TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC
TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2
PROJECT NO.: 0095-150-14 DISTRIBUTION: DATE: Apr 04, 2014 RECIPIENT: 2 copies DOCUMENT NO.: 0095150-04-CQ BGC: 2 copies OTHER: 1 copy
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the engineering design and assessment for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) have been retained to complete geotechnical feasibility assessments for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at select stream crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. In August 2013, BGC supervised the drilling of two boreholes adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment at the Coquihalla River in Hope BC. WorleyParsons, under subcontract to BGC, completed geophysical surveys at the same site in July 2013. Results from the scour analysis estimate a maximum scour depth of approximately 2.5 m below the thawleg during a 200-year flood event. Given this result, the depth of cover above the proposed HDD borepath remains adequate for the entire HDD length. The HDD exit point on the right (north) bank is inside the 200-year floodplain limit and is therefore at risk of inundation should a large scale flood event occur during construction. However, because the exit point remains on the inside of the channel meander, incident energy is low therefore bank erosion is not anticipated to be significant. Further to this, based on a review of historical air photo imagery and a walk-over of the site, no significant bank instability was observed adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment. Consequently, it is not anticipated that channel migration caused by bank erosion would be sufficient to impact upon the proposed HDD alignment. However, overbank flows could result in localized scour. Therefore, additional design measures should be considered for the short section of the pipeline that lies within the mapped floodplain to the east of the HDD exit point. In general, soils encountered during investigative drilling appear to be stable with no caving observed in either borehole with the exception of the uppermost approximately 12-13 m of the overlying fluvial deposit where borehole stability observations are not available due to the use of casing advancement. Within this region borehole instabilities may need to be addressed during construction through the use of casing. One isolated zone of complete drilling mud circulation loss was encountered in very coarse material at a depth between 21.0 m and 21.5 m. Thus, given the geological origin of the material in the vicinity of the HDD crossing, and the complete loss of circulation experienced during the investigative drilling, intermittent losses in circulation may be encountered along the HDD borepath, and will have to be addressed through the use of the appropriate drilling fluids, casing or by other techniques. The minimum separation depth between the proposed HDD borepath and the river bed is 26 m. Comparing this separation distance and the elevation change from the HDD entry point to the deepest point of the borepath (approximately 28 m), the risk of loss of drilling fluids into the river is anticipated to be low based on anticipated overburden resistance due to weight of the overlying strata. However, given the nature of the fluvial soil deposits observed during investigative drilling, this risk should be calculated and confirmed by the HDD design team using the borepath geometry for frictional losses and the HDD rig and pumping characteristics.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page i BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
Based on the observations from two boreholes and the geophysics, an HDD crossing at this location can be considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The conclusions presented herein are based solely on the limited scope of the investigation undertaken at this time for the purpose of obtaining preliminary information, and additional investigation should be considered as part of detailed design.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page ii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii LIST OF APPENDICES ...... iii LIST OF DRAWINGS...... iv LIMITATIONS ...... v 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 3 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT...... 4 3.1. Overview ...... 4 3.2. Surficial Geology ...... 5 3.3. Bedrock Geology ...... 5 3.4. Hydrotechnical Assessment ...... 5 Flood Frequency Analysis ...... 5 Scour ...... 6 Bank Erosion ...... 7 Avulsion ...... 9 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ...... 10 4.1. Geotechnical Drilling Data ...... 10 4.2. Geophysical Survey Data ...... 11 5.0 INFERRED GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ALONG HDD DRILL PATH ...... 13 5.1. Left Bank and River ...... 13 5.2. Right Bank ...... 14 6.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 15 6.1. General Considerations ...... 15 6.2. Borepath Stability ...... 15 6.3. Circulation & Potential for Loss of Fluids ...... 15 7.0 CLOSURE ...... 17 REFERENCES ...... 1 8 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A HYDROTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page iii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DRAWING 1 Bank Erosion & Avulsion Review DRAWING 2 Interpreted Geological Section DRAWING 3 Geophysics Results DRAWING 4 Field Photo’s
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page iv BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
LIMITATIONS
BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared this document for Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain). The material in this report reflects the judgment of BGC staff based upon the information made available to BGC at the time of preparation of the report, including that information provided to it by Trans Mountain. Any use which a third party makes of this report or any reliance on decisions to be based on it is the responsibility of such third parties. BGC accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages, loss, expenses, loss of profit or revenues, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. As a mutual protection to our client, the public and BGC, the report, and its drawings are submitted to Trans Mountain as confidential information for a specific project. Authorization for any use and/or publication of the report or any data, statements, conclusions or abstracts from or regarding the report and its drawings, through any form of print or electronic media, including without limitation, posting or reproductions of same on any website, is reserved by BGC, and is subject to BGC's prior written approval. Provided however, if the report is prepared for the purposes of inclusion in an application for a specific permit or other government process, as specifically set forth in the report, then the applicable regulatory, municipal, or other governmental authority may use the report only for the specific and identified purpose of the specific permit application or other government process as identified in the report. If the report or any portion or extracts thereof is/are issued in electronic format, the original copy of the report retained by BGC will be regarded as the only copy to be relied on for any purpose and will take precedence over any electronic copy of the report, or any portion or extracts thereof which may be used or published by others in accordance with the terms of this disclaimer.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page v BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is a Canadian corporation with its head office located in Calgary, Alberta. Trans Mountain is a general partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P., which is operated by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC), and is fully owned by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Trans Mountain is the holder of the National Energy Board (NEB) certificates for the Trans Mountain pipeline system (TMPL system). The TMPL system commenced operations 60 years ago and now transports a range of crude oil and petroleum products from Western Canada to locations in central and southwestern British Columbia (BC), Washington State and offshore. The TMPL system currently supplies much of the crude oil and refined products used in BC. The TMPL system is operated and maintained by staff located at Trans Mountain’s regional and local offices in Alberta (Edmonton, Edson, and Jasper) and BC (Clearwater, Kamloops, Hope, Abbotsford, and Burnaby). The TMPL system has an operating capacity of approximately 47,690 m3/d (300,000 bbl/d) using 23 active pump stations and 40 petroleum storage tanks. The pipeline expansion will increase the capacity to 141,500 m3/d (890,000 bbl/d). The proposed expansion will comprise the following:
Pipeline segments that complete a twinning (or “looping”) of the pipeline in Alberta and BC with about 987 km of new buried pipeline. New and modified facilities, including pump stations and tanks. Three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC, each capable of handling Aframax class vessels. The expansion has been developed in response to requests for service from Western Canadian oil producers and West Coast refiners for increased pipeline capacity in support of growing oil production and access to growing West Coast and offshore markets. NEB decision RH-001-2012 reinforces market support for the expansion and provides Trans Mountain the necessary economic conditions to proceed with design, consultation, and regulatory applications. Application is being made pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (referred to as “TMEP” or “the Project”). The NEB will undertake a detailed review and hold a Public Hearing to determine if it is in the public interest to recommend a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for construction and operation of the Project. Subject to the outcome of the NEB Hearing process, Trans Mountain plans to begin construction in 2016 and go into service in 2017.
Trans Mountain has embarked on an extensive program to engage Aboriginal communities and to consult with landowners, government agencies (e.g., regulators and municipalities), stakeholders, and the general public. Information on the Project is also available at www.transmountain.com.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
The scope of the Project will involve:
using existing active 610 mm (NPS 24) and 762 mm (NPS 30) OD buried pipeline segments constructing three new 914 mm (NPS 36) OD buried pipeline segments totalling approximately 987 km: - Edmonton to Hinton – 339.4 km - Hargreaves to Darfield – 279.4 km - Black Pines to Burnaby – 367.9 km reactivating two 610 mm (NPS 24) OD buried pipeline segments that have been maintained in a deactivated state: - Hinton to Hargreaves – 150 km - Darfield to Black Pines – 43 km constructing two, 3.6 km long 762 mm (NPS 30) OD buried delivery lines from Burnaby Terminal to Westridge Marine Terminal (the Westridge delivery lines).
Known reference points along the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system are commonly referred to as Kilometre Post or “KP”. KP 0.0 is located at the Edmonton Terminal where the existing Trans Mountain system originates. KPs are approximately 1 km apart and are primarily used to describe features along the pipeline for operations and maintenance purposes. To delineate features along the proposed route (i.e., applied-for route), the symbol “RK” or Reference Kilometer has been applied throughout the document.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK As part of the engineering design and assessment for installing new sections of pipeline, Trans Mountain have retained BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) to complete geotechnical feasibility assessments for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at select river crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. The scope of work for the feasibility assessment of the Coquihalla River crossing included the following:
Desktop study of regional geology and the geological setting for the crossing site. Hydrological analysis of the site including flood frequency and scour analyses. Geotechnical borehole drilling adjacent to the proposed crossing path (supervised by BGC). Geophysical surveys along the proposed crossing path (by WorleyParsons).
The purpose of this report is to summarize the anticipated geotechnical site conditions at the proposed Coquihalla River crossing and provide an indication, from a geotechnical perspective, on the feasibility of HDD technology as a crossing method.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
3.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
3.1. Overview The Coquihalla River site is situated in the town of Hope BC, approximately two hours drive east of Vancouver BC. The location of the site along the proposed TMEP alignment is shown below.
Figure 3-1 Location of the proposed Coquihalla River pipeline crossing point.
At this location the Coquihalla River valley is approximately 1.5 km wide. The river drains in a generally southwest direction and the flow is unregulated as it continues for another 3 km before discharging to the Fraser River. The crossing is located at the apex of a large meander where the river curves back towards the north (Drawing 01). As a result, flow is directed into the left (west) bank, resulting in an asymmetric bed profile. The bed is comprised primarily of gravel and cobbles with some boulders and has well-defined and well vegetated banks. The
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
Old Hope-Princeton Way is located approximately 30 m from the top of the left bank at its closest approach, and runs parallel to the river just upstream of the crossing location.
3.2. Surficial Geology The Coquihalla River site is within the physiographic subregion of the Cascade Mountains (RK 993.8-1022.5), located west of the Canadian Cordillera. During the maximum of the Fraser Glaciation, ice was approximately 2000 m thick in this region (Ryder et al., 1991) and flowed to the south and west from centers over the Coast Mountains. During glaciation and post- glaciation, large volumes of sediment were deposited at the base of the glaciers and along ice margins. Deglaciation was accomplished through downwasting and retreating, and localized stagnation and ice dams may have been present. Large volumes of sediment were eroded from slopes during deglaciation and deposited on valley floors. Erosion of these sediments by deglacial and present river channels has produced terraces lining the valley floors. Dominant surficial materials within these valleys are colluvium, till, active and inactive fluvial, glaciofluvial, glaciolacustrine and lacustrine sediments, organic deposits, engineered fills, and bedrock outcrops. Overburden thickness is variable, but is generally thickest along valley floors and thinnest along steep valley walls. Fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits generally overlie eroded till and glaciolacustrine sediments along the valley floors.
