 1900
2100 FG 1700
SECTION 1900 M R
ELKO
1100 1000 1800 DWG No: DWG C 1400
1300 2200 1800 Attachment 13 C C
ALBERTA
2000 1800 5,460,000 5,460,000 M C 02
F Lundbreck 2200
1900 HWY22 2100
! 2200 650,000 660,000
2000 2300
C
2200 2000 R 2300 ³ L C
1100 C M R R
o G
o
G
o
O
o
..
o
.. l
! l o G o
.. ((
..
o
(( ! ..
(( l ((
O o ((
G ! o
O .. l
((
.. o ! G
.. ! l (( (( l
(( o
.. O
G 5,480,000 1900 5,470,000 5,460,000
o o O Attachment 13
Jr-F 35 (( 25 PnPr-RM 1900 1900 Tr-SR 35 o Tr-SR
(( !
JrCt-MoMM ³ !
o l l Jr-F o
2100 ! 70 (( O l 20 INSET VIEW1900 OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Jr-F 2000 O 35 40
O Ct-E!l 1900 2000 1600
o l! 1700
27 G ! 1800
! l .. !
(( l 1800 (CROWSNEST AREA) 1700
l o 1900
.. 2100 O
!l 2000 2200 .. Ct-Gl
(( 30 !l 2000 Jr-F 30 1800 Ms-MH
2000 l! ! Ms-Et 86 2100 l O ! ³
Ct-Cd 1900 l o ! !l
! l ! Kimberley
l 2100 l Ct-Cd ! Ct-E HWY22 o
2100 o
l Ct-Gl 1600 ! 1800 25 HWY95A
Ct-Cd l !
O l! l
! 1700 !
Ct-Cd O Ct-Cd o l O !
7+500 l O o HWY3 ALBERTA Ct-Gl O 1900
Cranbrook .. O ! O G G 45 o 1600 1700 27 Fernie 2200
o ! !l O 20 ! 1700 !
G 7+000 8+500 !
l ! Ct-Bs ! 8+000 ! 46 !
1800 ! l 12 l 2000 .. 1900 !l o O o !l 2000O G o 6+500 O
! HWY93 1900
l! G ! 9+000 l !l 20 Ct-C o ! 9+500 !l !l 1800
2100
27 o 2000
G !
2000 l O !
Ct-E BRITISH HWY95 1600 O o 6+000! l 42 O
! O
! COLUMBIA JrCt-MoMM 5+000 10+000 30o ! 1800 43 O l ! 5+500 Ct-WpT !l 4+000 G
! O 21
o !
660,000Jr-F 1800 15 O O O O O O o O 660,000 ELKO !
! O 4+500
! l
O l 10+500 !l !
MCEVOY CREEK FSR 2000 SECTION
l TOWARDS 3+500 ! HWY93
! Tr-SR ! o KOOTENAY
l ! ! ! !l ! HWY3 2000
! l l ! l o Ct-M l LAKE 1700l 2+500! 11+000 34 HWY95 ! CORBIN RD l 3+000 ! Ct-BM
!l !
1600 !l o 11+500 12+000 28 20
! ! o
2+000! G l 2100
Ct-Cd l G o !
1300
o 56 l ! ! !
1+000 o G 21
10 (( o O l ! 10 2000 1+500 12+500 ! ! !
0+000 ! o
36 13+000 l
O 0+500 ! MARTEN CREEK
Ct-Gl (( 15 l o
G O ! G
37 ! 9
o O O 2000 O O
13+500 o
11 .. o G
O O l
o ! 1900 (( ! 2000 20o
14+000
1600 9 ..
G G l O !
2200 O G
G l
G G !
G o O
.. o! 14+500 G O 62 ..
G .. o
1700 Ct-Gl 21 o
1900
Ct-Cd .. 2000
! l ......
10 30 ! Ms-Et
.. l! .. G .. Ct-Gl
Ct-CDG .. FLATHEAD
.. o !
.. 15+000 16+000 Ct-E 2000 l ..
! ! 1500 Ct-E !l PEAK Ms-MH o G G
o 15+500 Ct-E o ! 17+000 G
2100 1800
! LODGEPOLE FSR 30
1900 10 16+500
15 LEACH ! 18+000
l
! 1900 Ct-Cd 24 o
!
l
1800 O o
!
o
l
JrCt-MoMM RIDGE l 17+500 ! !
! l
l Ct-E
Ct-Cd l !
! 1400
19+000 !
! ! l
l 1500 .. ! l
o ! 48 1600
l
l 1700 ..
8 ! 18+500 ! 2100 Ct-CDG !
MCEVOY 20+000 1800 2000
o
..
o o !
25+500 PnPr-RM Tr-SR ..
Ct-E .. ! 15 G
l ! ! ! 19+500 G
!
l l l
l CREEK ! !
27 ! 20+500 21+500 PnPr-RM
!
7 ! l
! 26+000 ! l
5 l ! O
l o !
l Tr-SR
! 25+000
! .. !
21+000 G FSR .. .. Ms-Et
! Ct-Gl o O
O !
COAL 22+000 ! 24+500
! ..
!
10 Ct-Cd 22+500 ! 26+500 27+500 (( !
Ct-Cd ((
CREEK ..
12 4 23+500 !
o
2000 24+000 ((
!
o l
! l !
27+000 G l
PASS ! 28+000 ..
1900 ((
Ct-E 10 G
1900 o ..
LODGEPOLE CREEK ((
! ! ..
! !l l O O Ms-Et l l l
! 1900
!
(( o l O O 2000 28+500 ! (( o 9
5 o 1800 Ct-Cd 2100 O
1900 o
O
40 ((
O ..
12 .. o O .. (( 1800
FERNIE !l ! Ms-Et ..
11 o 29+000 1700 o
12 ((
((
O Ms-Et
! G
COAL O .. o l ((
!
8 (( ((
l 29+500
! o 1800
ROAD !l ((
l
11 ((
! !
G l PnPr-RM
G
((
(( ((
SCALE 1:75,000 O !
G O l (( (( !
13 o 30+000 1700
Ct-E (( ..
O
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 (( 1800 G
(( o
1700 1400 ..
(( O
((
O !
((
Ct-Cd 30+500 (( G ((
G
((
(( (( o 47
O
.. G ..
O
((
(( O
METRES 1600 (( ((
Ct-CDG MORRISSEY FSR ((
1500 !
..
5 (( ((
(( 50 G 31+000
1400 (( o
THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED OR ENLARGED. ! .. ((
O 31+277 44 G (( 1900
(( O ALL FRACTIONAL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE
Ct-BM O 30 Jr-F (( BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 1700 (( o ((
G (( G
G 42o ((
((
.. Ms-Et
o O 1200
LEGEND
650,0005 (( 650,000
o .. ((
((
O
(( o 12 2100 JrCt-MoMM ((
BEDDING, TOP o 17 FAULT, DETATCHMENT, STREAM CADOMIN, DALHOUSIE, Jr-F FERNIE FORMATION Dv-P PALLISER1500 FORMATION ((
O o o ((
G 64 (( 2000 Ct-CDG O
UNKNOWN, INCLINED APPPROXIMATE AND GLADSTONE .. ((
O ((
18 ROAD FLATHEAD,33 GORDON, ROCKY MOUNTAIN (( !l 1900 o
O FORMATIONS LODGEPOLEPnPr-RM FSR
o O ((
o ..
: BEDDING, TOP KNOWN, Ct-E 7 Cm-FLGW ELKO, AND WINDSORG oSUPERGROUP PnPr-RM 42 ((
((
O WATERBODY 59
ANTICLINE, G ((
INCLINED Ct-C CARDIUM FORMATION MOUNTAIN FORMATIONS ((
O Mp-Ro Ms-MH
ROOSVILLEo FORMATION ! APPROXIMATE (( l
G Ct-CDG (( .. .. O Ms-Lv
BEDROCK GEOLOGY O Dv-FSA
Ct-E ((
30 DIP ANGLE (DEGREES) ELK FORMATION Ct-Gl GLADSTONE FORMATION (( 80 ((
O G Tr-SR
SPRAY RIVER GROUP (( 1100
O Tr-SR !l BEAVER MINES G (( ..
FAULT, THRUST, O ETHERINGTON LIVINGSTONE 1000 O 1300 1200 Ct-BM
++ 1900 SYNCLINE, Ms-Et Ms-Lv !l O 52 FORMATION (( O WAPIABI AND O G
2100
APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATEO FORMATION FORMATION !l 2000 O
M 29 Ct-WpT TELEGRAPH CREEK 1200
2000 Cm-FLGW 2000 o
G (( (( BLACKSTONE Dv-P FAULT, THRUST, Ct-Bs EXSHAW AND BANFF Ct-MC MILL CREEK FORMATION FORMATIONS50 !l
2000 12 DvMs-EB G o 1200 50 o
! FORMATIONo o 1100 1800 !l ! Mp-Ro INFERRED KILOMETRE POST FORMATIONS (( 57 ! l O 15 o !l l
2100 MORRISSEY AND MIST 1000 (( 1400
Ct-Cd CADOMIN FORMATION JrCt-MoMM (( 1900 FAULT, NORMAL, JrCt-MoMMPROPOSED PIPELINE FAIRHOLME GROUP AND MOUNTAIN FORMATIONS !l 2100 1600 o (( o INFERRED 2000 SECTIONS Dv-FSA SASSENACH AND ALEXO G RIVER FSR 1700
JrCt-MoMM!l MOUNT HEAD(( 23
1600 1800 2100 FORMATIONS 75 !l Ms-MH (( 1500 2100
TC WESTERN SYSTEM FORMATION DvMs-EB Ms-Lv
G 5,480,000 5,470,000 5,460,000 1600 ((
O Ct-E JrCt-MoMM (( 1300 2100 2000 GO !l
NOTES: o o SCALE: 1:75,000 PROJECT: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. (( BRITISH COLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP o 7. HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM IS UNKNOWN.
(( 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) DATE: !l NO.2 NPS 48 ELKO SECTION - LTD - BRITISH COLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP NO.2 NPS 48 ELKO SECTION - DESKTOP GEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY 8. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL(( NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE JUN 2020 BGC ENGINEERING INC. DESKTOP GEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT",O AND DATED JUNE 2020. OTHER THAN THE PURPOSEo FOR WHICH BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY (( G B G C 3. HILLSHADE BASED ON LIDAR PROVIDED BY AIRBORNE IMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 AND GEOBASE CDED DEM ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR DRAWN: TITLE: STT BEDROCK GEOLOGY MAP DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 25 m. RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. CLIENT: CHECKED: 4. BEDROCK GEOLOGY DATA FROM STOCKMAL AND FALLAS (2015). LGT 5. TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENT REV B PROVIDED BY FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) LTD TC ENERGY PROJECT No.: DWG No: ON MAY 27, 2020. APPROVED: 0098187 03 6. WATERCOURSE AND WATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASE NATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MZ FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) LTD. X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\03_Bedrock_Geology_Map.mxd X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\04A_Terrain_Mapping_KP0_KP12+500.mxd ! 6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES:
657,500 660,000
THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED. 1700 5,487,500 5,487,500 (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE Cv COLUMBIA Cb 1500 BRITISH
Ftu 250 2100 HWY3 BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. Yahk Cv//Rsk ! 0+000
! Kingsgate Kimberley ! Cw
2100 0 SCALE 1:25,000 SCALE HWY95 Cv/Rsk-Fk ! Cv-R^r Ft
METRES Cb 250 2000 ! HY95 ! Moyie 0+500 ! Cranbrook HWY95A Cb-Fc 2000 Cv/Rsk 500 Cv
Cv.Rks-A
2000 1800
Cv//Rks-R^r 1900 HY93 750
1+000 ! KOOTENAY Cv/Rsk-A LAKE Fp Cj Cbv-F^m Fernie HWY93 ! ! ! Grasmere Roosville Cv/Rs Cv-V Cvb 1+500 ! Cv Ff ! Fj Hosmer Cv//Rks ! Sparwood
Mb
HWY3 1700 SECTION 2+000
Cv//Rs ! Cv//Rsk ELKO Ft Cb Cf ALBERTA
2+500 ! Cv/Rsk
Fj FGt 5,485,000 5,485,000 Cv//Rr Mv[Rh] Lundbreck HWY22 ! Cv Ff Ft
3+000 ! ³ Ca 1800 Cb Caj UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE FGpu
! 3+500 Fp
Cv 1900
Cv/Rsk-R^r 2000 Cv//Rk-Fm
4+000 ! FGpu Cv-V Cc FGpu
! 4+500 Cv//Rks-Rr Cau-Rr
Cb[FGj] FGk 1600 1700 Cvb/Rs Cbv 5+000
! Cv//Rs-R^s FGt Cv
Fp 2100 Cv Cv/Rs-V
Cv//Rks 5,482,500
5,482,500 ! 5+500
Ff 1800 Cv/Rs
6+000 ! Cv
Cvb 2000 Cv/Rak-EV Cv//Rsk
6+500 ! Cv Cv/Rsk Mv Ft
7+000 ! Cv/Rs-V
Mv[Rau]-E
APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: 1900
7+500 !
2000 Mw-E JUN2020 1:25,000
8+000 ! LGT STT BW FGpu CLIENT: B FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.) G Cw//Ra-V Mb-E FGp 8+500
! Op C
Mv[Rr] ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B 5,480,000 AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED Cw//Rak
5,480,000 Cv/Rk 1900 TCENERGY Cv//Rk Cv//Rar Mb-E
9+000 ! Cb-V Dv[Ruj] Cb Cb Cv Mb
9+500 ! Ov[Fp]/Fp 10+500 !
10+000 !
11+000 ! PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: Mb
DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
TERRAIN MAPPING POLYGONSMAPPING TERRAIN LEGEND 1700 Mb ! 0098187 TERRAINMAPPING - KP to 0 KP 12+500 BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP 11+500 ! NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - ROCK TILL GLACIOFLUVIAL COLLUVIUM FLUVIAL ORGANIC WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE Ov[Mb]/Mb Cv//Rk Cv/Rk Cau-Fu Cj
12+000 ! DWG No: DWG
Cb-Fu Attachment 13 Cv/Rsr 1900 Mw[Rau]
12+500 ! Cb
04A
1900 1900
13+000 ! Cv 657,500 660,000 Cv/Rkr
Rs//Cv Cj 1900
Cw 5,477,500 5,477,500 ! 13+500 ³ X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\04B_Terrain_Mapping_KP12+500_KP23+500.mxd 6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING HIS MUST READ CONJUNCTIONIN BE BGC'S WITH REPORT TITLED LINES PIPE (SOUTH "FOOTHILLS B.C.) 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: TERRAIN MAPPING POLYGONSMAPPING TERRAIN LEGEND Cv/Rsr
12+500 ! ! Cb
Mw[Rau] 1900 2000 13+000 ROCK TILL GLACIOFLUVIAL COLLUVIUM FLUVIAL ORGANIC WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE ! Cv Cv/Rkr Cj
! 13+500 Cb
Cw 1900 Rs//Cv
14+000 ! ³ 1900
1700 Ob 1900
! 14+500 Mw[Rm]
15+000 ! Mv//Rm
2000
15+500 !
2100 2000 16+000
Mvb ! Cv//Rk-V
Ob 1900 1900
16+500 ! UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE
Mb 1900 17+000 ! Cv Mv[Ru]
17+500 ! 2000
2000 1900 Mb-V Cvb Cv/Rsk 2000 ! 18+000 Mb Cv/Rka
18+500 ! Cvb Mu-E
19+000 ! Cvb
19+500 ! Mv[Ru]
1800
20+000 ! Dv//Ru APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
Cv//Rka-V 1600
1900
! 20+500 Cv/Rk-K 1900 JUN2020 1:25,000 Mw[Ru] LGT STT 2000 BW ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET CLIENT: B COLUMBIA FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.) 21+000 ! BRITISH G HWY3
2000 Yahk C ! Kingsgate Mw Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B ! AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED HWY95 TCENERGY ! Cvb
21+500 ! ! HWY95 ! Moyie Cranbrook HWY95A Cv//Rks
5,470,000 5,470,000 Mb Mu
22+000 ! HWY93 KOOTENAY Cv//Rsk
LAKE PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED. 1700 Mw
DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1900 Fernie TERRAINMAPPING - KP 12+500 to KP 23+500 250 HWY93 BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 22+500 ! ! ! 0098187 ! Grasmere Roosville BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP ! Hosmer Mv[Ru] NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - Mw ! Sparwood HWY3 0 SCALE 1:25,000 SCALE Cv//Rks METRES SECTION Dv//Ru ELKO 250 23+000 ! DWG No: DWG Attachment 13 Mv[Rua] 500 ALBERTA
2000
Rur.Dv 04B 2000 23+500
750 ! Mw Lundbreck HWY22
! 2100 Ru/Mv Ov ³ X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\04C_Terrain_Mapping_KP20+000_KP31+277.mxd 6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED. ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 250 20+000 BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. ! Dv//Ru Cv//Rka-V 0 SCALE 1:25,000 SCALE
1900 METRES 250 20+500 ! Cv/Rk-K
Mw[Ru] ³ 2000 500
21+000 ! 750
2000
Mw 1900 Cvb
21+500 ! Cv//Rks
5,470,000 5,470,000 Mb Mu
22+000 ! Cv//Rsk
Mw
1700 1900
22+500 ! Mv[Ru] Mw
2000 Cv//Rks UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE Dv//Ru
23+000 ! Mv[Rua]
Rur.Dv 2000
! 23+500 Mw
Ov
Ru/Mv 2100
24+000 ! Ov[Mv] Mv//Ru
Mb 1800 Ov[Mv] 2100
! 24+500 Mv Cv//Rak
2100
25+000 ! 1700 Cv//Rks
! 25+500 Cv/Rsk Cb/Ov[Cb]-V
26+000 !
Cv//Rks 2100
! 26+500 Cv.Rs-V
Cv//Rs
Cw 1500 27+000
APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: ! FGp Cv/Rsk Cv Cv//Rsk
1600 Ov[Fp] Cv//Rsk ! 30+500 Cv Cb 27+500 Mv[Rr] JUN2020 ! 1:25,000 Cv 30+000 31+000 ! ! LGT STT BW Cv ! Mb 31+277 ! Mb 29+500 Mv[Rr] ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET Mb Cv//Rs FGk 29+000 ! Mw CLIENT: B COLUMBIA ! 28+500
28+000 ! BRITISH G Mv[Rm] HWY3 Ov[Mb] Yahk Ov[Mb] C ! Kingsgate Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B ! AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED 1500 HWY95 TCENERGY ! !
1400 HWY95 ! Moyie
Cranbrook HWY95A 1400
1500
1300 1200 HWY93 KOOTENAY LAKE PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT TERRAIN MAPPING POLYGONSMAPPING TERRAIN LEGEND Fernie TERRAINMAPPING - KP 20+000 to KP 31+277 HWY93 ! ! ! 0098187 ! Grasmere Roosville BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP ! Hosmer NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - ROCK TILL GLACIOFLUVIAL COLLUVIUM FLUVIAL ORGANIC WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE ! Sparwood
HWY3 1100 SECTION ELKO DWG No: DWG Attachment 13 ALBERTA
1800 04C Lundbreck HWY22 !
1900 ³ Attachment 13 Terrain Mapping Legend
SimpleTerrain Symbols: U s e dwhe none surficial material pres is e ntwithin apolygon GeomorphologicProce s s e s Examples
Example: Cb–R b A SnowAvalanche s K Karst R s–V //Cv R ”bd Stee pbe d rockslope with E Me ltwater channe ls R R apidland s lide(runout zone ) V <20%cove of ra colluvial SurficialMaterial Geomorphological proce s ssub-type F Slowland s lide(runout zone ) R ^ R apidland s lidezone(initiation ) ve negullied e r; with Surface expres s ion Geomorphological Surface expres proce s ion s s(up tomay 3 be as s igne d ) F^ Slowland s lidezone(initiation ) U Flood ing initiationzone sfor rockfall G Anthropogenicground disturbance V Gullyeros ion andde brisflows Expe . cted ComposTerrain ite Symbols: U s e dwhe orterrain n2 3 type sare pres e ntwithin apolygon H Kettled tocontain areas with a highlike lihoodofland s lide GeomorphologicalProce s sSubtype s Cv.Mv ind icatesthat ‘C’ and ‘M’ are roughly equal extentin initiationfollowing road Cv/Mv ind icatesthat greater‘C’ is extentin than ‘M’ (about 60:40) construction. R b R ockfall Fm Bed rockslump U d d e brisflood s Cv//Mv ind icatesthat much‘C’ is greater extentin than ‘M’ (about 80:20) Cv.Rs/Mv ind icatesthat ‘C’ and ‘R ’ areroughly equal extentin and both are greater extentin than Mv (about R d Debrisflows R r R ockslide s /avalanche s Fx s lump/earthflow combine d s gFApi -U Activeflood plain 40:40:20) Fe/Re Earthflow R s Debrisslide s I compos e dofsand and Fk tensioncracks/sacking Fu Surficialmaterial slump gravepotentially l subject to StratigraphicTerrain Symbols floodImpe ing. rfectly TerrainStability Clas s d raineNo d significant . Cv[Mj] ind icatesthat ‘Cv’ ove rlies‘Mj’ I Nosignificant stability problems exist. s tabilityproblems exist.
SurficialMaterial Type s II The reave is rylow like lihoodof land s lide sfollowing right of way clearing, pipe lineand Cf–R d Colluvialfan subject to roadconstruction. Minor instability expe is ctedalong cut slope es s , pe ciallyfor or1 2 d e brisflows A Anthropogenic LG Glaciolacus trine yearsfollowing construction. Ck–R b Colluvialslope subject to C Colluvium M GlacialTill rockfall(talus slope ) D W e athe redbe d rock N Notmappe d(us uallyalake or large rive r) F Fluvial O O rganic III The realow is like lihoodof land s lideinitiationfollowing rightof way clearing, pipe lineand FG Glaciofluvial R Bed rock roadconstruction. Minor instability expe is ctedalong cut slope es s , pe ciallyfor or1 2 yearsfollowing construction. SurfaceExpres s ions IV Expe ctedto contain areas with amod e ratelike lihoodof land s lideinitiationfollowing right ofway clearing, pipe lineand road construction. We se t as onconstruction willsignificantly a Mod e rateSlope (15-26°) p P lain(0-3°) increas ethe potential for construction-related land s lide s . b Blankemthick (>2 t de pos it) r R idge c Cone(>15°) s Stee pSlope (>35°) V Expe ctedto contain areas with ahigh like lihoodof land s lideinitiationfollowing right of f Fan(<15°) t Terrace wayclearing, pipe lineand road construction. We and t or winter se as onconstruction will h H ummocky u U nd ulating s ignificantlyincreas ethe potential for construction-related land s lide s . j GentleSlope (4-14°) v V e nemthick e (0-2 rde pos it) k Mod e ratelyStee pSlope (27-35°) w V ariableThickne s sDepos it) SoilDrainage Clas s e s m R olling x ve rythinve nethick e (0-.5m rde pos it) r R apidlydraine d W aterremove is dfrom the soilrapidly relation in tosupply. ActivityLeve l w W e ll-draine d W aterremove is dfrom the soilread but ily not rapidly. W aterremove is dfrom the soilsome whatslowly in m Mod e ratelywe ll-draine d FAp ‘AInd’ icatesactive flood plain(subject tochanne changes l ) relationtosupply. CIf ‘I’ Ind icatesinactive fan W aterremove is dfrom the soilsufficiently slowly in i Impe rfectlydraine d relationtosupply toke e pthe soilwe for t asignificant TexturalTerms and Symbols partofthe growing se as on. W aterremove is dso slowly relation in tosupply that the a blocks g grave l s s and p P oorlydraine d sremains oil we for t acomparative lylarge part ofthe time b boulde rs h humicorganics u me sorganics ic thenotsoil is froze n. c clay k cobbles x angularfragme nts W aterremove is dfrom the soilso slowly that the water d mixedfragme nts m mud z s ilt v V e rypoorly draine d tableremains ator on the surface for the greater part of e fibricorganic p pe bbles thetime the notsoil is froze n.