3.3. Bedrock Geology Bedrock within the Cascade Mountain subregion comprises the Cadwaller and Bridge River Terranes, and large Cenozoic intrusive units (Journeay et al., 2000; Monger, 1989). This includes the Eagle tonalite of the Eagle Plutonic Complex; coarse clastics of the Princeton Group; calc-alkaline volcanics of the Coquihalla Formation; mudstones, siltstones, and shales of the Ladner Group; unnamed ultramafic units; cherts, pelites and mafic to basaltic volcanics of the Hozameen Complex; and unnamed Cenozoic granodiorite and quartz diorite near Hope, BC.
3.4. Hydrotechnical Assessment Surveyed channel geometry, historical air photographs and site observations were used to assess the potential for hydrotechnical hazards to impact the proposed pipeline. Hazards evaluated included bank erosion, scour, and avulsion. The methodologies used to complete this hazard assessment are presented in Appendix A.
Flood Frequency Analysis Flood quantiles at the Coquihalla River site were estimated using a flood frequency analysis (FFA). The drainage area of the Coquihalla River site was estimated to be 733 km2 and the
regional FFA was used to estimate peak instantaneous streamflow (QIMAX) for various return periods. This FFA is based on two gauging stations operated by the Water Survey of Canada (WSC). These stations are located nearby on the Coquihalla River. Station 08MF003 is
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
located at the pipeline crossing and was active from 1911-1983; while station 08MF068 is located 3 km upstream and has been in service since 1987. These records allow for a prediction of flood quantiles up to a return period of 200 years. Peak instantaneous streamflow estimates at the Coquihalla River site for various return periods are as follows:
Table 3-1 Peak flow estimates (QIMAX) for the proposed Coquihalla River [RK 1043.2] crossing.
3 Basin QIMAX for Given Return Periods (m /s) Area (km2) 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 200-yr
733 280 421 525 664 770 879 953
Floodplain mapping for the Coquihalla River is available from the BC Ministry of Environment (Drawing 85-27, June 1985). 200-year flood levels at the crossing are estimated at elevations of 58.2 m for the active channel and 58.7 m on the right floodplain. The difference in flood elevations is related to the skewed nature of the cross-section with flow entering the moderate bend in a west-southwest direction and leaving it in a northwest direction. These flood elevations are based on a 200-year return period, peak instantaneous flow of 955 m3/s. Drawing 01 shows the 200-year floodplain limit at the crossing, which was provided by the District of Hope, and is intended to represent the results from the report titled "Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study” by nhc (1994). The nhc floodplain limit is based on a number of surveyed cross-sections and represents output from a one-dimensional hydraulic model, although it should be noted that the nhc mapping is based on a 200-year peak instantaneous flow estimate of 1210 m3/s. Average cross sectional flood flow hydraulics for the crossing were estimated by BGC using Manning’s equation. Similar results to the 1985 floodplain mapping were obtained for the active channel, which is expected given the similarity in the 200-year peak flow estimates. Channel hydraulics were estimated based on a surveyed cross-section by Worley Parsons in July 2013, a channel gradient of 0.8%, and a 200-year peak flow of 953 m3/s.
Scour BGC has completed a detailed scour analysis for the Coquihalla River site to evaluate general scour conditions over the point at which the proposed HDD alignment crosses the Coquihalla River. The scour analysis was conducted using the estimated peak flows presented in Table 3-1 above, and in which the channel cross-section was developed using a combination of topographic survey by WorleyParsons undertaken in July 2013 and (given the very low depth of water at the time of survey of less than 0.5 m) assuming the remaining wetted channel to be horizontal.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
Results from the analysis estimate a maximum scour depth of approximately 2.5 m below the thalweg during a 200-year flood event. The approximate extent of this scour is shown on Drawing 02. The depth of cover above the proposed HDD borepath significantly exceeds the estimated scour depth over the entire HDD borepath length, except for the region surrounding the exit point where the borepath returns to the surface within the mapped floodplain. It is noted, however, that the potential 200-year scour depth only applies to the active channel and a section of the overbank where the active channel could potentially migrate laterally within the lifespan of the pipeline. The floodplain area delineated on Drawing 01 could become inundated during major flood events. Overbank flows on the floodplain have considerably reduced velocities in comparison to the active channel, however, they still have the potential to scour when active. This scour potential is considered further in Section 3.4.4, where potential avulsions hazards are discussed.
Bank Erosion BGC has undertaken an evaluation of the historical lateral erosion of the Coquihalla River through a comparison of historical aerial photographs between the years 1948 and 2004. See Table 3-2 for the complete list of photographs used in this analysis. The air photos were georeferenced to make the comparison and Drawing 01 demonstrates how the channel planform has changed. The proposed crossing occurs on the confined alluvial fan of the Coquihalla River and with the existing TMPL 24” pipeline crossing the river approximately 50 m upstream of the proposed HDD alignment. The river at this location has a well-defined left (west) bank and gradual, gently sloping right (east) bank. The position of the left bank has remained relatively stable at the proposed crossing in the last half century. Immediately upstream of the crossing, the left bank has eroded up to 20 m to the south, while downstream the left bank has aggraded and migrated east by approximately 20 m. The right bank is dyked approximately 20 m back from the river with the downstream end of the dyke terminating approximately 25 m upstream of the proposed HDD alignment.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
Table 3-2 Coquihalla River historic aerial photographs. Scale Ref No. Photo No. Date (Approx.) SRS6929 305, 306 03-Apr-04 1:20,000 SRS6348 142, 143 07-Mar-01 1:12,000 BCC96080 205, 206 22-Jul-96 1:20,000 BCB90124 193, 194 21-Dec-90 1:12,000 BC83018 168, 169 30-Jul-83 1:20,000 BCC233 3, 4 11-Sep-79 1:5,000 BC7471 245, 246 15-Jul-73 1:20,000 BC5327 26, 27 06-May-69 1:20,000 BC4014 51 1961 1:20,000 BC1686 81, 82 1954 1:12,000 BC486 88 1948 1:20,000
The 1954 air photograph (Drawing 01) shows that flows used to split around a mid-channel island at the HDD crossing location. In the intervening 60 years, this island has shifted to the east and extended downstream. A secondary channel still separates the right bank from the island, although this channel is considerably less active compared to in 1954 due to aggradation within the channel, and likely only flows at moderate to high river flows. This secondary channel remains approximately 175 m from the HDD exit point, and consequently it is not anticipated to pose a hazard to the borepath. The series of historic air photographs also show that much of this aggradation of the east channel was complete by 1969. The right bank at the pipeline crossing has also become increasingly vegetated since that time. Aggradation is expected, as the river flows through an alluvial fan in this reach where it emerges from the Coquihalla Canyon onto the valley floor of the Fraser River. Channel gradients are significantly reduced on the fan, favouring the deposition of bedload transported from the canyon. While the left bank is lined with riprap, the angle of attack of the river at this crossing is estimated at approximately 30 degrees. Therefore, some channel migration resulting in bank erosion and deterioration of the rip-rap along the left bank is conceivable at this crossing during large flood events. The HDD entry point is, however, set back from the left bank by approximately 200 m and is further separated by the Old Hope Princeton Way. The right bank is on the inside of the river meander and therefore has no impinging flow, resulting in reduced river velocities compared to the left bank. Furthermore, HDD exit point is set back from the right bank by over 200 m. Based on a review of historical air photo imagery and a walk-over of the site, no significant bank instability was observed adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment. Consequently, it is not
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 8 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
anticipated that channel migration caused by bank erosion would be sufficient to impact upon the proposed HDD alignment within the lifespan of the proposed pipeline. Potential bank erosion within the lifespan of the pipeline is considered to be on the order of tens of meters, not hundreds.
Avulsion Avulsion has occurred in the past in the vicinity of the pipeline crossing. In 1980, a 25-year to 50-year return period flood resulted in overtopping of the left bank with flows over the Old Hope Princeton Highway. The TMPL 24” pipeline was also exposed by erosion on the right bank during this flood (nhc, 1994). In 1990, a flood (for which no peak flow was recorded by the WSC) caused an overflow channel to develop on the right bank upstream of the TMPL crossing (nhc, 1994). This avulsion channel flowed over the pipeline alignment on the right floodplain. BGC is unaware of any scour-related issues or damages to the pipeline that resulted from the 1990 flood. The entry and exit points for the proposed HDD are located well outside historic changes in the channel planform (Drawing 01). However, the exit point of the HDD is located within the 200-year floodplain, and as noted in Section 3.4.2, overbank flows on the floodplain could induce scour over this region. While the presence of an engineered dyke upstream of the HDD alignment is expected to reduce the likelihood of an avulsion along the right bank, additional design measures should be considered for the short section of the pipeline that lies within the mapped floodplain to the east of the HDD exit point. Such measures could include:
extending the borepath exit point beyond the mapped 200-year floodplain; maintaining a depth of cover greater than 2.5 m beyond the tie-in point; use of heavy walled pipe, specifically designed backfill, and armoured coating; or a combination of the latter two measures.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION From July 31st to August 7th 2013, BGC supervised the drilling of two boreholes adjacent to the proposed TMEP HDD alignment at the Coquihalla River (RK 1043.2) in Hope B.C. WorleyParsons completed geophysical surveys at the same site in July 2013. The proposed HDD borepath, shown in Drawing 02, is to the northwest of the TMPL right-of- way (RoW). Along this alignment, WorleyParsons carried out geophysical surveys using both electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and seismic refraction survey methodologies along the alignments shown in Drawing 03. ERT was carried out along the entire length of the proposed HDD route stretching approximately 100 m beyond the entry and exit points. Seismic refraction surveys were carried out on a portion of this alignment, approximately 300 m in length, for quality assurance purposes with the ERT. Drawing 04 contains site photographs of drilling activities and core samples of typical units encountered during the 2013 site investigation.