SCALE: P R O J ECT: NO TES: NTS BRITISHCO LUMBIAMAINLINE LO O P 1. THISDR 1. AW INGMU STBEREAD COIN NJU NCTIONWITH BGC'S REPO RTITLED T"FO O THILLSPIPE LINES(SO BR U LTD- THCO ITISH B.C.) LUMBIAMAINLINE LO O PNONP .2 ELKO48 S SECTIONDESKTO - PGEO H AZARDSPR ELIMINARY DATE: NONPS .2 ELKO48 SECTION - ASSESSMENT", AND DATED JU NE2020. JU2020 N BGCENGINEER INGINC. DESKTO PGEO H AZAR DSPR ELIMINARYASSESSMENT 2. UNLESS 2. BGC AGR EESOTHERW WRIN ISE THDR ITING, IS AW INGSH ALLNO BEMO T DIFIEDOR USED FO RANY PU R P O SEOTHER THAN TH PU E R P O SEFO RWH ICHBGC GENER BGC ATEDSHIT. ALL ANAPP LIEDEAR THSCIENCES CO MP ANY DR AW N: TITLE: HAVE NO FOLIABILITY RANY DAMAGES OR LO SSARISING ANY IN WAY FRO MANY USE OR MO DIFICATIONOF THISDO CU MENTNO AU T THO R IZEDBY BGC.ANY USE OF OR RELIANCE UP OTH N IS STT B GC TERRMAP AIN LEGEND CLIENT: DO CU MENTOR COITS NTENTBY THIRD PARTIES SH ALLBEATSU CHTHIRD PARTIES' SO LERISK. CH ECKED: LGT P R O J ECTNo.: DW GNo.: APP R O V ED: 0098187 04D BW FO O THILLSPIPE LINES(SO ULTD. THB.C.) \ oet\0817GSPrduto\0047WAM_op_leraScinEk\4_eri_a_eed.mxd rta_Section\Elko\04D_Terrain_Map_Legend ASML_Loop2_Albe uction\20200427_W rod rojects\0098\187\GIS\P X :\P X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\05_Landslide_Hazards_Map.mxd
2100
6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 1600 1900 2000 1900 650,000 660,000
THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
1,000 1800 MARTEN CREEK MARTEN
1700 2100
1700
ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1900 1900 2000 1800 1600
BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 2000 CORBIN RD CORBIN
TOWARDS
0 1900 2100
1900 0+000 ! 1700 SCALE 1:75,000 SCALE
2100 1500 1600 0+500 METRES
1800 ! 1,000 1+500 ! 1+000 1700 ³ ! 2+500 1600
2000 2,000 1500 2200 ! 2+000
1400 CREEK 2100 1900 COAL PASS !
3+000 ! 3,000 4+000
3+500 !
1900
1300 1800 2100
1200 2000 ! RIDGE LEACH 5+000
4+500
2000 ! 1900 2100 !
5+500 ! 6+500 FERNIE ROAD COAL 6+000 ! 7+000
! 7+500
!
! 2000 8+000 2100 ! 8+500
10+500 ! 5,480,000 5,480,000 11+000 2000 2100 9+000 ! 1900
UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE ! 1800 ! ! 9+500 10+000 ! 1700 12+000
12+500 !
11+500
1900 13+000 1800
1900 1900 MCEVOY CREEK FSR CREEK MCEVOY 13+500 ! 2000
MCEVOY ! CREEK ! 14+500 FSR
2100 ! ! 14+000
! 15+500
1900 ! 15+000
2000 !
1600 2000 1600
2100 16+500
! 16+000 2000 1900 ! 1900 17+500
! 17+000 1900 MORRISSEY FSR MORRISSEY ! 2000 18+500
! 18+000
! 1600 19+500
! 19+000 1300
!
20+500 1800
! 20+000 1900
! 21+500
2000 ! 21+000 LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE
!
5,470,000 1000 22+500 5,470,000
! 22+000 1100 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
!
23+500 2000 1500 23+000 2100
RIVER FSR RIVER !
1700 1800
! 2100 JUN2020 25+000 1:75,000 24+500 24+000 ! LGT STT ! DG 25+500 ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET
CLIENT: ! B COLUMBIA 26+500 FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.)
BRITISH G ! 2000
HWY3 1900 FLATHEAD C
27+000 ! 26+000 PEAK
1300 Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B 30+500
AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED !
31+000 1800
1900 2000 HWY95 TCENERGY
! ! 2000
! ! 27+500
! ! HWY95 2000 30+000 !
1800 ! Cranbrook 29+500 ! HWY95A 29+000 !
28+500 ! 28+000
2200
2100
1400 1900
2000 1700 HWY93 2000
2000
2100 KOOTENAY 1200 LODGEPOLE CREEK 2100
LAKE
PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: 1900 2200
DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 1400
RATING HAZARD DESKTOP LANDSLIDE 1500 LEGEND 2300
1500 Fernie HW93
1600 ! 0098187 !
BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP 1700
1100 1800 NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE LANDSLIDEHAZARDS MAP LOW MODERATE WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE
HWY3 1700
1600 1700 1400
SECTION
2000 1800
1700 ELKO 1200 DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
1900 1900
1700
ALBERTA 1000
5,460,000 5,460,000 1700
05 1800
2100 HWY22 2200
1600
650,000 660,000 1600 1900
1800 1900 2000
2200 1800 1700 1900
1800 2200 ³ 2100 1200
X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\06A_Potential_Hydrotechnical_Hazard_Sites_Map_KP0_KP12+500.mxd ! 1700 6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET 657,500 660,000 THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
5,487,500 5,487,500 ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE COLUMBIA 0+000
1600 BRITISH 250 HWY3 BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS.
! 2100 1500 2100 2000 Kimberley !( E
-
H 0 SCALE 1:25,000 SCALE HWY95 !
-
0 0+500
METRES 1 250 HWY95 ! ! Cranbrook HWY95A
E !( E
-
-
H
500
H
2000
- - 1900
0
0 1900
2
3
E
- 1800 HWY93
H 750
E !(! -
!( KOOTENAY - 0 1700
H !(
E 8 LAKE !( 1600
-
-
0 H !( 4
-
E
0
-
5
H Fernie HWY93 !
-
0 1+500
! 9
E !( 2+000
-
H HWY3
-
1
0 ! SECTION
!( 2+500 ELKO
E
-
H
E
-
!( 1
- ALBERTA
3 1500 H !(
E
E
-
1
-
-
H
1
H !( 5,485,000
-
-
5,485,000 1 2000
1 2000 2 HWY22
4 !(
E ! 3+000
-
E
H
!( ³
-
-
H
1
E
-
6
-
2000 1
H
5 UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE
!( -
1
E !(! 8 3+500 - 1800 H !(
-
1
1900
7
2000
4+000 !
E
- 4+500
! H
-
1
9 !(
5+000
1800 1900
! 5+500 2100
E
- H 5,482,500 E !( 5,482,500 - ! -
H 2
1
-
2 6+000
0
1700 !( 2000 !(
E
-
H !
E
-
2 1900 -
H 2000 2
-
2
3
1800 !( E ! !(6+500
-
H
E
-
2
-
H
4
-
2
5 ! 7+000 !( 1900 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
2000 7+500 !
E
-
H 1800
-
2 JUN2020
6 1:25,000
! 8+000 LGT
STT !( RL 8+500 CLIENT: B FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.) G !( E
-
! H C
-
2 ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B 5,480,000
7 AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED 5,480,000 TCENERGY
! 9+000
! 9+500 11+000 ! 10+500 !( E ! 10+000
-
H
-
! 2
8 1900 E PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: !(
-
H 11+500
DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
- POTENTIALHYDROTECHNICAL SITES MAP HAZARD - 1700
2 HAZARD RATINGHAZARD DESKTOP HYDROTECHNICAL LEGEND
9 0098187 !( !( WESTERN ALBERTASYSTEM MAINLINE ! ! LOOPSECTION ELKO 2 -
MODERATE LOW WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE
KP0+000 TO KP 12+500 1800
! 12+000 1800 DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
E
-
H
E
E -
-
3
H
- 12+500 1900
0
H
- !
3
-
06A
2
3 1900 !(
3
13+500 !(
E
E !
E !(13+000 !( !( -
- 657,500 660,000
-
H
H
H 1900
-
-
3 -
1900 3
3
1 5 5,477,500 ! 4 5,477,500 !( ³ !( X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\06B_Potential_Hydrotechnical_Hazard_Sites_Map_KP12+500_KP23+500.mxd 6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING HIS MUST READ CONJUNCTIONIN BE BGC'S WITH REPORT TITLED LINES PIPE (SOUTH "FOOTHILLS B.C.) 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 655,000 657,500
HAZARD RATINGHAZARD DESKTOP HYDROTECHNICAL LEGEND
E 1800 - 13+000 12+500
H
!( !( ! !
-
2000 3 !( E
3 1900
-
!( H E MODERATE LOW WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE
E ! 1900 !( !(E
-
-
!( 3 E
-
H
E
-
H
0
H
-
-
-
H
-
H 3
1900 -
3
3
- 1 - 5,477,500
5
3
2
3 14+000 !
4 5,477,500 13+500
6
E !( 1800 1800 - !( H !(
E
-
4 ! -
H
0 !( E ³ 1900
-
-
!( 3 E 1700 !( H
7
-
-
H
3
8
- 14+500 ! 3
9
! 15+000
! 15+500 1800 16+000
2000 !( E ! -
H E 2000
-
-
4
H
1 1900
-
4
2
!( 1800
E
E
- !(! 16+500
H
-
H 1800 5,475,000
- UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE
4 5,475,000 -
4
4
!( 3
1800
! 17+000 1900
! 17+500 2000
1700 2000
18+000 1900
! !( E
-
H
-
4
5
! 18+500 19+000
!( E
-
H !
-
4
6
5,472,500 5,472,500
! 19+500 20+000
E 1800 !(
-
H
- ! 4 1600
7 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
E
E
-
-
H
H
-
-
4 !( 4
9
8 !( ! 20+500 JUN2020
1:25,000 2000 LGT STT !
RL 1800 (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET CLIENT: B COLUMBIA 21+000 FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.) ! BRITISH G
2000 HWY3 C 1900
1800
1700 Kimberley 21+500 ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED HWY95 TCENERGY !
! !( E
-
E HWY95
H ! Cranbrook
- HWY95A
-
H
5
- 0 5 5,470,000
5,470,000 1 !( 22+000 !(! E
- HWY93
H KOOTENAY
-
5 LAKE
2 PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED. DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE POTENTIALHYDROTECHNICAL SITE HAZARD MAP -
1800 1700 Fernie
250
22+500 HWY93 BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. ! 1800 ! 0098187 BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - KP12+500 TO KP 23+500 HWY3 0 1900 1:25,000 SCALE
METRES
23+000 1900 SECTION
250 ! ELKO DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
E
-
H 23+500 500 ALBERTA
-
2000 5
3 06B !(
750 !
E HWY22
E -
H 655,000 657,500
-
H
- 2100
5
-
4
5
!( ³
5 !( X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\06C_Potential_Hydrotechnical_Hazard_Sites_Map_KP20+000_KP31+277.mxd 6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 20+000 652,500 655,000 THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED. !( E
-
ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1800 1300 1400 H
-
4 250
BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. !
7 1500
E
E 1600 -
-
H
H 0
- SCALE 1:25,000 SCALE
-
4 1900 !( 4
9
8 2000
METRES 1700 !(
250 ! 20+500
1800 ³ 500
! 21+000 750 2000
21+500 1800
! !( E
-
H
-
5
E
0
-
5,470,000 H 5,470,000
-
5 E 1700
2 !(
-
! H 22+000
!( -
5
1
2000
! 22+500 UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE
! 23+000
1600 1700 23+500
E
-
2100 H !(!
-
5
3
E
-
H
-
E 5 !(
-
5
H
-
!( 5
4 24+000 ! 24+500
E !( E 5,467,500
-
5,467,500 H
-
H
- 25+000
5 ! -
5
6
7 1900
1800 !( !
25+500 1900
1600
! 26+000
!
26+500 2100 ! 1700 27+000
APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: ! 30+500 30+000 31+000
! 27+500
JUN2020 !( E !
1:25,000 !
! -
E H 5,465,000 28+500 LGT STT
-
5,465,000 !
-
H RL 31+277 ! 6
-
2 ! 29+500 (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET
5
! 9 CLIENT: 29+000
B !( E ! COLUMBIA 1500
!( 28+000 - E !(
!( BRITISH
E ! G
H
- HWY3
-
H
-
H
6 C
-
1
-
6
5
0 Kimberley
8 ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED HWY95 TCENERGY !
HWY95
! 1500 Cranbrook HWY95A
1500
1400 1400 1300 HWY93 KOOTENAY LAKE PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
POTENTIALHYDROTECHNICAL SITES MAP HAZARD - 1200 HAZARD RATINGHAZARD DESKTOP HYDROTECHNICAL LEGEND Fernie HWY93 ! 0098187 !( !( ! BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION -
MODERATE LOW WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE
HWY3 KP20+000 TO KP 31+277 1100 1300
SECTION 1400 ELKO DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
1500 ALBERTA 5,462,500 5,462,500 1600
06C 1300
HWY22 1800 1700 652,500 655,000
1800 1900
1400 1400
1800 ³
..