4.1. Geotechnical Drilling Data Two test holes (BH-BGC13-CQ-01 and BH-BGC13-CQ-02) were drilled adjacent to the proposed HDD borepath to a minimum elevation of 18 m above sea level (approximately 15 m beneath the maximum borepath depth) as shown in Drawing 02. Preliminary design drawings of the proposed Coquihalla River HDD borepath were provided by Universal Pegasus International Ltd. (UPI) on May 29, 2013. Borehole BH-BGC13-CQ-01 was drilled on the east (right) bank of the Coquihalla River. This borehole was drilled to a depth of 13.1 m below ground surface (mbgs) using air rotary then advanced to the target depth of 39.2 mbgs using mud rotary. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were completed at 1.5 m intervals. Borehole BH-BGC13-CQ-02 was drilled on the west (left) bank of the Coquihalla River to the west of Old Hope Princeton Way. This borehole was drilled to a depth of 11.7 mbgs using air rotary then advanced to the target depth of 40.2 mbgs using mud rotary. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were again completed at 1.5 m intervals. Data collected during drilling (see Appendix B) includes the following:
SPT blow counts and visual description (according to Unified Soil Classification System) of soil units based on visual examination of material retrieved in the SPT sampler. Moisture contents of selected samples, based on laboratory testing. Depth to static water table as observed upon completion of drilling. Appendix B contains the borehole logs for BH-BGC13-CQ-01 and BH-BGC13-CQ-02, and Appendix C contains the results of the laboratory tests. BGC notes that the drilling and sampling methods used do not retrieve particles larger than gravel size, so the percentage of larger sized clasts has to be inferred from drilling results.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 10 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
4.2. Geophysical Survey Data The geophysics survey scope for the Coquihalla River crossing included the following from WorleyParsons:
An ERT survey along the entire length of the proposed HDD alignment to a depth exceeding that of the maximum borepath depth. A seismic refraction survey along a 300 m portion of the proposed HDD alignment on the right (east) river bank. This serves to provide some quality assurance to the ERT results and can also be used to draw inferences on subsurface geology. Interpretations of the anticipated subsurface geology based on both aforementioned survey methods. In order to draw inferences from the ERT data, the resistivity scale shown on each survey is unique. The electrical resistivity range shown in Drawing 03 is indicated in Figure 4-1 below:
Figure 4-1. The Electrical Resistivity Range for the Coquihalla River ERT Survey.
The range of electrical resistivity values at the Coquihalla site are between approximately 300– 2500 ohm-m. These values are indicative of tills and gravel/sand glacial sediments, and sandstone conglomerate sedimentary rocks as described in Section 3.0 above. For the Coquihalla River ERT survey, the resistivity survey values are interpreted to indicate the presence of the following materials:
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 11 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
< 1000 ohm-m: Saturated coarse grained glacial sediments (e.g. Dominant gravel). > 1000 ohm-m: Saturated finer grained glacial sediments and non-saturated gravel and organic units (e.g. Dominant silts and sand). For further information on geophysics methodology the following literature may be referred to “2D Resistivity Surveying for Environmental and Engineering Applications”, Torleif Dahlin, 1996.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 12 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
5.0 INFERRED GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ALONG HDD DRILL PATH Based on the results of geotechnical drilling and geophysical surveys obtained to date, an inferred geological section of the proposed HDD crossing has been developed. This section is included in Drawing 02. Below is a summary of drilling conditions experienced within the 2 primary geological units identified during this geotechnical investigation:
GRAVEL & SAND (Fluvial Deposits) – Due to the use of air rotary drilling and casing advancement in both investigative boreholes throughout the majority of this unit, observations with respect to drilling mud returns and borehole stability are only relevant to the lower portion where mud rotary drilling was used. Within this lower portion, very high (90-100%) drilling mud returns were experienced in both BH- BGC13-CQ-01 and BH-BGC13-CQ-02 with the exception of one region of total loss of circulation at the interface of this unit and sand till described below. No borehole instability was encountered within the lower portion of this unit during investigative drilling.
SAND (Till Deposits) – Generally very high (90-100%) drilling mud returns were experienced in both BH-BGC13-CQ-01 and BH-BGC13-CQ-02. No borehole instability was encountered during investigative drilling in this unit. Stabilized water levels were observed in both BH-BGC13-CQ-01 and BH-BGC13-CQ-02 approximately 12 hours after the completion of drilling. The water levels were observed to be approximately 4.6 mbgs and 3.7 mbgs, respectively. There was no evidence of any artesian conditions in either borehole. It is important to note that under the inferred site conditions, the interpretation of the groundwater level observations must be done with caution. The potential exists for perched water tables within the surficial overburden units, as well as elevated water levels due to the introduction of drilling mud into the hole. The following is a summary of the anticipated geotechnical conditions along the proposed HDD borepath:
5.1. Left Bank and River The proposed HDD entry point is situated within the City of Hope, approximately 200 m beyond the left bank of the Coquihalla River to the south of the Old Hope Princeton Way at an elevation of approximately 57 m above sea level. In the vicinity of the entry point, the ERT results indicate a zone of highly resistive material that the borepath is likely to remain in for the first approximately 50 m. Results from BH-BGC13-CQ-02 suggest this material is likely to consist of an organic topsoil layer approximately 4 m in thickness overlaying a silt unit of approximately 3 m in thickness. Approximately 50 m horizontally from the entry point, the borepath is expected to enter saturated sands and gravels as based upon the large reduction in resistivity and observations in BH-BGC13-CQ-02 where an interpreted fluvial sand and gravel unit was encountered. The borepath is anticipated to remain in this material until reaching approximately 100 m horizontally from the HDD entry point where ERT results suggest it will
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 13 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14 enter a highly resistive, sand dominated unit. This unit is interpreted to be a glacial till, and was observed to underlie the fluvial sand and gravels in borehole BH-BGC13-CQ-02. ERT results indicate the borepath is likely to remain in the underlying till unit beneath the river until passing adjacent to BH-BGC13-CQ-01, with the exception of potentially re-entering the sand and gravel unit for approximately 50 m horizontally beneath the left bank (approximately 130 m to 180 m, horizontally from the entry point).
5.2. Right Bank After passing adjacent to BH-BGC13-CQ-01, the borepath is anticipated to exit the underlying till and re-enter the fluvial sand and gravel layer at approximately 430 m horizontally from the entry point. The borepath is expected to remain in the fluvial unit until the last 10 m horizontally from the exit point where it will likely enter an approximately 1.2 m thick in-situ organic unit then an overlying 1.2 m thick silty gravel fill as observed in BH-BGC13-CQ-01. This fill is presumed to have been placed for the development of a surrounding residential subdivision. During drilling of BH-BGC13-CQ-01, one zone of complete drilling mud circulation loss was encountered in coarser material in the region of the till/fluvial deposit interface. Thus, drilling fluid loss may be encountered along the HDD borepath over this region. The implication of this is discussed further in Section 6.3. BH-BGC13-CQ-01 and BH-BGC13-CQ-02 were completed to their respective target depths of 39.2 mbgs and 40.2 mbgs, approximately 10 m beneath the adjacent borepath elevation. No bedrock interface was intercepted during drilling. Seismic survey results beneath the right bank indicate a bedrock depth of approximately 59 mbgs, based upon a sharp increase in P- wave velocity contours. Extrapolation of this interface beneath the river and left bank using ERT results suggest this bedrock surface is relatively horizontal beneath the HDD alignment. However, without the presence of seismic results over this region or a borehole extending to this depth, the bedrock depth cannot be confirmed.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 14 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
6.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT The following conclusions can be drawn from the preceding information, including from the regional surficial and bedrock geology, local hydrology as well as the results from the subsurface investigation on site:
6.1. General Considerations The HDD exit point is inside the 200-year floodplain limit and is therefore at risk of inundation should a large scale flood event occur during construction. However, as the exit point remains on the inside of the channel meander, incident energy is low and therefore bank erosion is not anticipated to be significant. The 200-year scour potential is estimated to be a maximum of approximately 2.5 m below the channel thalweg. In this event, the HDD borepath is still expected to have adequate cover over its entire length except for the region surrounding the exit point. The HDD entry point is approximately 200 m from the Coquihalla River, is separated from the river by the Old Hope Princeton Way, and there is rock armouring along the left bank. Consequently the HDD entry point is not expected to be at risk of bank erosion or avulsion. Previous flood events suggest the right bank of the Coquihalla River in the region of the proposed HDD alignment is prone to overland flows during large flood events. Overbank flows on the floodplain could induce potential scour depths on the order of 2.5 m. The presence of an engineered dyke upstream of the HDD alignment is expected to reduce the likelihood of an avulsion along the right bank. However, additional design measures should be considered for the short section of the pipeline that lies within the mapped floodplain to the east of the HDD exit point.
6.2. Borepath Stability In general, soils encountered during investigative drilling appear to be stable with no caving observed in either borehole with the exception of the uppermost approximately 12-13 m of the overlying fluvial deposit where borehole stability observations are not available due to the use of casing advancement. Within this region, borehole instabilities may need to be addressed during construction through the use of casing. Several coarse gravel and cobbly zones were encountered during investigative drilling, however, where mud rotary drilling was used, drilling mud circulation returns were generally good throughout these zones and no changes in borehole stability were observed.
6.3. Circulation & Potential for Loss of Fluids
One isolated zone of complete drilling mud circulation loss was encountered in very coarse material at a depth between 21.0 m and 21.5 m in BH-BGC13-CQ-01, at the till/fluvial deposit interface. Thus, given the geological origin of the material in the vicinity of the HDD crossing, and the complete loss of circulation experienced during
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 15 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
the investigative drilling, intermittent losses in circulation may be encountered along the HDD borepath, and will have to be addressed through the use of the appropriate drilling fluids or by other techniques.