.. l
! l
.. ((
..
(( ! ..
(( l ((
(( ! .. l
((
.. !
.. ! l ((
(( l
((
5,480,000 .. 1900 5,470,000 2000 5,460,000 2100 Attachment 13 (( 1900 1900
(( !
³ 1900 l l! 2100 ! 1900 (( l ! INSET VIEW 1900OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1600
l l1900 2000 1800
! ! 1700
! l .. !
(( l l 1800 (CROWSNEST AREA) 1900 1700
.. !l 2000 .. (( ! 2200 l 1800 2000 l! ! BRITISH 2100 l ! 1600 ³
2100 ! 1900 !l l
2100 !l l !l COLUMBIA
l ! 1800 l ! l! l ! 1700 ! Kimberley l ! HWY22
2000 7+500 !l HWY95A ! 1800 .. 1700 2200 ! E-Se-16 !l ALBERTA
! 7+000 ! (
l ! HWY3 ! 8+000 ! Cranbrook !
! 9+000l Ferniel 2000 1800 !l !l .. ! 6+500 8+500 ! ! 1900 l! ! !l 1900 l
! 9+500 !l !l HWY93 1800
2100 1900 2000
! 2000 l
1800 1900 ! 6+000!l 1600 HWY95 ! 2100 ! 5+000 10+000 2000 !l 1800 4+000 ! 5+500 !l ! ELKO 660,000 1900 3+500 ! 660,000
!
! 4+500 10+500 HWY93 ! l l KOOTENAY! SECTION
3+000 !l HWY3 HWY95 FLATHEAD ! (
l
! ! LAKE !
l ! ! E-Se-07! !l ! 2000 ! l
! l l ! l 11+500 l ! Creston ! FAULT l 11+000 ! ! E-Se-04 ! (
l 2+500!l 12+000 WHITEFISH
! !
! 2100l l !
2+000 FAULT NYACK1700
l 1700 1+500 !
! !
(( FAULT1500 0+000 ! 2000 l 12+500 !
!
! 1+000 !
13+000 l
0+500 ! 2000
((
l !
2000 13+500 !
..
l
1900 ! (( ! 14+000 2000 ..
l
! 2200
2000l !
.. !
..
.. 15+000 1900
.. ROOSEVELT
!
l
.. ..
.. 14+500
! 2200
.. l! ......
.. ! 2100 FAULT .. 16+000 1900 2000 l
1600 .. 1500 15+500 ! ! !l ! 17+000 2100
2100 1800
16+500 !
1900 ! 18+000
l ! 1900
!
1800 l
! 2200
l l 17+500
! !
! l
l
l ! ! 1400 1700 !
! 18+500 ! l
E-Se-33l 1500 .. ! l
! 1600
l
l 1700 .. ! ! (
! !
1800 2000
! ..
1600 19+000 25+500 ..
! ..
l !19+500 21+000 ! !
!
l l l l ! !
! E-Se-37
!
! l 25+000
! 26+000 ! l
l !
l ! (
20+500 !
l
! ! ..
! 21+500 ! ( 22+000 .. ! ..
E-Se-40 ! ! 24+500
E-Se-38 ..
! ! ! ( 22+500 ! E-Se-49 ((
1900 26+500 ! ! ( ((
2000 23+500 ! 27+500 ..
24+000 ((
!
l
! l
! 27+000 LEGEND l ! ..
28+000 ((
..
((
! !!l !l .. !
l l l KILOMETRE POST
! 1900
!
((
2000 l 28+500 ! 2100 ((
1900 .. FAULT, THRUST, ! ( (( ..
.. E-Se-56 ..
(( 1800
!l 29+000 ! APPROXIMATE
.. 1700
((
((
! 1200 (( ..
l FAULT,(( THRUST, INFERRED
! ((
((
l 29+500
1800 !
!l ((
l ((
!l !
FAULT, NORMAL, INFERRED(( (( ! ((
l
(( ((
! 30+000 ! 1700
l (( ..
(( 1800
((
1700 1400 ..
((
(( FAULT, DETATCHMENT,
!
((
30+500 (( ((
((
((
(( APPROXIMATE
.. ..
((
1600 (( (( ((
1500 ! (( ! (
31+000 .. ((
(( (( PROPOSED PIPELINE
1400 ((
! (
..
E-Se-60(( E-Se-61 (( SECTIONS ((
1900 (( 1700 ((
((
(( TC WESTERN SYSTEM
1600 ((
(( ..
650,000 (( STREAM 650,000
..
((
(( (( 2100 ((
1300 (( ROAD ((
2000 (( ..
(( ((
1900 WATERBODY (( !l
((
.. ((
((
(( DESKTOP SEISMIC HAZARD
1100 ((
!
(( l (( .. .. RATING
(( ((
((
(( !l ((
HIGH .. 1300 1200
1900 !l 1500(( 2100 SCALE 1:75,000 !l 2000
1200 2000 (( 2200 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 !l (( 1100 !l MODERATE!l 1200 1000 2000 !l 1900 !l METRES 2100 (( 1000 (( 1800 1400 1900 !l 2100 (( 1600 1700 LOW THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED2000 OR ENLARGED. 1700 1600 (( 2300 ALL FRACTIONAL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE 2100 (( !l 2200 BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. !( FAULT HAZARDS 5,480,000 1600 (( 5,470,000 5,460,000 (( 1300 2100 2100 ! NOTES: SCALE: l PROJECT: 1:75,000 BRITISH COLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT(( BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE NO.2 NPS 48 ELKO SECTION - (( 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS DATE: !l LTD - BRITISH COLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP NO.2 NPS 48 ELKO SECTION - DESKTOP GEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY (( JUN 2020 BGC ENGINEERING INC. DESKTOP GEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY (( ASSESSMENT", AND DATED JUNE 2020. DRAWN: B G C TITLE: 3. HILLSHADE BASED ON LIDAR PROVIDED BY AIRBORNE IMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 AND GEOBASE CDED DEM RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. STT DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 50 m. CLIENT: SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP CHECKED: 4. TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENT REV B PROVIDED BY FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) LTD LGT ON MAY 27, 2020. TC ENERGY PROJECT No.: DWG No: 5. WATERCOURSE AND WATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASE NATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. APPROVED: 0098187 07 6. HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM IS UNKNOWN. MZ FOOTHILLS PIPE LINES (SOUTH B.C.) LTD. X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\07_Seismic_Hazards_Map.mxd X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\08_Subsidence_Hazards_Map.mxd
2100
6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 1600 1900 2000 1900 650,000 660,000
THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
1,000 1800 MARTEN CREEK MARTEN
1700 2100
1700
ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1900 1900 2000 1800 1600
BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 2000 CORBIN RD CORBIN
TOWARDS
0 1900 2100
1900 0+000 ! 1700 SCALE 1:75,000 SCALE
2100 1500 1600 0+500 METRES
1800 ! 1,000 1+500 ! 1+000 1700 ³ ! 2+500 1600
2000 2,000 1500 2200 ! 2+000
1400 CREEK 2100 1900 COAL PASS !
3+000 ! 3,000 4+000
3+500 !
1900
1300 1800 2100
1200 2000 ! RIDGE LEACH 5+000
4+500
2000 ! 1900 2100 !
5+500 ! 6+500 FERNIE ROAD COAL 6+000 ! 7+000
! 7+500
!
! 2000 8+000 2100 ! 8+500
10+500 ! 5,480,000 5,480,000 11+000 2000 2100 9+000 ! 1900
UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE ! 1800 ! ! 9+500 10+000 ! 1700 12+000
12+500 !
11+500
1900 13+000 1800
1900 1900 MCEVOY CREEK FSR CREEK MCEVOY 13+500 ! 2000
MCEVOY ! CREEK ! 14+500 FSR
2100 ! ! 14+000
! 15+500
1900 ! 15+000
2000 !
1600 2000 1600
2100 16+500
! 16+000 2000 1900 ! 1900 17+500
! 17+000 1900 MORRISSEY FSR MORRISSEY ! 2000 18+500
! 18+000
! 1600 19+500
! 19+000 1300
!
20+500 1800
! 20+000 1900
! 21+500
2000 ! 21+000 LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE
!
5,470,000 1000 22+500 5,470,000
! 22+000 1100 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
!
23+500 2000 1500 23+000 2100
RIVER FSR RIVER !
1700 1800
! 2100 JUN2020 25+000 1:75,000 24+500 24+000 ! LGT STT ! MZ 25+500 ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET
CLIENT: ! B COLUMBIA 26+500 FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.)
BRITISH G ! 2000
HWY3 1900 FLATHEAD C
27+000 ! 26+000 PEAK
1300 Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B 30+500
AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED !
31+000 1800
1900 2000 HWY95 TCENERGY
! ! 2000
! ! 27+500
! ! HWY95 2000 30+000 !
1800 ! Cranbrook 29+500 ! HWY95A 29+000 !
28+500 ! 28+000
2200
2100
1400 1900
2000 1700 HWY93 2000
2000
2100 KOOTENAY 1200 LODGEPOLE CREEK 2100
LAKE
PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: 1900 2200
DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 1400
HAZARD RATINGHAZARD DESKTOP SUBSIDENCE 1500 LEGEND 2300
1500 Fernie HW93
1600 ! 0098187 !
BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP 1700
1100 1800 NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - SUBSIDENCEHAZARDS MAP LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE MODERATE WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE
HWY3 1700
1600 1700 1400
SECTION
2000 1800
1700 ELKO 1200 DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
1900 1900
1700
ALBERTA 1000
5,460,000 5,460,000 1700
08 1800
2100 HWY22 2200
1600
650,000 660,000 1600 1900
1800 1900 2000
2200 1800 1700 1900
1800 2200 ³ 2100 1200 X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\09_Geotechnical_Hazards_Map.mxd
2100
6.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS 5.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 4.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 1600 1900 2000 1900 650,000 660,000
THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
1,000 1800 MARTEN CREEK MARTEN
1700 2100
1700
ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1900 1900 2000 1800 1600
BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. 2000 CORBIN RD CORBIN
TOWARDS
0 1900 2100
1900 0+000 ! 1700 SCALE 1:75,000 SCALE
2100 1500 1600 0+500 METRES
1800 ! 1,000 1+500 ! 1+000 1700 ³ ! 2+500 1600
2000 2,000 1500 2200 ! 2+000
1400 CREEK 2100 1900 COAL PASS !
3+000 ! 3,000 4+000
3+500 !
1900
1300 1800 2100
1200 2000 ! RIDGE LEACH 5+000
4+500
2000 ! 1900 2100 !
5+500 ! 6+500 FERNIE ROAD COAL 6+000 ! 7+000
! 7+500
!
! 2000 8+000 2100 ! 8+500
10+500 ! 5,480,000 5,480,000 11+000 2000 2100 9+000 ! 1900
UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 7.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE ! 1800 ! ! 9+500 10+000 ! 1700 12+000
12+500 !
11+500
1900 13+000 1800
1900 1900 MCEVOY CREEK FSR CREEK MCEVOY 13+500 ! 2000
MCEVOY ! CREEK ! 14+500 FSR
2100 ! ! 14+000
! 15+500
1900 ! 15+000
2000 !
1600 2000 1600
2100 16+500
! 16+000 2000 1900 ! 1900 17+500
! 17+000 1900 MORRISSEY FSR MORRISSEY ! 2000 18+500
! 18+000
! 1600 19+500
! 19+000 1300
!
20+500 1800
! 20+000 1900
! 21+500
2000 ! 21+000 LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE
!
5,470,000 1000 22+500 5,470,000
! 22+000 1100 APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE:
!
23+500 2000 1500 23+000 2100
RIVER FSR RIVER !
1700 1800
! 2100 JUN2020 25+000 1:75,000 24+500 24+000 ! LGT STT ! DG 25+500 ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET
CLIENT: ! B COLUMBIA 26+500 FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.)
BRITISH G ! 2000
HWY3 1900 FLATHEAD C
27+000 ! 26+000 PEAK
1300 Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B 30+500
AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED !
31+000 1800
1900 2000 HWY95 TCENERGY
! ! 2000
! ! 27+500
! ! HWY95 2000 30+000 !
1800 ! Cranbrook 29+500 ! HWY95A 29+000 !
28+500 ! 28+000
2200
2100
1400 1900
2000 1700 HWY93 2000
2000
2100 KOOTENAY 1200 LODGEPOLE CREEK 2100
LAKE
PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: 1900 2200
DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 1400
SOILS, PERMAFROST) SOILS, (PROBLEMATIC/ORGANIC RATINGHAZARD 1500 DESKTOP GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND 2300
1500 Fernie HW93
1600 ! 0098187 !
BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP 1700 1100
GEOTECHNICALHAZARDS MAP 1800 NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE LOW MODERATE WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE
HWY3 1700
1600 1700 1400
SECTION
2000 1800
1700 ELKO 1200 DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
1900 1900
1700
ALBERTA 1000
5,460,000 5,460,000 1700
09 1800
2100 HWY22 2200
1600
650,000 660,000 1600 1900
1800 1900 2000
2200 1800 1700 1900
1800 2200 ³ 2100 1200
X:\Projects\0098\187\GIS\Production\20200427_WASML_Loop2_Alberta_Section\Elko\10_Geochemical_Hazards_Map.mxd INDUSTRIAL MINERALS ACTIVITYMAP. OCCURRENCE DATA FROM IS THE ALBERTADEPARTMENT ENERGY OF METALLIC AND 4. BEDROCK GEOLOGYDATA FROM IS STOCKMALTHE ANDFALLAS (2015) GEOLOGICAL MAP MINERAL AND DATED 2018. CONTOUR INTERVAL m. 50 IS 3.BASED HILLSHADE LIDAR ON PROVIDED BY AIRBORNEIMAGING DATED AUGUST 2012 GEOBASE CDED AND DEM ASSESSMENT", ANDDATED JUNE 2020. LTD BRITISH COLUMBIA - MAINLINELOOP 48 NO.2 SECTION - NPS DESKTOPELKO PRELIMINARYGEOHAZARDS 2.DRAWING THIS MUST CONJUNCTIONIN BE READ BGC'S WITH REPORT PIPE TITLED "FOOTHILLS B.C.)LINES (SOUTH 1. ALLDIMENSIONS AREMETRESIN UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. NOTES: 1600 2100 650,000 660,000 LEGEND
THISDRAWING MAY HAVE OR BEENREDUCED ENLARGED.
1,000 1800
MARTEN CREEK MARTEN
1900 KBM 1800
2000 1700 1600 ALLFRACTIONAL NOTATIONS SCALE INDICATED ARE 1900
! 1700 1600 BASEDON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS.
0+000 1900 JrCt-MoMM
WATERBODY ROAD STREAM SYSTEM TC WESTERN SECTIONS PIPELINE PROPOSED POST KILOMETRE 2000 CORBIN RD CORBIN TOWARDS 0
1900 ! 1500 2100 1:75,000 SCALE 1+000 KG 0+500 METRES
1800 ! 1,000
! 2+000 1700 ³ ! 1+500 1900 1600 2,000 2000 !
1400 CREEK
2200 COAL PASS 2100
2+500 ! 1300 3+500 HAZARD RATINGHAZARD DESKTOP GEOCHEMICAL MINERAL OCCURENCES ! KE 3+000 3,000
2100
1500 ") ") ! 1900 4+000
1800 1800
2000 LOW MODERATE 1200 HIGH OCCURRENCES NON-SULPHIDE/METAL OCCURRENCES SULPHIDE/METAL/COAL ! RIDGE LEACH JF 4+500
2000 !
5+500 1900 ! 5+000
! FERNIE ROAD COAL 6+000 ! 7+000
6+500 !
! KCd 8+000 7+500
GEOLOGIC UNIT GEOLOGIC ! 1900 KCDG KBM
KBs KCd 2000 KC 2100 ! 8+500
10+500 ! 5,480,000 5,480,000 FORMATIONCARDIUM FORMATIONS GLADSTONE AND DALHOUSIE, CADOMIN, FORMATIONCADOMIN FORMATION BLACKSTONE FORMATION BEAVER MINES 11+000 9+000
KCDG ! 1900
! 1800 9+500 UPONRELIANCE DOCUMENT THIS OR CONTENT ITS BY THIRDPARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRDPARTIES' RISK. SOLE ARISINGIN ANYWAY FROM ANYUSE OR MODIFICATION OF DOCUMENT THIS NOT AUTHORIZEDBY BGC. ANYUSEOR OF OTHER THAN WHICH PURPOSETHE FOR BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANYORDAMAGES LOSS 9.BGCUNLESS AGREES OTHERWISEWRITING,IN DRAWING THIS SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANYPURPOSE 8.HORIZONTAL PROJECTION IS 1983 NAD UTM ZONE 11. VERTICAL DATUM UNKNOWN. IS BEDROCK ALONGTHE ALIGNMENT. 7.GEOCHEMICALTHE HAZARD RATING DISPLAYED DOES NOT INTEGRATELIKELIHOODTHE INTERSECTING OF SHALLOW 6.WATERCOURSE ANDWATERBODY DATA FROM GEOBASENATIONAL HYDRO NETWORK. MAY ON 2020. 27, 5.TC WESTPATH EXPANSION LOOPS ALIGNMENTPROVIDEDREV B BY FOOTHILLS LINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD B.C.) ! ! 10+000 ! 1700 12+000
12+500 ! 11+500
1900 13+000
MCEVOY CREEK FSR CREEK MCEVOY 1900 13+500 ! 2000
MCEVOY ! CREEK ! 14+500 FSR !
1800 ! 14+000
DMEB ! DFSA MEt 15+500 KE JF ")
! 15+000 FERNIE FORMATION FERNIE FORMATIONS 2000 SASSENACH AND ALEXO FAIRHOLME GROUP AND FORMATIONS EXSHAW BANFF AND FORMATION ETHERINGTON FORMATIONELK
! 1600
2100 16+500 2000
! 16+000 KWpT KBM
! 1600 17+500
! 17+000 1900 MORRISSEY FSR MORRISSEY KG ! 2000 KMC
18+000 1700 ! 19+000
! KC 18+500 JKMoM MMH CFW KMC MLv KG KBs ! 20+000
MOUNT HEAD FORMATION MOUNT HEAD MOUNTAINFORMATIONS MORRISSEY MIST AND MILL FORMATION CREEK FORMATION LIVINGSTONE FORMATIONGLADSTONE MOUNTAINFORMATIONS ELKO, WINDSOR AND FLATHEAD, GORDON, ! 19+500
1800 1600 ! 1900 21+000 ! 20+500
2000 ! JrCt-MoMM 21+500 LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE
22+000 ! 5,470,000
5,470,000 1000
! 1100 23+000 22+500 KCd KE APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: !
PPRM KWpT
TSR 2000 PRv DP 1500 2100
RIVER FSR RIVER !
23+500 1700 1800
CREEK FORMATIONSCREEK WAPIABI TELEGRAPH AND SPRAY GROUP RIVER FORMATIONROOSVILLE SUPERGROUP ROCKY MOUNTAIN PALLISER FORMATION 2100 ! 24+500 JUN2020 25+000 1:75,000 24+000 ! LGT STT ! SB
25+500 1900 1400 ! (CROWSNEST (CROWSNEST AREA) COLUMBIA BRITISH OF CORNER SOUTHEAST OF THE VIEW INSET
CLIENT: ! B COLUMBIA FOOTHILLSLINES PIPE (SOUTH LTD. B.C.) BRITISH
G ! HWY3
FLATHEAD 2000 C ! 26+000 PEAK Kimberley ENGI NG NC. C IN G IN R E E IN G N E C G B AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY SCIENCES EARTH AN APPLIED
27+000 !
26+500 2000 30+000 31+000 29+500 HWY95 TCENERGY 29+000 JF
1200 !
28+500 ! 28+000 ! 30+500 ! 1800 27+500
! ! HWY95 !
! Cranbrook ! HWY95A ! !
2100 ") 1500
2100 DP ") HWY93 1900 KOOTENAY LODGEPOLE CREEK 2000 LAKE PROJECT No.: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT: 1100 DESKTOPGEOHAZARDS PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT DMEB
1500 Fernie 2300 HWY93 CFW !
0098187 1600 BRITISHCOLUMBIA MAINLINE LOOP GEOCHEMICALHAZARDS MAP NO.2NPS ELKO 48 SECTION - LODGEPOLE FSR LODGEPOLE HWY3
1700 1600
SECTION 1300 1300 MLv
ELKO
1700 MEt 1200 DWG No: DWG Attachment 13
2000 PPRM 1900
1800 1900
1600
DFSA 1700 ALBERTA 5,460,000
5,460,000 PRv 1700 1600 10 MMH HWY22
Tr-SR 2100 650,000 660,000 1000 1700 1900 1800 1900 2000
2200 2200 ³ 1200 Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX A DESCRIPTIVE LIST OF ALL GEOHAZARD CLASSES AND TYPES
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table A-1. Descriptive list of all geohazard types included in this assessment, including comments on occurrence and impact. Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Landslide Rock fall Fragments or large mass of Steep rock slopes Steep rock cuts Buried and above-ground Above-ground rock detach from a steep infrastructure. infrastructure located rock face and travel Construction safety. downslope of RoW grade downslope independently cuts with a free falling, bouncing, or rolling motion. Includes seismically triggered events.
Rockslide Fragments or large mass of Steep rock slopes Steep rock cuts Buried and above-ground Above-ground rock detach from a steep infrastructure. infrastructure located rock face and travel Construction safety. downslope of RoW grade downslope rapidly as a cuts coherent mass before breaking up with increased travel distance from the source area. Includes seismically triggered events.
Rock avalanche Large coherent rock mass Steep distressed N/A Buried and above-ground N/A releases from a steep mountain slopes infrastructure mountainside, breaking up and developing flow-like behavior and long travel distance. Includes seismically triggered events.
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Earth landslide A mass of soil or very weak, Slopes with Cut slopes in Buried and above-ground Buried and above-ground highly weathered rock that unstable rock or unstable rock or soil. infrastructure infrastructure. Release of moves primarily by sliding soil Fill placed on debris from the RoW on a basal shear surface, unstable rock or soil. outside of permitted potentially accompanied by Thawing workspace. internal deformation. winter-placed fill. Includes all deep-seated, slowly and rapidly moving landslides in soil or very weak rock. Often associated with saturation with water. May accelerate and move suddenly several meters or tens of meters or develop flow-like behaviour. Includes earth flow/slide/spread/slump. Includes seismically triggered events.
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Debris A shallow layer of weak soil Steep slopes Steep soil cuts. Fill Above-ground Above-ground slide/avalanche or weathered rock overlying (particularly those placed on steep infrastructure for upslope infrastructure located more competent soil or with existing scars slopes with loose sources. Buried and downslope of RoW bedrock that detaches and locally) overburden soils, or above-ground slides rapidly down a steep due to alteration of infrastructure for RoW slope. Debris surface or sources. slides/avalanches may near-surface entrain additional material as drainage they slide down slope and can evolve into debris flows if they enter a channel with sufficient water. Includes seismically triggered events.
Snow/ice avalanche Extremely rapid to rapid Steep, Steep cut slopes Above-ground N/A release of snowpack layers snow-covered may be capable of infrastructure. or seasonal/glacial ice and slopes producing snow Construction safety. snow which break up and avalanches develop flow-like behaviour and long runouts. May be wet or dry.
Debris flow Granular debris/water mixed Steep creeks and N/A Buried and above-ground N/A flows (debris dominated) colluvial/alluvial infrastructure which emanate from upslope fans basins or existing aggraded channels and run onto lower angle terrain, forming colluvial cones and fans.
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Debris flood Granular debris/water mixed Steep creeks, N/A Buried and above-ground N/A flows (water dominated) alluvial fans and infrastructure which emanate from upslope some floodplains basins and run onto lower angle terrain, forming alluvial fans.
Outburst flood Debris-rich flows in existing Floodplains N/A Buried and above-ground N/A river network generated by downstream from infrastructure sudden release and rapid dammed lakes drainage of upstream storage in landslide- dammed, moraine-dammed, beaver-dammed, proglacial or subglacial lakes.
Hydrotechnical Scour of the channel Scour can happen at any Channel bed Changes to the Buried infrastructure Nearby in-stream bed location where local flow elevation and within channel infrastructure velocities increase as a erodibility of the result of secondary currents channel bed. developing within a uniform Changes to the flow situation. Scour also channel occurs when the direction of cross-section. flow is changed at channel bends, confluences, constrictions, obstructions, and impingements. Scour is considered event-based.
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Degradation of the Degradation is the process Channel bed Changes to the Buried infrastructure Nearby in-stream channel bed of a general lowering of the elevation and within channel. infrastructure channel bed and is the result erodibility of the of the process of channel channel bed. morphology reaching Changes to the equilibrium with the existing channel cross- flow regime (Ulrich et al., section. 2005). Diversion of additional discharge to the channel.