The minimum separation depth between the proposed HDD borepath and the river bed is 26 m. Comparing this separation distance and the elevation change from the HDD entry point to the deepest point of the borepath (approximately 28 m), the risk of loss of drilling fluids into the river is anticipated to be low based on anticipated overburden resistance due to weight of the overlying strata. However, given the nature of the fluvial soil deposits observed during investigative drilling, this risk should be calculated and confirmed by the HDD design team using the borepath geometry for frictional losses and the HDD rig and pumping characteristics. Given the above, and based on the observations from two boreholes and the geophysics, an HDD crossing at this location can be considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The conclusions presented herein are based solely on the limited scope of the investigation undertaken at this time for the purpose of obtaining preliminary information, and additional investigation should be considered as part of detailed design.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 16 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
7.0 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:
Sam Murray B.E(hons), E.I.T Dr. Alex Baumgard, P.Eng., P.Geo. Project Civil Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Reviewed by: Kevin Biggar, Ph.D., P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer
AJB/KWB/gc
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 17 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J.E. 1978a. Surficial geology Mission Open File 1485A. Geological Survey of Canada. Interfor, 1999. Terrain Stability Mapping – Coquihalla Tributaries. Business Area Project ID 4634. Spatial data provided by Government of British Columbia August 15th, 2013. Journeay, J.M., Williams, S.P., and Wheeler, J.O. 2000. Tectonic assemblage map, Vancouver, British Columbia GSC Open File 2948a. Geological Survey of Canada. Monger, J.W.H. 1989. Geology Hope Open File 41-1989. Geological Survey of Canada. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (nhc), 1994. Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study. Report prepared for the District of Hope (3-1887). March 2, 1994. Orwin, J.F., Clague, J.J., and Gerath, R.F. 2004. The Cheam rock avalanche, Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Landslides, 1: 289-298. Ryder, J.M., Fulton, R.J., and Clague, J.J. 1991. The cordilleran ice sheet and the glacial geomorphology of Southern and Central British Columbia. Geographie physique et Quaternaire, 45: 365-377. Torleif Dahlin, 1996. 2D Resistivity Surveying for Environmental and Engineering Applications.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River Page 18 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
DRAWINGS
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River BGC ENGINEERING INC. E E E 200 E E 200 E
6 6
6 6 6 6 1 1
1 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 1954 IMAGERY 4 5 2012 IMAGERY , ,
, , , , 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
50 0 50 0 5 5 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 N 5,471,500 0 0 1 1 ³ 50 50 N 0 N 0 C 5 C 5 C C 50 O 50 O Q Q U U
5 IH 5 IH 0 0 A A L L 5 L 5 L 0 A 0 A
R R
I I V V
N 5,471,000 E E N 5,471,000 50 R R
0 0 5 5
S IX T H A V E N U E d x
m 1 1 . n ! 0 ! 0 o 0 0 i t i s o p m i r e
p N 5,470,500 N 5,470,500 u 50 50 S _ o t o h P _ l a i r e A _ OLD HO P PE PRINCET D ON WAY D \ ! ! 7 . 9 9 4 _ K R _ T A _ 1 _ R E V I R _ R E S A R F _ - _
T N 5,470,000 N 5,470,000 N WAY E HIGH M UIHALLA S COQ HWAY S 100 100 3 HIG E S S A _
Y 150 150 T I L I B I S A E F
_ 200 200 D D H _ L A C I 50 50
N 2 2 H C E
T LEGEND
O 00 00 E 3 3 G
_ PROPOSED HDD BOREPATHS Y
R 350 350 A N I 400 200 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT 400 N 5,469,500 M
I N 5,469,500 L 50 50 E 4 4
R FLOW DIRECTION
P 500 500 _ T 550 550 R 650 HISTORIC CHANNEL 650 O SCALE 1:10,000 P 00 70 00 70 E 6 0 6 0 E E
E E E R 200 100 0 200 400 600
6 6 _
6 RAILWAY 6 6 8 7 1 7 1
1 1 1 0 5 5 5 5
4 4
0 0 0 4 , , 1
, , 0 0 ,
5 0 5 0 0 3
5 0 5 0
0 0 1
4 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 METRES 0 TMPL RoW 0 0 2 0 0 \ 80 0 80 0 e c a SCALE: PROJECT: p s NOTES: 1:10,000
k PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY r o 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DATE: ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2 W \ 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2", AND DANT E5D,4 7M0A,5R0C0H 2014. MAR 2014 B G C E N G IN E E R IN G IN C . N 5,470,500 0
5 TITLE:
1 3. PROPOSED HDD PROFILE PROVIDED BY UPI LTD. ON JUNE 12, 2013. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY \ DRAWN: B G C COQUIHALLA RIVER (RK 1043.2) 5
9 4. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON GEOBASE DEM RETRIEVED MARCH 2013. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 m. MIB BANK EROSION AND AVULSION REVIEW 0 CLIENT: 0
\ 5. PROJECTION IS GCS NORTH AMERICAN 1983 UTM ZONE 10U (CALCULATED).
s CHECKED: t c 6. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BGC SSM PROJECT No.: DWG No.: e j o GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT r APPROVED:
P 0095150 01 \ HW
: AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. X N 5,470,500 N E 614,250 E 614,500 (OFFSET = 15 m N) (OFFSET = 40 m S) BH-BGC13-CQ-02 BH-BGC13-CQ-01
COQUIHALLA AUGUSTAUGUSTEL. 58.2 7, 3, 2013 m 2013 EXISTINGFILL LAYERCOQUIHALLA GROUND PLACED SURFACE RIVER FOR LOW CONFIDENCE IN TOP OF BEDROCK INTERPRETATIONSOUTHWEST100125NORTHEAST75 OLD10012575 HOPE - PRINCETON HIGHWAY HDD ENTRY POINT-2525500 (WORLEYHDD-2505025 EXIT PARSONS POINT FIELD SURVEY, JULY, 2013) (PRIMARYLY EXTRAPOLATED FROMHOPE, SEISMIC) BC-1001002000300400500600SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT BOREPATH DISTANCE (m)
TMPLELEVATION (m) RoW ELEVATION (m) N 5,470,250 TMPL RoW PROPOSED TMEP
11:21 AM RIVER CROSSING SCALE 1:200,000 Time: 2,500 0 2,500 5,000 7,500
(;,67,1*703/ PP 3,3(/,1( Apr 3 14 E 614,250 METRES Plot Date 02
E 614,750 Layout: RIVER LEGEND PROPOSED HDD ENTRY / EXIT POINTS SCALE 1:2,000 EXISTING BORE HOLE PROPOSED HDD BOREPATHS 25 0 25 50 75 N 5,470,250 N 5,470,500 200-YEAR FLOW EXTENT METRES E 614,500 E 614,750
SOUTHWEST NORTHEAST 125 125
100 100
OLD HOPE - PRINCETON HIGHWAY 75 FILL LAYER PLACED FOR 75 02_COQUIHALLA_RIVER_(RK_1043.2)_INTERPRETED_GEOLOGICAL_SECTION.dwg EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 200-YEAR STREAM FLOW SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT (WORLEY PARSONS FIELD SURVEY, JULY, 2013)
(OFFSET = 15 m N) HDD EXIT POINT BH-BGC13-CQ-02 (OFFSET = 40 m S) HDD ENTRY POINT EL. 58.2 m BH-BGC13-CQ-01 AUGUST 7, 2013 AUGUST 3, 2013
50 50 ELEVATION (m) ELEVATION (m)
25 25
0 ? 0 ? ? LOW CONFIDENCE IN TOP OF BEDROCK INTERPRETATION (PRIMARYLY EXTRAPOLATED FROM SEISMIC) -25 -25 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 BOREPATH DISTANCE (m) SCALE 1:2,000 25 0 25 50 75 CROSS-SECTION A - LEGEND METRES INTERPRETED TOP OF COMPETENT BEDROCK (PRELIMINARY BASED ON SEISMIC) 200-YEAR FLOW ELEVATION APPROXIMATE 200-YEAR SCOUR ELEVATION BOREHOLE GEOLOGY INTERPRETED GEOLOGY ORGANICS (OL) ORGANICS (OL) SAND (SP/GP) - TILL SAND (SP/GP) - TILL SAND AND GRAVEL SAND AND GRAVEL NOTES: (GW/SW/SP/) - (GW/SW/SP/) - 1. GROUND SURFACE PROFILE PROVIDED BY WORLEY PARSONS, RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 14, 2013. FLUVIAL FLUVIAL 2. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR, PROVIDED BY KINDER MORGAN, DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2013. CONTOUR SILT (ML) - FILL SILT (ML) - FILL INTERVAL IS 1 m. 3. PROPOSED HDD PROFILE PROVIDED BY UPI LTD. ON JUNE 12, 2013. SILT (ML) - TILL SILT (ML) - TILL 4. 200-YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMIT WAS PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT OF HOPE, AND IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE RESULTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION BEDROCK FROM THE REPORT TITLED "COQUIHALLA RIVER FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT STUDY", BY NHC, 1994. 5. PIPELINE RK DATED JULY 2013. SCALE: PROJECT: 6. PROJECTION IS NAD 83 UTM ZONE 10N. AS SHOWN PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY 7. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2 DATE: APR 2014 8. 7+,6'5$:,1*0867%(5($',1&21-81&7,21:,7+%*& 65(32577,7/('³35(/,0,1$5<*(27(&+1,&$/+'' TITLE: AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2" AND DATED APRIL 2014. BOREHOLE DEPTH (mbgs) ELEVATION (m) COMMENTS DRAWN: COQUIHALLA RIVER (RK 1043.2) AH INTERPRETED GEOLOGICAL SECTION 9. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE CLIENT: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 4.56 54.21 STABILIZED FOLLOWING BH COMPLETION 27+(57+$17+(385326()25:+,&+%*&*(1(5$7(',7%*&6+$//+$9(12/,$%,/,7<)25$1<'$0$*(625/266 CHECKED: SSM PROJECT No.: DWG No.: $5,6,1*,1$1<:$<)520$1<86(2502',),&$7,212)7+,6'2&80(17127$87+25,=('%<%*&$1<86(2)25 BH-BGC13-CQ-02 3.74 55.26 STABILIZED FOLLOWING BH COMPLETION 0095-150 02 RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. APPROVED: AJB X:\Projects\0095\150\Workspace\20131008_REPORT_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_COQUIHALLA_RIVER_AT_RK_1043.2\ X:\Projects\0095\150\Workspace\20131008_REPORT_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_COQUIHALLA_RIVER_AT_RK_1043.2\ 03_COQUIHALLA_RIVER_(RK_1043.2)_GEOPHYSICS_RESULTS.dwg Layout: 03 Plot Date Apr 3 14 Time: 11:17 AM 1. NOTES: 8. 7. 6. 5. 3. 2. 4. E 614,250 25 25
%*&6+$//+$9(12/,$%,/,7<)25$1<'$0$*(625/266$5,6,1*,1$1<:$<)520$1<86(2502',),&$7,212)7+,6'2&80(17127$87+25,=('%<%*&$1<86(2) 81/(66%*&$*5((627+(5:,6(,1:5,7,1*7+,6'5$:,1*6+$//127%(02',),('2586(')25$1<385326(27+(57+$17+(385326()25:+,&+%*&*(1(5$7(',7 PROJECTION ISNAD83UTMZONE10N. PIPELINE RKDATEDJULY2013. PROPOSED HDDPROFILEPROVIDEDBY UPILTD.ONJUNE12,2013. BASE TOPOGRAPHICDATABASEDON LIDAR,PROVIDEDBYKINDERMORGAN,DATEDSEPTEMBER5,2013.CONTOUR INTERVALIS1m. OR RELIANCE UPONTHISDOCUMENT ORITSCONTENT BYTHIRDPARTIES SHALLBE AT SUCHTHIRDPARTIES' SOLERISK. GEOPHYSICS SURVEYINTERPRETATION ANDGROUNDSURFACEPROFILEPROVIDEDBYWORLEYPARSONS,RECEIVED ONNOVEMBER14,2013. 7+,6'5$:,1*0867%(5($',1&21-81&7,21:,7+%*& 65(32577,7/('³35(/,0,1$5<*(27(&+1,&$/+'')($6,%,/,7<$66(660(17&248,+$//$5,9(5$75. AND DATEDAPRIL2014. ALL DIMENSIONSARE INMETRESUNLESSOTHERWISENOTED. N 5,470,250 N 0 0 ELEVATION (m) SCALE 1:2,000 SCALE 1:2,000 -25 25 75 50 25 -100 0 METRES METRES SOUTHWEST E 614,250 25 25 0 50 50 SCALE 1:2,000 METRES LOW CONFIDENCEINTOPOFBEDROCKINTERPRETATION 25 HDD ENTRYPOINT 75 75 (PRIMARILY EXTRAPOLATEDFROMSEISMIC) 50
75 ?
0 ELECTRICAL RESISITIVITY 5,470,250 N P-WAVE VELOCITY (m/s) (ohm/m) (OFFSET =15mN) BH-BGC13-CQ-02 100
E 614,500 ? FIELD PARAMETERS: MINIMUM ELECTRODESPACING:5m ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION:GRADIENTPLUS DATE COLLECTED:28-JUL-2013 DATE COLLECTED:27-JUL-2013 FIELD PARAMETERS: SOURCE: SLEDGEHAMMER SHOT SPACING:20m GEOPHONE SPACING:5m EXISTING GROUNDSURFACE (WORLEY PARSONSFIELDSURVEY,JULY,2013) 200
E 614,500
ELEVATION (m) OFFSET (m) COQUIHALLA N 5,470,500 N -25
25 50 75 0 RIVER 250 NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
300 300 ? EXISTING GROUNDSURFACE (WP FIELDSURVEY,JULY,2013) APPROVED: CHECKED: DRAWN: DATE: SCALE: 2600 2600 3000 3000 BH-BGC13-CQ-01 (OFFSET =40mS) 400 400 APR 2014
1:2,000 E 614,750 SSM AJB AH OFFSET (m)
CLIENT: N 5,470,500 N AN APPLIEDEARTHSCIENCES COMPANY 500 500 HDD EXITPOINT 3000 3000
E 614,750 LEGEND PROJECT: PROJECT No.: TITLE: INTERPRETED TOPOF P-WAVE VELOCITY CONTOURS ON SEISMIC) (PRELIMINARY BASED COMPETENT BEDROCK 1500 1500 2000 ASSESSMENT -COQUIHALLARIVERATRK1043.2 2000 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICALHDDFEASIBILITY 0095-150 LEGEND COQUIHALLA RIVER(RK 1043.2) NORTHEAST GEOPHYSICS RESULTS ENTRY /EXITPOINT PROPOSED HDD PROPOSED HDDBOREPATH ERT SURVEYALIGNMENT EXISTING DRILLHOLE SEISMIC SURVEYALIGNMENT BOREHOLE GEOLOGY DWG No.: 600 600 0 50 75 -25 25 FLUVIAL SILT (ML)-TILL SILT (ML)-FILL (GW/SW/SP) - SAND ANDGRAVEL SAND (SP/GP)-TILL ORGANICS (OL) ELEVATION (m) 625 03 75 -25 0 25 50
ELEVATION (m) THIS BAR MEASURES 100 mm AT FULL SIZE. ALL SCALES REFERENCED TO FULL SIZE. FULL TO REFERENCED SCALES ALL SIZE. FULL AT mm 100 MEASURES BAR THIS 6:15 PM THIS BAR MEASURES 100 mm AT FULL SIZE. ALL SCALES REFERENCED TO Time: Mar 7 14 Plot Date 04 Layout:
PHOTO 1: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 SITE LOOKING SOUTH PHOTO 2: BH-BGC13-CQ-02 SITE LOOKING EAST 04_COQUIHALLA_RIVER_(RK_1043.2)_FIELD_PHOTOS.dwg
PHOTO 4: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 SAMPLE FROM 10.21 m TO 10.49 m. PHOTO 5: BH-BGC13-CQ-02 SPT SAMPLE FROM 29.57 m TO 29.94 m. PHOTO 6: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 SPT SAMPLE FROM 13.10 m TO 13.40 m. TYPICAL SAND AND GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPICAL SAND TILL SAMPLE TYPICAL COBBLES/GRAVELS ENCOUNTERED
SCALE: PROJECT: N.T.S. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2 DATE: MAR 2014 TITLE: NOTES: AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY DRAWN: COQUIHALLA RIVER (RK 1043.2) 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. AH FIELD PHOTOS 2. 7+,6'5$:,1*0867%(5($',1&21-81&7,21:,7+%*& 65(32577,7/('³35(/,0,1$5<*(27(&+1,&$/+'')($6,%,/,7<$66(660(17&248,+$//$5,9(5$75.'$7('0$5&+ CLIENT: 3. 81/(66%*&$*5((627+(5:,6(,1:5,7,1*7+,6'5$:,1*6+$//127%(02',),('2586(')25$1<385326(27+(57+$17+(385326()25:+,&+%*&*(1(5$7(',7%*&6+$//+$9(12 CHECKED: SSM PROJECT No.: DWG No.: /,$%,/,7<)25$1<'$0$*(625/266$5,6,1*,1$1<:$<)520$1<86(2502',),&$7,212)7+,6'2&80(17127$87+25,=('%<%*&$1<86(2)255(/,$1&(83217+,6'2&80(1725,76 APPROVED: 0095-150 04 CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. AJB X:\Projects\0095\150\Workspace\20131008_REPORT_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_COQUIHALLA_RIVER_AT_RK_1043.2\ Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
APPENDIX A HYDROTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 1 LIST OF TABLES ...... 2 LIST OF FIGURES...... 2 A.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 A.2. HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARDS ...... 4 A.2.1. Scour ...... 4 A.2.2. Channel Degradation ...... 5 A.2.3. Bank Erosion ...... 5 A.2.4. Avulsion ...... 5 A.2.5. Encroachment ...... 6 A.3. FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (FFA) ...... 6 A.3.1. Monitoring Agencies ...... 7 A.3.2. Historical Peak Flow Records ...... 7 A.3.3. Prediction Limit of Dataset ...... 8 A.3.4. Statistical Validity of Dataset ...... 8 A.3.5. Randomness...... 8 A.3.6. Independence ...... 8 A.3.7. Stationarity ...... 8 A.3.8. Homogeneity...... 9 A.3.9. Statistical Tests ...... 9 A.3.10. Regional FFA ...... 9 A.3.11. Pro-rated FFA ...... 10 A.4. HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT ...... 10 A.4.1. Scour ...... 10 A.4.1.1. Channel Hydraulics ...... 11 A.4.1.2. General Scour Equations ...... 11 A.4.1.3. Maximum Bed Mobility ...... 16 A.4.1.4. Local Scour ...... 17 A.4.1.5. Factor of Safety ...... 18 A.4.1.6. Channels with Cohesive Beds ...... 18 A.4.2. Channel Degradation ...... 18 A.4.3. Bank Erosion ...... 19 A.4.4. Avulsion ...... 20 A.4.5. Encroachment ...... 22 APPENDIX A REFERENCES ...... 24 https://coreshack.bgcengineering.ca/projects/tmepprelimeng/HDDAss/CrossingReports/Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report.docx BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
LIST OF TABLES
Table A.3-1. Statistical Criteria and Corresponding Statistical Test ...... 9 Table A.4-1. Methods for Estimation of Potential Depth of General Scour ...... 12 Table A.4-2. Empirical Multiplying Factors for Maximum Scour Depth (Joyce and Chandler, 2004) ...... 13 Table A.4-3. Empirical Multiplying Factors for Maximum Scour Depth (Pemberton and Lara, 1984) ...... 13 Table A.4-4. Methods for Estimation of Bed Material Mobility ...... 17 Table 4-A.4-5. Causes of Avulsions According to Schumm (2005) ...... 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A.2-1. Schematic of General and Local Scour (as per Veldman, 2008) ...... 5 Figure A.4-1. Hypothetical Scour Analysis for a Given Design Flood ...... 11 Figure A.4-2. Cross-sectional Channel Changes on the Lillooet River in Response to Meander Cutoffs and Base Level Lowering (after Weatherly and Jakob, 2013) ...... 19 Figure A.4-3 Multi-temporal Ground and Pipe Profile Surveys at a Watercourse Crossing ...... 20 Figure A.4-4. Example of Avulsion in Plan View (left) and Cross-section (right) ...... 21 Figure A.4-5. Example of an Encroachment Hazard (Google Earth imagery year: 2004) ...... 23
https://coreshack.bgcengineering.ca/projects/tmepprelimeng/HDDAss/CrossingReports/Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report.docx BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
A.1. INTRODUCTION The following appendix describes the different types of hydrotechnical hazards and outlines the methodology followed by BGC during the hazard assessment process. The methodology presented in this appendix includes a brief description of sites selection and terminology conventions and hydrotechnical hazards (Section A.2.) followed by a detailed description of the flood frequency analysis (FFA) (Section A.3.) and scour analysis (Section A.4.1.). Finally, a description of the hydrotechnical assessment specific to each hazard is presented in Section A.4.
Several industry terminology conventions are used herein and within hydrotechnical reports and the definitions are presented here:
Downstream The direction of water flow. Upstream The direction opposite to water flow. Upflow The direction of decreasing pipeline chainage. Downflow The direction of increasing pipeline chainage. Right & left banks Looking downstream. DoC Depth of cover (burial depth) over the pipeline. RoW Pipeline right of way. Thalweg The line defining the lowest points along the length of a river bed or valley. Hazard A characterisation of the hydrotechnical event such as scour, degradation, and bank erosion. The characterisation does not consider the protection around the pipeline (e.g. scour hazard is active at the crossing). Likelihood A qualitative assessment of how often an event may occur (i.e. the likelihood of scour hazard occurring is high). Probability A semi-quantitative assessment of how often an event may occur (i.e. the annual probability of scour hazard occurring is 0.05).
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
A.2. HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARDS Channel geometry and site observations are used to subjectively assess the likelihood of exposure of the pipe from the following hydrotechnical hazards:
scour of the channel bed; degradation of the channel bed; bank erosion caused by lateral channel migration; avulsion; and encroachment on the pipeline.