Bank erosion Patterns of sediment Channel banks Change in the Buried and above-ground Nearby in-stream (pipeline alignment transport and deposition erodibility of bank infrastructure. infrastructure. Above- traverses the naturally cause the channel material. ground infrastructure watercourse). banks to migrate laterally, Change in the located in the riparian Encroachment (bank resulting in bank erosion. alignment of the area. erosion where the watercourse. pipeline alignment is Change in the bank adjacent to the shape. watercourse)
Avulsion Avulsion, also referred to as Alluvial fans Diversion channels Buried and above-ground Nearby in-stream outflanking, or Wide floodplains created to aid in infrastructure. infrastructure such as abandonment, occurs when construction not pipelines. streams leave their present adequately Stream crossings located channel and establish a new rehabilitated. on the avulsion channel. channel. Any infrastructure located on the alluvial fan or floodplain.
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Seismic Seismic ground Ground shaking due to Seismic hazard N/A Buried and above-ground N/A shaking earthquake. zones, areas of infrastructure. oil/gas extraction
Seismic liquefaction Liquefaction and differential Saturated, N/A Buried and above-ground N/A movement of foundation cohesionless soils infrastructure. soils due to earthquake shaking (subsidence, buoyancy, lateral spreading and flow sliding).
Surface fault rupture Differential movement Faults N/A Buried infrastructure. N/A across the surface expression of faults during earthquakes.
Subsidence
Karst subsidence Vertical movement collapse Soluble bedrock N/A Buried and above-ground N/A or loss of foundation soils infrastructure, potential due to presence of negative effects to karst subsurface voids, caves, resources. caverns in soluble bedrock. Safety risk to heavy equipment during construction.
Mine subsidence Vertical movement collapse Areas of N/A Buried and above-ground N/A or loss of foundation soils underground infrastructure. due to the presence of mining Safety risk to heavy subsurface mine workings. equipment during construction.
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Construction- Natural Possible Project Third-Party Impacts Geohazard Description induced occurrences Impacts from Project occurrences Thick compressible Vertical movement caused Thick deposits of Winter-placed/poorly Buried and above-ground soils by the settling of a organics or young, compacted fill infrastructure. compressible layer. under-consolidated silt or clay.
Fluid-withdrawal Differential vertical Areas of oil/gas N/A Buried and above-ground N/A subsidence movement due to extraction, or large infrastructure. hydrocarbon extraction or water wells, groundwater withdrawal (high capacity water wells can cause widespread subsidence) nearby.
Geotechnical
Problematic Soils with a propensity to N/A Changes to water Buried and above-ground Buried and above-ground (Expansive or swell or collapse with content in fine- infrastructure. infrastructure collapsible) soils changes in water content, grained soils and associated stability challenges.
Permafrost Unstable conditions induced Alpine permafrost Excavation or Buried and above-ground Buried and above-ground degradation by thawing of permafrost. disturbance in alpine infrastructure. infrastructure permafrost
Peat/organic soils Organic soils and associated Peat Excavation in peat Buried and above-ground N/A poor foundation conditions, infrastructure. including buoyancy and subsidence issues.
Geochemical ARD-ML Acid rock drainage and/or N/A Excavation into or N/A Environmental metal leaching. exposure of acid- generating bedrock
Appendix A - Descriptive List of all Geohazard Classes and Types A-7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX B RATIONALE FOR CLASSIFICATION FOR LANDSLIDE, SUBSIDENCE, GEOTECHNICAL, AND SEISMIC HAZARDS RATING
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table B-1. Rationale for hazard classification of landslide, subsidence, geotechnical, and seismic hazards. Hazard Rating Low: Standard Moderate: Field review High: Detailed field review Geohazard Non-credible: Hazard not construction practice and typical mitigations and site-specific present or not a threat likely adequate to likely required mitigation likely required manage the hazard Landslide Rock fall Rockfall sources not present at Engineered cuts or potential Rockfall sources above the Rockfall sources above RoW or above RoW natural source areas above RoW with some evidence of with evidence of large rockfalls RoW with limited evidence of past rockfall activity in the reaching the RoW past rockfall activity in the vicinity of the RoW vicinity of the RoW
Rock slide Rockslide sources not present Engineered cuts or natural Evidence of past rockslide Evidence of recent or incipient above RoW source areas with some events that reached the RoW rockslides that could reach the potential to produce rockslides or close to it RoW in the vicinity of the RoW
Rock avalanche Rock avalanche sources not Steep rocky mountain tops Evidence of past or potential Evidence of recent or incipient present above the RoW above the RoW with unknown rock avalanche rock avalanches that could potential to produce rock occurrence that could reach reach RoW avalanches RoW
Earth landslide Slopes with landside-prone Slopes and landslide-prone Evidence of past landslide Fresh or incipient landslides materials not present materials present at or above activity at or adjacent to the present at or adjacent to the RoW but no evidence of RoW RoW previous landslide activity
Debris Debris slide/avalanche Steep slopes with potential Evidence of debris slide scars Evidence of frequent or slide/avalanche sources not present above the debris veneer present above present on slopes above RoW repeated debris slides reaching RoW the RoW the RoW
Snow/ice avalanche Avalanche paths/terrain not Steep slopes with potential to Defined snow avalanche paths Defined snow avalanche paths present at or above RoW release avalanches above adjacent to RoW/valve reach the RoW/valve locations RoW/valve locations locations
Appendix B - Rationale for Classification B-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Hazard Rating Low: Standard Moderate: Field review High: Detailed field review Geohazard Non-credible: Hazard not construction practice and typical mitigations and site-specific present or not a threat likely adequate to likely required mitigation likely required manage the hazard Debris flow Steep creek and/or colluvial Steep creek with limited debris Steep creek with potential Steep creek with debris source fan/cone not present at RoW source and no colluvial fan source area and inactive and active colluvial fan deposit deposit colluvial fan deposit
Debris flood Steep creek and alluvial fan Steep creek with limited debris Steep creek with potential Steep creek with debris source not present at RoW source and no alluvial fan source area and inactive and active alluvial fan deposit deposit alluvial fan deposit
Outburst flood No landslide or Mature moraine or landslide N/A Fresh or eroding moraine or moraine-dammed lake dammed lake upstream of landslide dammed lake upstream of RoW right of way upstream of RoW
Subsidence Karst subsidence Soluble bedrock not present Soluble bedrock present; no Soluble bedrock present; Soluble bedrock and confirmed subsidence features identified potential karst subsidence karst features present nearby features nearby
Mine subsidence No known mine workings in Potential shallow mine Known mine workings Recognized mine subsidence in area workings underlying RoW underlying RoW vicinity of RoW
Thick compressible No deposits of organics or Potentially compressible soils Compressible soils present in Evidence of thick compressible soils young, under-consolidated silt present in limited thickness limited thickness and extent soils and past subsidence or clay and extent
Fluid-withdrawal No hydrocarbon or major Hydrocarbon or major Evidence of past subsidence Evidence of recent or incipient subsidence groundwater extraction nearby groundwater extraction in area events in the vicinity of subsidence events in vicinity of hydrocarbon or major hydrocarbon or major groundwater extractions groundwater extraction
Appendix B - Rationale for Classification B-2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Hazard Rating Low: Standard Moderate: Field review High: Detailed field review Geohazard Non-credible: Hazard not construction practice and typical mitigations and site-specific present or not a threat likely adequate to likely required mitigation likely required manage the hazard Geotechnical Problematic Expansive/collapsible soils not Expansive/collapsible unlikely Expansive/collapsible soils Expansive/collapsible soils (Expansive or present be present identified in mapping present collapsible) soils
Permafrost Permafrost not present Permafrost possible based on Permafrost present in the area Permafrost present at RoW degradation aspect/elevation of the RoW
Peat/organic soils Peat/organic soils not present Thin or sporadic peat/organic Peat/organic soils of limited Thick, extensive peat/organic soils may be present thickness and extent identified deposits present in mapping
Seismic Liquefaction No liquefaction susceptibility Low relative liquefaction Moderate relative liquefaction High relative liquefaction hazard: hazard: hazard: All susceptibility classes High susceptibility where High susceptibility where where 1:2475 PGA<0.1g 0.1g≤1:2475 PGA<0.2g 1:2475 PGA≥0.2g Low and moderate Moderate susceptibility susceptibility where where 1:2475 PGA≥0.2g 0.1g≤1:2475 PGA<0.2g Low susceptibility where 1:2475 PGA≥0.2g
Appendix B - Rationale for Classification B-3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Hazard Rating Low: Standard Moderate: Field review High: Detailed field review Geohazard Non-credible: Hazard not construction practice and typical mitigations and site-specific present or not a threat likely adequate to likely required mitigation likely required manage the hazard Surface faulting No mapped faults or Mapped pre-Quaternary Any of the following: Any of the following: observable lineaments bedrock fault with no Mapped pre-Quaternary Mapped Quaternary fault associated observable bedrock fault with no Observable topographic topographic lineament in an associated observable lineament that offsets area with LiDAR coverage topographic lineament in Quaternary sediments an area with no LiDAR Historical seismicity coverage concentrated along a Mapped pre-Quaternary mapped Quaternary or bedrock fault with an pre-Quaternary fault associated observable topographic lineament in an area with LiDAR coverage, where the lineament is truncated by Pleistocene (glacial) or older deposits
Co-seismic landslides Nothing above class1 1-3 Some 4 Lots of class 4-5
Appendix B - Rationale for Classification B-4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX C LANDSLIDE HAZARDS INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table C-1. Landslide hazard inventory. Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-L-01 0+050 0+140 90 5487220 658301 5487135 658272 Rockfall Low Potential rockfall source identified in terrain mapping, unlikely runout to RoW
(East side) Evidence of distress and movement along both sides of the valley here. E-L-02 0+150 1+600 1450 5487125 658270 5485776 658669 Earth landslide Moderate Pipeline traverses below the east side. Expect slow movement but field review required.
(West side) Evidence of distress and movement along both sides of the valley here. E-L-03 0+325 1+200 875 5486955 658227 5486122 658473 Earth landslide Low Pipeline traverses below the east side. Expect slow movement but field review required.
E-L-04 0+675 1+600 925 5486615 658298 5485776 658669 Debris slide Low Traverse below steep slope with potential debris slides.
E-L-05 0+975 1+600 625 5486332 658391 5485776 658669 Snow avalanche Moderate Traverse below steep slope with potential debris slides.
E-L-06 1+150 1+200 50 5486169 658455 5486122 658473 Debris flow Low Crossing colluvial blanket from steep creek
E-L-07 1+575 1+600 25 5485797 658655 5485776 658669 Debris flood Low Crossing near apex of colluvial fan
E-L-08 2+275 2+400 125 5485350 659176 5485266 659269 Debris flow Moderate Crossing mid-fan
Suspect potential for debris flood here given conditions in catchment (debris sources, E-L-09 2+600 2+700 100 5485127 659409 5485030 659431 Debris flood Low landslide features)
Generally distressed slope above right of way for this entire interval. Evidence of past E-L-10 3+700 4+750 1050 5484221 659944 5483190 660095 Earth landslide Low movement. Broad low-angle separation between slope and right of way. Requires field review
Right of way traverses across the toe of a potential landslide deposit and adjacent to E-L-11 4+750 5+000 250 5483190 660095 5482947 660157 Earth landslide Moderate distressed slope. Requires field review.
E-L-12 5+125 5+250 125 5482835 660208 5482729 660274 Debris slide Low Potential debris slide scars upslope. Pipeline in deposition zone.
Pipeline traverses slope with evidence of potential landslide movement. Downstream end of this interval should be reviewed closely in the field to understand current and E-L-13 11+975 12+250 275 5478349 658982 5478149 658800 Earth landslide Moderate potential movement rates. Note fresh landslide feature over ridge to south for potential analogue.
Appendix C - Landslide Hazard Inventory C-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-L-14 12+250 12+700 450 5477866 658464 5477920 658546 Earth landslide Low Traverse of potential landslide-prone slope, adjacent to more obvious landslide features
E-L-15 24+900 25+700 800 5467156 654678 5466564 655060 Snow avalanche Low Snow avalanche terrain.
Expect rockfall hazard at crest and on steep descent, depending on cuts required. E-L-16 25+700 26+800 1100 5465811 654280 5466083 654571 Rockfall Moderate Minimal natural sources.
E-L-17 25+700 26+400 700 5466564 655060 5466564 655060 Snow avalanche Moderate Snow avalanche terrain.