A.2.1. Scour Scour can happen at any location where local flow velocities increase as a result of secondary currents developing within a uniform flow situation. Scour also occurs when the direction of flow is changed at channel bends, confluences, constrictions, obstructions, and impingements. There are two types of scour; general scour and local scour. General scour is the natural variation in bed levels that occurs due to the complex interaction between flow rates and volumes, sediment transport rates, and channel morphology. Intermittent general scour occurs when a mobile-bed watercourse floods and the channel bed degrades (lowers) to accommodate the increased flow. Pipelines can become exposed or undermined during an intermittent flood event, becoming vulnerable to damage (Joyce and Chandler, 2001). The channel bed can experience significant scour during a flood event but is often not detected because of compensating deposition that can occur as the flood flows decline (Leopold et al., 1964). General scour typically requires a qualitative geomorphic analysis to quantify. Local scour occurs from acceleration of flow due to an obstruction or constriction to flow near piers, abutments, riprap revetments, large woody debris or other structures obstructing or constricting the flow like at the confluence of two separate channels. These obstructions cause vortices with accelerated flow that erode the surrounding bed and bank sediments. Contraction scour is a form of local scour where acceleration of flow is caused by a local narrowing of the channel. Generally, depths of local scour are larger than general scour. Figure A.2-1 shows a schematic of general and local scour. The scour depths shown in the diagram are relative to the design flood water surface level. The calculations carried out by BGC to predict scour depths are relative to the bed of the channel.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Figure A.2-1. Schematic of General and Local Scour (as per Veldman, 2008)
A.2.2. Channel Degradation While scour is considered event-based, channel degradation occurs over a long time and along relatively long stream reaches. Degradation is the process of a general lowering of the channel bed, and is the result of the process of channel morphology reaching equilibrium with the existing flow regime (Ulrich et al., 2005). The degradation of a stream channel can be caused by gullying, the presence of downstream obstructions such as beaver dams, and erosion as a result of bed steepening. Degradation may also occur due to an increase in average discharge, a reduction in average bed material load or diverting and confining flows into a single channel where there had previously been multiple channels (alluvial fans). Degradation is a very common fluvial hazard.
A.2.3. Bank Erosion Patterns of sediment transport and deposition naturally cause the channel banks to migrate laterally. Bank migration (erosion) at a pipeline crossing can result in exposure of the sag- bends and over-bends of the pipeline. Bank erosion most often occurs on outer bends of meandering river channels and along braided rivers. Erosion can take place slowly over a period of years or suddenly during a single flood event. Bank erosion is the most recognizable of all five river hazards.
A.2.4. Avulsion Avulsion, also referred to as outflanking, or abandonment, may occur when streams have the potential to leave their channel upstream of a crossing and establish a new channel where the pipeline has insufficient cover. Avulsion is predominantly a concern on alluvial fans that carry high bed material loads. Avulsion may also occur where rivers meander on a wide floodplain, although in this case the avulsion is typically into an existing side channel or abandoned channel. For the latter scenario, avulsion typically occurs progressively over a
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14 period of years rather than suddenly during a large flood event (although the large flood event may be the final tipping point for the avulsion to occur).
In braided channels, the term avulsion is sometimes used to describe a shift in the main thread of current to the other side of a mid-channel bar, but in general, should be limited to a complete shift of the main channel. Avulsions commonly result when an event (usually a flood) of sufficient magnitude occurs along a reach of river that is at or near an avulsion threshold (Schumm, 2005).
Avulsions can be characterized as active, transitional, or inactive based on the hydrological regime. Active avulsions are characterized by the presence of standing or flowing water. Transitional avulsions are dry without established vegetation. Inactive avulsions are dry and vegetated in the channel suggesting conditions have remained constant.
A.2.5. Encroachment Encroachment to the pipeline may occur on a meandering watercourse when a section of the channel flows parallel with the pipeline right of way. Bank erosion can lead to lateral movement of the watercourse towards the pipeline. Encroachment is typically a concern where rivers meander along a wide floodplain.
A.3. FLOOD FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (FFA) Flood discharge magnitude and frequencies are estimated using a flood frequency analysis (FFA). A popular approach in hydrologic frequency modeling is the Annual Maximum Series (AMS) where the maximum value over a period of time is used for analysis. In this case, the AMS consists of the maximum peak instantaneous streamflow for each year on record. The AMS is assumed to be a random sample from the underlying population of hydrological events and can thus be predicted by the selection of an appropriate distribution. In extreme value statistics, data follow one of three extremal types of distributions: Gumbel, Fréchet, or Weibull (Coles, 2001). These three distributions can be expressed as a single formula and are considered a family of distributions known as the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distribution. The GEV distribution is described by a location, scale, and shape parameter where the three extremal types are determined by the sign of the shape parameter (Gilleland and Katz, 2006). For example, when the shape parameter is negative, the distribution is described by the Weibull type. As the shape parameter approaches zero, the distribution is described by the Gumbel type. When the shape parameter is positive, the distribution is described by the Fréchet type. The GEV distribution is selected for the AMS approach to frequency analysis. The GEV distribution is generally suited for large design flood predictions (i.e. >100-year return period). In cases where lower return period events are required for analysis, other specified theoretical probability distributions may be selected for analysis. These distributions include but are not limited to the following: Normal (N), Log Normal (LN),
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Pearson Type III, (P3), Log Pearson Type III (LP3), Gamma, Log Gamma, Gumbel, and Weibull. The Aquarius Standard Edition program incorporates these distributions and is only used for the AMS approach to FFA. There is no standard distribution that describes all peak flow events thus the distribution selected for analysis is done on case by case basis. While the AMS is easily obtained from a hydrologic time series, it does not consider the possibility that secondary events in one year may exceed the annual maxima in other years (Madsen et al., 1997). Furthermore, annual maxima selected during dry years may be very small resulting in a bias of the extreme value statistic outcome. As such, the AMS approach may not be appropriate in all cases. An alternative to AMS is the Peaks Over Threshold (POT) approach, also known as the Partial Duration Series. For the POT approach, data above a threshold are fit to the Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD). The choice of threshold is critical to the analysis because a value that is too high discards too much data resulting in high variance of the estimate and too low of a threshold can bias the estimate. The thresholds are selected using a graphical approach (i.e. the Mean Residual Life Plot) combined with an assessment of the stability of the GPD parameters (Gilleland and Katz, 2006). The FFA using the GEV and GPD distributions is carried out using the Extremes package in the software R. R is a free software environment for statistical computing and graphics. The Extremes package is specifically designed for extreme value statistics and provides the option to carry out the analysis using the AMS or the POT approach. The approach to FFA is selected on a case by case basis.
A.3.1. Monitoring Agencies The FFA requires the input of streamflow data. The two agencies that monitor and manage hydrometric stations for Canada and the United Stated include: Water Survey of Canada (WSC); and United States Geological Survey (USGS). The hydrometric stations for FFA are selected based on available streamflow data (i.e. record length), drainage basin area, station elevation, hydro-climatic zone, geology, and regulation type.
A.3.2. Historical Peak Flow Records
The metric used for the FFA is peak instantaneous streamflow (QIMAX) for each available year on record. Peak streamflow records at hydrometric stations are often limited to maximum average daily streamflow (QMAX) which are lower in magnitude than peak instantaneous streamflow, except for very large drainage areas. In some cases, QIMAX values may be estimated from available QMAX using regression analyses techniques.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
A.3.3. Prediction Limit of Dataset The maximum return period for which a peak streamflow can be predicted (i.e. the prediction limit) at a given hydrometric station is limited by the record length of the dataset defined by the number of years with a complete peak streamflow record. In cases where the record length of the station of interest is too short, the dataset can be extended using a correlation analysis with a nearby hydrometric station in order to predict flood frequencies of higher return periods. Generally, flood quantiles are reported to the 100-year return period for Alberta and the United States while the 200-year return period event is reported for British Columbia.
A.3.4. Statistical Validity of Dataset The streamflow dataset needs to satisfy four statistical criteria in order to be valid for an FFA. The four statistical criteria include the following:
Randomness Independence Stationarity Homogeneity.
A.3.5. Randomness In a hydrological context, randomness implies that the fluctuations in streamflow occur in response to natural causes. The term natural flow always means that the data series is not regulated and may be considered random. Alternatively, if the flood flows are altered by regulation (i.e. reservoir operations, water diversions, water extractions, major land-use changes etc.) the streamflow record cannot be considered random unless the regulation has been accounted for in some way. Note that some flow records may be published as regulated however, the level of regulation may not be significant. Even when statistical tests indicate that randomness has not been met, the flow data may result in an unbiased estimation of frequency if the other assumptions are valid (USGS, 1982). However, a non- random sample increases the degree of uncertainty in the relation.
A.3.6. Independence Random events in a data series do not imply that they are independent. For example, large natural storage like surface water bodies may cause high flows to follow high flows and low flows to follow low flows. The dependence between successive daily flows tends to be strong where the dependence between annual maxima tends to be weak.
A.3.7. Stationarity The stationarity criterion implies that the data series does not change with respect to time. Examples that violate the stationarity criterion include trends, jumps and cycles. Trends may reflect a gradual change in land-use influencing the data series over time. Jumps in the data series resulting from an abrupt change in the basin or river due to the construction of a hydraulic structure is another example of non-stationarity. The last factor that can violate the
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 8 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14 stationarity criterion is the presence of cycles such as long-term climate fluctuations. However, no method is available for testing the influence of cycles adequately (Watt et al., 1989).
A.3.8. Homogeneity Homogeneity indicates that the data series making up the sample originates from a single population. For example, a series containing a combination of snowmelt and rainfall floods may not be homogeneous and may result from different types of events (i.e. mixed populations of data). However, it may be acceptable to treat the sample as homogeneous if it is supported by a statistical test. Flow conditions can be changed due to urbanization, diversions or a change in cover conditions. These changes will affect record homogeneity. These may not change the flow significantly from year to year but a cumulative effect can influence the flow after many years (USGS, 1982).
A.3.9. Statistical Tests The statistical tests to assess the four criteria are listed in Table A.3-1. These statistical tests are non-parametric which avoid assumptions of the underlying distribution, which is generally not known for flood data. An element of judgment is inevitable in the process of assessing the statistical validity of a dataset. Statistical tests only provide a probability of satisfying particular criteria and will not yield a definitive answer. Furthermore, flood data may incorporate important measurement errors resulting from human error and the difficulty in the measurement of high flows.
Table A.3-1. Statistical Criteria and Corresponding Statistical Test Statistical Criteria Statistical Test Independence Spearman Test for Independence Trend Spearman Test for Trend Randomness Runs Test for General Randomness Homogeneity Mann-Whitney Split Sample Test for Homogeneity
A.3.10. Regional FFA Transforming the predicted design flood flows from the gauge station to the pipeline crossing requires further statistical manipulation in the form of regression analysis. Regional FFAs are completed when there are several representative hydrometric stations along a watercourse of interest or along adjacent watercourses in the area. Regional flood frequencies for set return periods at the pipeline crossing are calculated using a power law combining the QIMAX data from the selected regional hydrometric stations. The power law form is described by the following equation (Eq.1):
Q aAb (Eq. 1) p
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
where Qp is the peak flood estimate at the pipeline crossing, A is the upstream drainage area
for the crossing, and a and b are regression coefficients developed from the QIMAX and drainage area of several regional hydrometric stations (Watt et al., 1989). The drainage area at the pipeline crossing is typically estimated by BGC using available topographic datasets while drainage areas for the regional hydrometric stations are obtained either from WSC or USGS records.
A.3.11. Pro-rated FFA Pro-rated FFAs are carried out in cases where a single representative station is located along the watercourse of interest. Flood frequencies are calculated using a pro-rated
calculation by relating the annual QIMAX values at the hydrometric station to the basin area of the specific pipeline crossing. The equation used for this relation is as follows (Eq. 2):
n Q A U U (Eq. 2) Q A G G
3 where QU and QG are the peak instantaneous flow estimates (m /s) at the ungauged site
(pipeline crossing) and gauged site (hydrometric station) respectively, AU and AG are the drainage basin areas (km2) for the ungauged and gauged sites respectively, and n is a site- specific exponent related to peak streamflow data at both sites (Watt et al., 1989). Typically, a value of 0.8 is chosen for n.
A.4. HYDROTECHNICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT The flood quantiles estimated using FFA are incorporated in the hydrotechnical hazard assessment for scour. The following section describes the methods used to assess the degree of scour, degradation, bank erosion, avulsion, and encroachment at each pipeline crossing.
A.4.1. Scour Scour is the general lowering of the channel bed that occurs during a flood event in a straight, uniform channel. The likelihood of a pipe becoming exposed due to scour in a flood event is assessed by estimating the maximum scour depth for each flood return period. If the pipe’s crown elevation is greater than the scour elevation, then the pipe is considered to be vulnerable to exposure for that particular magnitude of flood event. The scour elevation is estimated by subtracting the predicted scour depth from the average bed elevation. The average bed elevation is generated using an estimate of channel hydraulics with Manning’s equation (Figure A.4-1). The average bed elevation is estimated by subtracting the average flow depth from the estimate of the water surface elevation for a given flood event. The probability of exposure due to scour is determined by comparing the elevation of the pipeline at the minimum Depth of Cover (DoC) (see E in Figure A.4-1) and the average bed elevation (see C in Figure A.4-1) for each flood return period.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 10 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Figure A.4-1. Hypothetical Scour Analysis for a Given Design Flood
A.4.1.1. Channel Hydraulics As part of the scour assessment, flood flow hydraulics (i.e. water surface elevation, average flow depth etc.) are estimated for each design flood using Manning’s equation. Manning’s equation is an empirical formula for open channel flow in cases where flow is driven by gravity and is considered uniform. Manning’s equation is defined by the following formula:
/ ∗ / (Eq. 3)
where V is the cross-sectional average velocity (m/s), n is Manning’s coefficient (unitless), Rh is the hydraulic radius (m), and S is the slope of the water surface (m/m). The slope of the water surface can be assumed to be comparable to the regional slope of the channel bed. Manning’s coefficient values typically range from 0.07 to 0.025 for streams with cobble- boulder to sand substrates. Topographic and bathymetric survey data are typically used to develop cross sections and channel gradients, which become inputs into scour depth estimations. In some cases, open channel flow modeling may be implemented if backwater effects need to be accounted for in the analysis.
A.4.1.2. General Scour Equations Following the estimate of channel hydraulics, the general scour depth is estimated for each design flood. Various hydraulic equations have been developed empirically for estimating general scour depth during a peak flow event (Table A.4-1). The selection and effective use of these equations requires considerable engineering judgment resulting in semi-quantitative
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 11 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14 results. Each method was designed based on a specific range of boundary conditions and care must be taken to select appropriate methods for the site under study.
Table A.4-1. Methods for Estimation of Potential Depth of General Scour Method Reference Yaremko and Cooper Yaremko and Cooper (1983)
Neill’s Regime Neill (1964)
Lacey’s Regime Lacey (1930)
Competent Velocity MTO (1997)
Blench Zero Bed Factor Blench (1969); Pemberton and Lara (1984)
Bed Armouring Borah (1989)
Originally, some of the scour equations were intended to estimate scour relative to a design flood stage (e.g. Yaremko and Cooper). For ease of result presentation, the calculations made by BGC (described in the following sections) were manipulated to predict scour depth relative to the channel bed.
A.4.1.2.1 Yaremko and Cooper Yaremko and Cooper’s (1983) scour equation assumes that scour depth is proportional to the mean channel depth for a given flow event where the mean channel depth is assumed to be the hydraulic depth (Wetted Area/Top Width). The Yaremko and Cooper scour equation is defined by the following equation:
(Eq. 4) where ds is the depth of maximum scour below the stream bed, dm is defined as the hydraulic
depth over the main (incised) portion of the channel, and Zn is the correction factor (z-factor). A correction factor (z-factor) is applied to the mean channel depth to account for channel morphology such as the degree of bending in the channel (Table A.4-2).
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 12 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Table A.4-2. Empirical Multiplying Factors for Maximum Scour Depth (Joyce and Chandler, 2004)
Correction Factor Channel Morphology (z-factor)
Straight Reach 0.25
Moderate Bend 0.5
Severe Bend 0.75
A.4.1.2.2 Neill’s Regime The Neill Regime scour equation is similar to the Yaremko and Cooper Equation where the scour depth is proportional to the mean channel depth for a given flow event (Eq. 5). However, the mean channel depth is calculated using the average bankfull depth, bankfull flow, design flow, and size of bed material (Neill, 1964). The mean channel depth (dm for a given flow event is defined by the following equation: (Eq. 5)
where di is the average depth of the incised reach (m), qf is the flow event per unit width 2 2 (m /s), qi is the bankful discharge per unit width in the incised channel (m /s), and m is an exponent that ranges from 0.67 to 0.85 for coarse gravel material. The average incised channel depth (di) in this assessment is assumed to be the hydraulic depth over the main (incised) portion of the channel under bankfull condition (assumed to be 2 to 5-year return period flows). The hydraulic depth is the wetted cross-sectional area (m2) divided by the top width (m). Similar to Yaremko and Cooper, a correction factor (z-factor) is applied to the mean channel depth to account for the degree of bending (Table A.4-3). The final scour depth estimate is relative to the incised bankfull hydraulic depth.
Table A.4-3. Empirical Multiplying Factors for Maximum Scour Depth (Pemberton and Lara, 1984)
Correction Factor Channel Morphology (z-factor)
Straight Reach 0.5
Moderate Bend 0.6
Severe Bend 0.7
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 13 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
A.4.1.2.3 Lacey’s Regime Lacey’s Regime was developed for large alluvial channels where total discharge and mean particle size are the driving variable (Lacey, 1930). Lacey’s Regime equation is based on the estimation of a design flow depth using the following relationship
/ 0.47 (Eq. 6) where dm in this assessment is assumed to be the hydraulic depth over the main (incised) portion of the channel (m), Q is the design discharge (m3/s), f is Lacey’s silt 1/2 factor = (1.76(D50 (mm)) )/s, and D50 (mm) is the median bed particle size (Joyce and Chandler, 2004). Lacey’s silt factor is based on the idea that silt is carried by water and kept in suspension and is derived based on grain size and total discharge through the channel. Similar to Yaremko and Cooper, a correction factor (z-factor) is applied to the average depth under design flood conditions to account for channel morphology
(Eq. 7)
where ds is the scour depth below the channel and Zf is the correction factor (z-factor)
(Table A.4-2.). The average depth (dm) is assumed to be the hydraulic depth over the incised portion of the channel. The hydraulic depth is the wetted cross-sectional area divided by the top width of the channel.
A.4.1.2.4 Blench Zero Bed Factor The Blench Zero Bed Factor method estimates the channel depth for which no material transport is observed on the channel bed. The zero bed factor method is based on Blench (1969) and the method is described in Pemberton and Lara (1984). The depth for which no material transport is observed is estimated using the following equation:
/ / (Eq. 8) where dfo is the depth for which no sediment transport is observed on the channel bed (m), qf 3 2 is the design discharge per unit width (m /s/m), fbo refers to Blench’s Zero Bed Factor (m/s ). Blench’s Zero Bed Factor follows a power relationship with the bed material particle diameter, and can be estimated directly from a graph. Similar to the other methods, the depth for zero bed transport is subsequently multiplied by a correction factor to account for the likely concentration of flood discharge in a portion of the channel. A correction factor value of 0.6 is applicable for channels ranging from straight to severe bends.
A.4.1.2.5 Competent Velocity Neill’s Competent velocity equation is based on the hypothesis that the channel cross- section will increase in size through scouring until the mean velocity is reduced to the point where no movement of bed material occurs. The average cross sectional velocity where no erosion occurs is referred to as the competent velocity and is estimated based on the bed
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 14 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14 material composition. This method assumes that the composition of the bed material does not change (no bed armour layer forms) as erosion occurs.
There are several empirical equations for Vc. A simplified version assumes a specific gravity of the bed material as 2.65 and the equation is described as follows:
/ / 5.67 (Eq. 9)
where y is the flow depth (m), and D50 is the median particle size (mm). Flow depth is assumed to be the hydraulic depth over the main incised portion of the channel at the design flood flow. Hydraulic depth is the wetted cross-sectional area (m2) divided by top width (m). The wetted cross-sectional area is predicted by the flood flow hydraulics (see Section A.4.1.1) calculated using the surveyed cross-sectional data. It is assumed that the channel cross-section scours in a parabolic pattern along the original channel bed (MTO, 1997) as defined by:
(Eq. 10) where ds is the depth of scour relative to the channel bed (m), As is the scoured area (define by AT – A where AT is the total flow area with scouring and A is total flow area without 3 scouring). The total flow area with scouring (AT) is equal to the design discharge (m /s) divided by the critical velocity (Vc). The width of scour (Ts) across the channel is estimated by calculating the top flow width for a 1 m deep channel with the surveyed cross-section.