Appendix C - Landslide Hazard Inventory C-2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX D POTENTIAL HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD SITE INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table D-1. Potential hydrotechnical hazard sites inventory. Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
B1 - Single Channel - E-H-01 0+130 5487149 658277 Crossing Low Straight 1.8 0.04 - - - Moderate Sinuosity
B1 - Single Channel - E-H-02 0+610 5486677 658286 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 3.6 0.07 - - - Moderate Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-03 0+980 5486327 658392 Crossing Low Straight 4.5 0.35 - - - Low Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-04 01+000 5486308 658399 Crossing Low Straight 4.5 0.35 - - - Low Sinuosity
S4 - WX- A - Single 236.1 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-05 01+057 5486258 658420 Crossing Moderate Straight 4.5 0.9 100.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity Leach Creek
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-06 01+103 5486214 658437 Crossing Low Straight 3.8 0.5 101.00-WC Watercourse 236.2 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-07 01+173 5486155 658460 Crossing Low Straight 5.7 0.38 - - - Low Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
A - Single Channel - E-H-08 01+185 5486143 658465 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 1.7 0.7 - - - Low Sinuosity
S4 - WX- A - Single 246 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-09 01+605 5485772 658671 Crossing Moderate Straight 7.5 0.19 102.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity Leach Creek
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-10 02+093 5485473 659040 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 5 0.58 103.00-WC Watercourse 246.1 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-11 02+405 5485264 659271 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 17.5 0.22 104.00-WC Watercourse 250 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
S6 - WX- A - Single 250.1 - Channel - E-H-12 02+513 5485191 659351 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 1.8 0.12 105.00-WC Watercourse Unnamed Low Tributary to Sinuosity leach creek
S3 - WX- A - Single 272 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-13 02+662 5485066 659423 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 6.8 0.11 106.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity Leach Creek
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-14 02+896 5484841 659478 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 3 0.05 107.00-WC Watercourse 272.1 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
A - Single Channel - E-H-15 03+050 5484693 659546 Encroachment Low Gentle Bend 19.6 0.02 - - - Low Sinuosity
Erosion evident across the adjacent E-H-16 03+380 5484482 659755 Crossing Low 1.86 0.02 - - - right of way.
Erosion evident across the adjacent E-H-17 03+480 5484392 659805 Crossing Low 5.5 0.01 - - - right of way.
S3 - WX- B1 - Single 278 - Channel - Moderate Unnamed E-H-18 03+593 5484306 659876 Crossing Moderate 8.5 0.03 108.00-WC Watercourse Moderate Bend Tributary to Sinuosity Leach Creek
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-19 04+738 5483175 660099 Crossing Low Straight 5.3 0.05 109.00-WC Watercourse 278.1 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single S2 - WX- Channel - E-H-20 05+467 5482532 660352 Crossing Moderate Straight 17 0.04 110.00-WC Watercourse 260 - Leach Low Creek Sinuosity
B2 - Single Channel - Moderate E-H-21 05+750 5482284 660462 Encroachment Moderate 5.1 0.035 - - - High Bend Sinuosity
B2 - Single S2 - WX- Channel - E-H-22 05+800 5482250 660504 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 5.1 0.035 111.00-WC Watercourse 284 - Leach High Creek Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-23 06+441 5481792 660944 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 2.8 0.035 112.00-WC Watercourse 242 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-24 06+500 5481740 660975 Encroachment Low Gentle Bend 7.2 0.03 - - - Low Sinuosity
A - Single S2 - WX- Channel - Moderate E-H-25 07+047 5481323 661318 Crossing Moderate 11 0.04 114.00-WC Watercourse 234 - Leach Low Bend Creek Sinuosity
S3 - WX- A - Single 235B - Channel - Unnamed E-H-26 07+983 5480585 661534 Crossing Moderate Straight 4.7 0.02 118.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity Leach Creek
S4 - WX- B1 - Single 264 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-27 08+434 5480237 661319 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 5.7 0.32 124.00-WC Watercourse Moderate Tributary to Sinuosity McEvoy Creek
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-28 10+330 5479397 659995 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 4 0.15 126.00-WC Watercourse 252 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
S2 - WX- E - No LiDAR coverage. Inputs based Severe 274 - E-H-29 11+108 5479082 659408 Crossing Moderate Wandering 8.8 0.01 130.00-WC Watercourse on CDEM/Google Earth Bend McEvoy River Creek
A - Single NCD - WX- Potential existing ditch located Channel - E-H-30 12+604 5477919 658546 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 3 0.15 135.00-WC Watercourse 274.1 - along proposed alignment. Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single NCD - WX- Potential existing ditch located Channel - E-H-31 12+849 5477814 658322 Crossing Low Straight 2.6 0.23 136.00-WC Watercourse 274.2 - along proposed alignment. Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single Potential existing ditch located Channel - E-H-32 12+973 5477778 658204 Crossing Low Straight 5.5 0.39 - - - along proposed alignment. Low Sinuosity
A - Single Potential existing ditch located Channel - E-H-33 12+992 5477773 658188 Crossing Low Straight 8.3 0.45 - - - along proposed alignment. Low Sinuosity
A - Single Potential existing ditch located Channel - E-H-34 13+084 5477740 658102 Crossing Low Straight 12.6 0.24 - - - along proposed alignment. Low Sinuosity
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-35 13+588 5477467 657698 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 2.7 0.3 137.00-WC Watercourse 274.3 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-36 13+720 5477391 657570 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 2.7 0.24 138.00-WC Watercourse 274.4 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-37 13+825 5477334 657482 Crossing Low Straight 6.6 0.23 139.00-WC Watercourse 274.5 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
S4 - WX- A - Single 274.6 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-38 13+994 5477240 657342 Crossing Low Straight 5.7 0.11 140.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity McEvoy Creek
S4 - WX- A - Single 254 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-39 14+141 5477157 657220 Crossing Moderate Straight 18.3 0.13 141.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity McEvoy Creek
S4 - WX- 14+150 to 14+370. Low relief A - Single 254 - Avulsion, channel, obstruction can easily Channel - Unnamed E-H-40 14+200 5477124 657171 Low Straight 18.3 0.13 - Watercourse Encroachment force avulsion. Pipe is generally Low Tributary to downslope from creek Sinuosity McEvoy Creek
S6 - WX- B1 - Single 254.1 - Channel - Moderate Unnamed E-H-41 15+961 5475625 656342 Crossing Low 2 0.1 142.00-WC Watercourse Moderate Bend Tributary to Sinuosity Flathead River
B1 - Single Channel - Moderate E-H-42 16+360 5475244 656224 Encroachment Low 6.3 0.14 - - - Moderate Bend Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
- WX-238 - B1 - Single Unnamed Channel - E-H-43 16+484 5475127 656183 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 4.1 0.02 145.00-WC Watercourse Tributary to Moderate Flathead Sinuosity River
A - Single Channel - E-H-44 16+680 5474941 656119 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 7.8 0.03 - - - Low Sinuosity
A - Single Potential ditch between 18+10 and Channel - E-H-45 18+070 5473597 655775 Crossing Low 18+280 would be encroachment Gentle Bend 4 0.23 - - - Low hazard. Relocate ditch if needed Sinuosity
- WX-268 - B1 - Single Unnamed Channel - E-H-46 18+884 5472861 655440 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 24.3 0.07 149.00-WC Watercourse Tributary to Moderate Flathead Sinuosity River
A - Single Channel - E-H-47 19+810 5471969 655194 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 3.4 0.18 - - - Low Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-48 20+320 5471472 655080 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 3.6 0.22 - - - Low Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-49 20+450 5471345 655053 Crossing Low Gentle Bend 1.8 0.29 - - - Low Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
- WX-280 - A - Single Unnamed Channel - E-H-50 21+549 5470272 654816 Crossing Moderate Straight 6.2 0.1 150.00-WC Watercourse Tributary to Low Flathead Sinuosity River
S3 - WX- A - Single 270 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-51 21+920 5469912 654737 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 6.1 0.03 151.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity Flathead River
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - E-H-52 22+026 5469805 654712 Crossing Low Straight 27.1 0.04 152.00-WC Watercourse 270.1 - Low Drainage Sinuosity
A - Single Channel - E-H-53 23+460 5468412 654380 Crossing Low Site identified in stream network. Straight 10.3 0.11 - - - Low Sinuosity
S6 - WX- A - Single 266 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-54 23+774 5468101 654367 Crossing Low Straight 6 0.14 154.00-WC Watercourse Low Tributary to Sinuosity Flathead River
A - Single NCD - WX- Channel - Moderate E-H-55 23+901 5467974 654355 Crossing Moderate 4.2 0.06 155.00-WC Watercourse 262 - Low Bend Drainage Sinuosity
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-8 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Local Chainage Regional Crossing Stream Hazard Local Bankfull Channel Site ID Geohazard ID (080306-2019-SH- Hazard Type Observations Channel Information Class Rating Geometry Width (m) Gradient (Midwest) 08-0001 Rev B) Pattern (Midwest) (Midwest) Northing Easting (m/m)
S4 - WX- B1 - Single 258 - Channel - Unnamed E-H-56 24+327 5467548 654347 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 4.6 0.05 156.00-WC Watercourse Moderate Tributary to Sinuosity Flathead River
A - Single Channel - E-H-57 24+840 5467179 654619 Crossing Low Straight 1.3 0.07 - - - Low Sinuosity
A - Single No LiDAR coverage. Unable to Channel - E-H-58 28+440 5464734 653519 Crossing Low Straight - - - - - identify in CDEM/Google Earth Low Sinuosity
B1 - Single - WX-276 - No LiDAR coverage. Inputs based Channel - E-H-59 28+528 5464750 653431 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 12.5 0.12 170.00-WC Watercourse Pioneer on CDEM/Google Earth Moderate Creek Sinuosity
- WX-244 - B1 - Single Unnamed No LiDAR coverage. Inputs based Channel - Moderate E-H-60 28+564 5464756 653397 Crossing Moderate 9.8 0.1 171.00-WC Watercourse Tributary to on CDEM/Google Earth Moderate Bend Pioneer Sinuosity Creek
- WX-282 - B1 - Single Unnamed No LiDAR coverage. Inputs based Channel - E-H-61 28+865 5464811 653101 Crossing Moderate Gentle Bend 8.7 0.09 173.00-WC Watercourse Tributary to on CDEM/Google Earth Moderate Pioneer Sinuosity Creek
S4 - WX- A - Single 256 - No LiDAR coverage. Inputs based Channel - E-H-62 30+769 5465153 651292 Crossing Low Straight 5.7 0.15 175.00-WC Watercourse Unnamed on CDEM/Google Earth Low Tributary to Sinuosity Bean Creek
Appendix D - Hydrotechnical Hazard Inventory D-9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX E SEISMIC HAZARDS INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table E-1. Seismic hazard inventory. Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-Se-01 0+000 6+60 660 5487270 658309 5486630 658296 Landslide Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping colluvial deposits near the valley floor.
Alignment crosses moderately sloping colluvial aprons and fans near the valley floor. E-Se-02 8+50 2+500 1650 5486446 658341 5485199 659343 Landslide High Earthquake-triggered shallow translational earth or debris slides are credible.
E-Se-03 1+600 2+400 800 5485776 658669 5485266 659269 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping colluvial aprons and fans near the valley floor.
Flathead fault crossing. West-dipping normal fault. Fault is tentatively interpreted as E-Se-04 2+290 2+290 0 5485340 659187 Fault Moderate concealed by glacial and postglacial deposits, but a few linear features follow the trace and warrant field review.
Alignment crosses a colluvial fan and modern creek valley. Flows and lateral spreads of E-Se-05 2+400 2+700 300 5485266 659269 5485030 659431 Liquefaction High liquefied soil are credible.
Alignment crosses postglacial fluvial terraces. Lateral spreads of liquefied soil are E-Se-06 2+850 3+650 800 5484885 659461 5484260 659913 Liquefaction High credible.
Unnamed normal fault crossing, dipping to the west. Weak expression in upland bedrock E-Se-07 3+110 3+110 0 5484670 659589 Fault Low to the north. Fault is concealed by glacial and postglacial deposits.
E-Se-08 3+650 5+100 1450 5484260 659913 5482856 660195 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses glaciofluvial terraces.
Alignment crosses modern stream channel and floodplain. Lateral spreads of liquefied E-Se-09 5+440 5+520 80 5482558 660348 5482479 660360 Liquefaction High soil are credible.
E-Se-10 5+520 6+300 780 5482479 660360 5481909 660867 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses glaciofluvial terraces.
Alignment crosses postglacial fluvial terraces. Lateral spreads of liquefied soil are E-Se-11 6+300 6+600 300 5481909 660867 5481656 661028 Liquefaction High credible.
Alignment crosses modern stream channel and floodplain. Lateral spreads of liquefied E-Se-12 7+000 7+070 70 5481354 661284 5481308 661336 Liquefaction High soil are credible.
Alignment descends and follows a series of terrace risers that are debris slide sources. E-Se-13 7+890 8+100 210 5480668 661581 5480499 661460 Landslide Moderate Earthquake-triggered debris slides are credible.
Alignment crosses modern wetland and floodplain. Settlement of liquefied soils is E-Se-14 7+940 8+060 120 5480625 661556 5480524 661491 Liquefaction High credible.
Appendix E - Seismic Hazard Inventory E-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-Se-15 8+060 8+900 840 5480524 661491 5479777 661305 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses glaciofluvial deposits and till.
Flathead fault crossing. West-dipping normal fault. Fault is tentatively interpreted as E-Se-16 8+200 8+200 0 5480423 661394 Fault Moderate concealed by glacial and postglacial deposits, but a few linear features follow the trace and warrant field review.
E-Se-17 9+040 9+200 160 5479671 661214 5479566 661095 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
E-Se-18 9+280 9+560 280 5479544 661018 5479469 660748 Landslide Low Alignment crosses a moderately sloping colluvial apron near the valley floor.
E-Se-19 9+280 9+950 670 5479544 661018 5479368 660372 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses a moderately sloping colluvial apron near the valley floor.
E-Se-20 10+200 11+060 860 5479376 660124 5479129 659418 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses a gently sloping colluvial apron near the valley floor.
E-Se-21 10+500 11+030 530 5479409 659827 5479158 659425 Landslide Low Alignment crosses a moderately sloping colluvial apron near the valley floor.
Alignment crosses modern wetlands, channels, and flood plains. Lateral spreads of E-Se-22 11+060 11+250 190 5479129 659418 5478943 659378 Liquefaction High liquefied soils are credible.
E-Se-23 11+250 11+480 230 5478943 659378 5478748 659274 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
Alignment crosses Beaver Mines Formation dip-slope bedrock slumps and colluvial E-Se-24 11+980 12+500 520 5478344 658979 5477989 658619 Landslide High aprons across moderately sloping terrain. Earthquake-triggered reactivation of deep- seated slumps is credible.
E-Se-25 12+260 12+800 540 5478143 658792 5477830 658371 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses a gently sloping colluvial apron near the valley floor.
Alignment crosses colluvial aprons downslope of deep-seated Beaver Mines Formation E-Se-26 12+500 12+800 300 5477989 658619 5477830 658371 Landslide Low slumps.
E-Se-27 13+550 13+880 330 5477479 657716 5477303 657437 Landslide Low Alignment crosses a gently sloping colluvial apron.
E-Se-28 13+770 15+200 1430 5477365 657528 5476340 656584 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses gently sloping colluvium and till.
E-Se-29 15+520 16+900 1380 5476047 656468 5474735 656044 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
Appendix E - Seismic Hazard Inventory E-2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-Se-30 17+500 18+280 780 5474153 655900 5473410 655680 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses gently to moderately sloping colluvium and till.
E-Se-31 18+900 19+480 580 5472847 655434 5472289 655276 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping colluvium and till.
E-Se-32 19+280 19+340 60 5472483 655325 5472425 655310 Landslide Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping colluvial deposits.
Unnamed west-dipping normal fault crossing. Not expressed in bedrock. Mapped trace E-Se-33 19+300 19+300 0 5472463 655320 Fault Low does not cross Quaternary sediments.
E-Se-34 19+420 19+480 60 5472347 655290 5472289 655276 Landslide Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping colluvial deposits.
E-Se-35 20+630 21+290 660 5471169 655014 5470525 654873 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
E-Se-36 21+530 22+480 950 5470290 654820 5469365 654607 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
Pipeline fault crossing, dipping to the east. Defined by alignment of linear alpine E-Se-37 21+600 21+600 0 5470222 654805 Fault Low drainage and bedrock escarpments. No expression in till blankets around alignment and fluted terrain to the north.
Unnamed normal fault crossing, dipping to the south. No surface expression through E-Se-38 21+920 21+920 0 5469910 654736 Fault Low bedrock or till.
E-Se-39 22+740 22+830 90 5469117 654531 5469029 654510 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
Unnamed normal fault crossing, dipping to the north. 1,700 m mapped length. Defined E-Se-40 23+420 23+420 0 5468452 654388 Fault Low by aligned curvilinear bedrock scarps. No expression in till veneers.
E-Se-41 23+550 23+650 100 5468323 654374 5468223 654373 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping till.
E-Se-42 23+950 24+480 530 5467924 654350 5467395 654350 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping till.
Alignment crosses moderately to steeply sloping Elk Formation bedrock and colluvial E-Se-43 25+150 25+300 150 5467083 654907 5466956 654988 Landslide Low veneers.
Alignment descends steep Elk, Morrissey, and Mist Mountain formation bedrock, which E-Se-44 25+780 26+380 600 5466500 655030 5466096 654586 Landslide Moderate dips into the slope. Earthquake-triggered shallow rock slides and falls are credible.
Appendix E - Seismic Hazard Inventory E-3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting Alignment descends moderately steep to steep, tightly folded Fernie Formation bedrock, E-Se-45 26+380 26+750 370 5466096 654586 5465847 654312 Landslide High which generally dips into the slope. Earthquake-triggered shallow rock slides are credible.
E-Se-46 26+750 26+930 180 5465847 654312 5465684 654250 Liquefaction Low Alignment descends colluvial blanket over Fernie Formation bedrock.
Alignment descends moderately sloping colluvium mantling Fernie Formation bedrock. E-Se-47 26+750 27+050 300 5465847 654312 5465566 654239 Landslide Moderate Earthquake-triggered shallow earth and debris slides are credible.
Alignment descends moderately steep slopes in tightly folded Fernie Formation bedrock. E-Se-48 27+050 27+400 350 5465566 654239 5465219 654230 Landslide High Earthquake-triggered shallow earth and debris slides are credible.
Fernie Detachment fault crossing, dipping to the north. No surface expression in bedrock E-Se-49 27+390 27+390 0 5465227 654235 Fault Low and through colluvial veneers and gully fills. Concealed by landslides to the northwest along its trace.
Alignment descends a winding spur ridge down a moderately steep slope in tightly E-Se-50 27+400 27+700 300 5465219 654230 5464949 654103 Landslide Moderate folded Fernie Formation bedrock. Earthquake-triggered shallow earth and debris slides are credible.
E-Se-51 27+930 28+000 70 5464763 653980 5464711 653932 Landslide Low Alignment descends moderately sloping Fernie Formation bedrock.
E-Se-52 28+000 28+530 530 5464711 653932 5464749 653431 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
Alignment ascends colluvial blanket, expected to be wet. Flows of liquefied soil are E-Se-53 28+920 28+970 50 5464821 653048 5464830 652998 Landslide Moderate credible.
Alignment crosses moderately steep till and organic deposits. Earthquake-triggered E-Se-54 28+530 28+620 90 5464749 653431 5464766 653343 Landslide Moderate earth slumps are credible.
E-Se-55 28+620 29+700 1080 5464766 653343 5464955 652294 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses moderately sloping till.
Unnamed thrust fault, mapped dipping to southwest. No surface expression in bedrock, E-Se-56 28+800 28+800 0 5464799 653166 Fault Low till blankets, and gully-fill colluvium.
Alignment crosses moderately sloping till and colluvium. Earthquake-triggered slumps E-Se-57 28+900 29+800 900 5464817 653067 5464997 652203 Landslide High are credible
Alignment crosses the toe of a moderate slope in Fernie Formation bedrock, adjacent to E-Se-58 29+900 30+550 650 5465038 652112 5465229 651497 Landslide Moderate a glaciofluvial terrace. Earthquake-triggered shallow slumps and slides are credible.
Appendix E - Seismic Hazard Inventory E-4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-Se-59 30+750 31+277 527 5465160 651310 5464941 650834 Liquefaction Low Alignment crosses till.
Unnamed thrust fault, mapped dipping to southwest. Trace is parallel to bedding. E-Se-60 30+990 30+990 0 5465077 651085 Fault Low Concealed by colluvial aprons, Holocene fluvial terraces, and modern channel deposits.
Unnamed thrust fault, mapped dipping to southwest. Trace is parallel to bedding. E-Se-61 31+230 31+230 0 5464962 650876 Fault Low Concealed by colluvial aprons, Holocene fluvial terraces, and modern channel deposits. Splay from Fernie Detachment; likely predates or is coeval with it.
Appendix E - Seismic Hazard Inventory E-5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX F SUBSIDENCE HAZARDS INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table F-1. Subsidence hazard inventory. Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-S-01 18+350 18+500 150 5473349 655645 5473225 655561 Karst Moderate Potential karst features visible in LiDAR adjacent to right-of-way.
Appendix F - Subsidence Hazard Inventory F-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX G GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table G-1. Geotechnical hazard inventory. Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Rev B) Hazard Type Hazard Rating Comments (m) Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting
E-G-01 3+350 3+610 260 5484506 659745 5484291 659888 Peat/organic soils Moderate Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-02 6+375 6+425 50 5481848 660910 5481805 660936 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-03 7+940 8+000 60 5480625 661556 5480573 661526 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping, onto existing right of way
E-G-04 11+050 11+260 210 5479139 659420 5478933 659376 Peat/organic soils Moderate Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-05 16+460 16+490 30 5475149 656191 5475121 656181 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-06 21+540 21+600 60 5470281 654818 5470222 654805 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-07 22+010 22+030 20 5469822 654716 5469802 654712 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-08 23+425 23+540 115 5468447 654387 5468333 654375 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-09 24+270 24+330 60 5467604 654347 5467545 654347 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-10 28+525 28+575 50 5464748 653436 5464758 653387 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
E-G-11 28+880 28+920 40 5464813 653087 5464821 653048 Peat/organic soils Low Crossing wetland identified by terrain mapping
Appendix G - Geotechnical Hazard Inventory G-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment – FINAL Project No.: 0098187
APPENDIX H GEOCHEMICAL HAZARDS INVENTORY
01190-BGC-C-RP-0001_00_BCM Loop No.2 Elko Section_ Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment BGC ENGINEERING INC. Attachment 13
Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., British Columbia Mainline Loop No.2 NPS 48 Elko Section July 24, 2020 Desktop Geohazards Preliminary Assessment - FINAL Project No.: 0098187
Table H-1. Geochemical hazard inventory. Chainage (080306-2019-SH-08-0001 Coordinates in UTM NAD 83 Zone 11U (m) Length Hazard Rev B) Hazard Type Comments (m) Rating Geohazard From From To To From To ID Northing Easting Northing Easting Calcareous sediments with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing mineral E-Gc-01 0+000 1+100 1100 5487269 658309 5486215 658436 ARD/ML Low occurrences.
Coal-bearing formation with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing mineral E-Gc-02 1+100 4+300 3200 5486215 658436 5483626 659990 ARD/ML Moderate occurrences.
Calcareous sediments with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing mineral E-Gc-03 4+300 8+200 3900 5483626 659990 5480423 661394 ARD/ML Low occurrences.
E-Gc-04 8+200 18+300 10100 5480423 661394 5473392 655671 ARD/ML Moderate Clastic sedimentary assemblages with a single coal mineral occurrence.
Clastic and calcareous sediments with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing E-Gc-05 18+300 21+900 5700 5473392 655671 5469929 654740 ARD/ML Low mineral occurrences.
Coal-bearing formation with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing mineral E-Gc-06 21+900 22+600 700 5469929 654740 5469248 654576 ARD/ML Moderate occurrences.
Clastic and calcareous sediments with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing E-Gc-07 22+600 24+000 1400 5469248 654576 5467874 654345 ARD/ML Low mineral occurrences.
Coal-bearing formation with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing mineral E-Gc-08 24+000 25+900 1900 5467874 654345 5466419 654941 ARD/ML Moderate occurrences.
Coal-bearing formation, well-documented to contain elevated selenium content; E-Gc-09 25+900 26+400 500 5466419 654941 5466082 654571 ARD/ML High no metal, coal or sulphide bearing mineral occurrences.
Clastic and calcareous sediments with no metal, coal or sulphide bearing E-Gc-10 26+400 31+277 4877 5466082 654571 5464940 650834 ARD/ML Low mineral occurrences.
Appendix H - Geochemical Hazard Inventory-Elko H-1 BGC ENGINEERING INC.