A.4.1.2.6 Depth to Bed Armouring Some watercourses are lined with a natural stable bed paving layer typically formed from cobbles and boulders. This layer is formed as the river degrades through glacial till or outwash deposits to its existing elevation and will not be transported even during extreme flood flows (Yaremko and Cooper, 1983). An armour layer is expected along highly regulated rivers. The magnitude and frequency of high flows can be significantly decreased by dams (Schmidt and Wilcock, 2008). As such, the flows released by the dams may not be able to transport sizes previously moved by higher flows. Progressive winnowing from successive flows removes finer particles from the surface of the channel bed concentrating the coarser fraction (Grant, 2012). As degradation continues, the average particle size at the surface of the channel bed can be expected to increase resulting in an armor of coarse particles that is more difficult to mobilize for a given flow. The Bed Armouring method involves first estimating the size of bed material that will remain stable during a flood event (refer to Section A.4.1.5). Following the estimation of maximum mobile particle size, the depth of scouring before the formation of a stable armour layer is calculated and is referred to as the flood scour depth. It is dependent on the proportion of stable material in the original bed where the higher the proportion of stable particles, the lower the scour depth. Borah (1989) proposed a relationship to estimate the flood scour
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 15 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14 depth below a dam in a channel characterized by a well-mixed bed made of particles with the same specific gravity. Bed armouring will form based on the equations:
(Eq. 11)
and
∆ ∗ (Eq. 12)
which are combined together to form:
1 (Eq. 13) ∆
where Ya is the thickness of the armouring layer, Y is the depth from the original streambed to
the bottom of the armouring layer, Yd is the depth from the original streambed to top of the armouring layer and is referred to as the total depth of scour to self armouring, and ΔP is the decimal percentage of original bed material larger than the armour. The thickness of the armouring layer may vary depending on the limiting particle size and can range in thickness from one particle diameter to three particle diameters. A general guide in design suggests selecting the smallest between either 1) three times the armouring particle diameters or 0.15 m. The percentage of bed material equal to or greater than the required armour particle size can be determined from bed material size analysis as discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found..
A.4.1.3. Maximum Bed Mobility Channel bed mobility controls the adjustment of alluvial river channels and is driven by scour and entrainment. The maximum mobile particle size is generated using an estimate of the
shear velocity (u*) and channel bed shear stress ( ) where shear stress is expressed by the following equation:
∗ / (Eq. 14) where g is acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), R is the hydraulic radius (m), S is the regional channel slope (unitless). Shear velocity is expressed in units of m/s. Channel bed shear stress incorporates water density and is expressed by the following formula:
(Eq. 15) Where g is acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), is the density of water (1000 kg/m3), R is the hydraulic radius (m), and S is the regional channel slope (m/m).
Similar to scour, several empirical equations are available to estimate the maximum mobile particle size and each is considered a check on the others (Table A.4-4) (Pemberton and
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 16 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Lara, 1984). The methods described below use basic channel hydraulic flow parameters, shear velocity, and channel bed shear stress for 200-year flood. The maximum mobile particle size in a given channel is estimated by taking the average of the six different methods at every crossing.
Table A.4-4. Methods for Estimation of Bed Material Mobility Method Reference Shields’ Incipient Motion Shields (1936)
Yang Insipient Motion Pemberton and Lara (1984)
Competent Bottom Velocity Pemberton and Lara (1984)
Lane’s Tractive Force Theory Pemberton and Lara (1984)
Borah Bed Armouring Borah (1989)
Meyer-Peter Muller Pemberton and Lara (1984)
The estimated maximum mobile particle size is used to assess the mobility of the bed material in the channel using an estimate of the median particle size present in the channel. Under conditions where the maximum mobile particle size is greater than the median particle size of the channel bed, the bed material is considered to be frequently mobile. Alternatively, in cases where the maximum mobile particle size is less than the median particle size of the channel bed, bed mobility is considered infrequent.
A.4.1.4. Local Scour In some reaches where bends, confluences, or obstructions are present, it is necessary to consider the potential effects of local scour. Local scour is the site-specific formation of scour holes in the bed as a result of secondary currents. Local scour depth is typically larger than general scour depth. Local scour equations can be implemented to estimate local scouring around structures such as bridge piers and abutments (Melville and Coleman, 2000). Prediction of local scour depth at channel bends and confluences is more subjective than general scour estimates. A common method is to apply a multiplier to the computed general scour depth for a given reach (e.g. Table A.4-3). Scour multipliers ranging from 1.5 to 3.0 for straight channels and sharp channel confluences respectively can be experienced (Veldman, 2008). For sites where a scour estimate is carried out, BGC estimates the general scour depth by taking the average of several estimation methods listed in Table A.4-1. In reaches where local scour can be expected (at confluences, boulders, large woody debris), a multiplier is applied to the general scour estimate to estimate the potential scouring in the local scour holes along the reach. For example, BGC typically incorporates a local multiplier of 3 to 5 for scour analyses in braided rivers to account for increased scour at confluences, which are characteristic features of such rivers due to multiple channels and mid-channel bars. The
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 17 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14 mid-channel bars add geomorphic complexity that results in convergent flow downstream of these deposits, which can cause localized changes in bed planform, including scour holes (Ashworth, 1996). Galay et al,. (1987) indicate that scour multipliers for braided rivers can be as high as 5 under certain circumstances.
A.4.1.5. Factor of Safety A factor of safety is often included in the scour analysis as a conservative precaution to account for the degree of variability in channel conditions increasing the scour depth. A factor of safety equivalent to 1.3 is applied by BGC to the average of the selected scour predictions.
A.4.1.6. Channels with Cohesive Beds Conventional approaches to scour prediction were developed from field observations and laboratory experiments in non-cohesive soils, and are generally regarded as overly conservative when applied to cohesive soils. Accurate and accepted methods for predicting scour depths in cohesive soils that account for the soil’s greater scour resistance are not yet available to practicing geomorphologists and engineers. The lack of an accurate predictive method often results in an overly conservative design scour depth for cohesive bed channels. Quantification of channel bed resistance to erosion is site specific and requires laboratory analysis on in-situ samples. Given that the cohesiveness and scour resistance of the substrate is generally not quantified, it is typically assumed by BGC that the bed materials at the pipeline crossings are non-cohesive. In cases where the channel bed material is obviously cohesive, scour depth results are considered overestimates and thus may not be reported by BGC.
A.4.2. Channel Degradation Various mathematical models are available for the prediction of channel degradation, but these models tend to be labour and data intensive. Furthermore, the models require some level of calibration to produce meaningful results. For the purpose of predicting long-term degradation at pipeline crossings where data and time are limited, mathematical modelling of sedimentation processes is not practical and is not implemented in this assessment. Degradation rates at pipeline crossings are typically assessed by reviewing a few “snap- shots” of historic channel morphology observations, and/or depth of cover measurements and survey data (see Figure A.4-2. ). This review provides an indication for the average rate of degradation over a given period of time.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 18 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Figure A.4-2. Cross-sectional Channel Changes on the Lillooet River in Response to Meander Cutoffs and Base Level Lowering (after Weatherly and Jakob, 2013)
A.4.3. Bank Erosion The assessment of a channel’s susceptibility to channel migration is somewhat qualitative. Consideration of the following characteristics at a pipe crossing is required:
discharge and flow velocity; location of bends along the river; bank geometry (steep slope vs. mild slope, deep banks vs. shallow banks); presence of obstructions in the channel that can deflect flow towards the bank; and effectiveness of bank protection (i.e. cohesive vs. non-cohesive bank material, presence of vegetation on the banks, size and integrity of bank armouring).
As with assessing degradation rates, when available, multi-temporal survey data through the channel cross section are plotted together, relative to the same datum, and compared to provide an indication of the historic average rate of channel lateral migration. Historical air photographs can also be analyzed to assess lateral channel stability, although this method is generally limited to medium to large rivers (> 20 m width). It should be noted however, that any lateral migration rates that are determined through analysis of historical observations should be applied with caution when predicting future rates of lateral migration. Some channel banks can appear to be stable for long periods of time only to be washed out in a single severe flood event (Yaremko and Cooper, 1983).
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 19 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
In the absence of previous site survey data, the most recent surveyed pipe and ground profile also gives an indication of the lateral migration that has occurred at the pipe crossing since the time of pipeline construction. The pipeline sag-bends are typically installed symmetrically such that the channel is centered equidistant from each sag-bend. When lateral migration occurs, the channel centerline is no longer positioned symmetrically between the sag-bends and over-bends. Figure A.4-3 depicts the location of sag-bends with respect to the channel banks at the time of construction, and then after a period of lateral migration.
Figure A.4-3. Multi-temporal Ground and Pipe Profile Surveys at a Watercourse Crossing
A.4.4. Avulsion If the crossing is situated on an alluvial fan, the footprint of the fan is approximated and the length of pipeline that crosses the fan is identified. If the crossing passes through a floodplain, the floodplain extents are roughly approximated. After the length of affected pipe is identified, factors such as levees, cutoff structures, debris jams, sediment accumulation, beaver dams, debris flow, or extreme flooding are considered. Due to the complex nature of the combination of mechanisms that can initiate avulsion, it is difficult to predict exact avulsion flow paths through a fan or floodplain, even with detailed topographic survey data of the entire study area. The potential length of affected pipeline should be inspected following extreme flood events. In a majority of cases, avulsion hazards encountered by BGC typically occur on a wide floodplain, where the river avulses into an existing side channel or abandoned channel. A pipeline rupture on the Red Deer River in 2008 was a result of channel avulsion into a side channel, a situation that developed over a period of years. Figure A.4-4. depicts a typical avulsion hazard in plan view and cross-section.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 20 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Figure A.4-4. Example of Avulsion in Plan View (left) and Cross-section (right)
According to Schumm (2005), the underlying causes of avulsions can be organized into four groups (Table 4-A.4-5). In braided channels, avulsion channel creation would likely be a result of the instabilities listed in Group 1 and/or 3.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 21 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Table 4-A.4-5. Causes of Avulsions According to Schumm (2005) Ability of channel to Processes and events that create instability and lead toward carry sediment and avulsion discharge Group 1 a) Sinuosity increases (reduction in gradient) Decrease Avulsion from increased ratio of b) Delta growth (lengthening of channel) Decrease Sa/Se due to decrease c) Baselevel fall (Resulting in decreased slope Decrease in Se d) Tectonic uplift (Resulting in decreased Decrease slope) Group 2 Avulsion from a) Natural levee/alluvial ridge growth No change increased ratio of b) Alluvial fan and delta growth (convexity) No change Sa/Se due to increase in Sa c) Tectonism (resulting in lateral tilting) No change Group 3 a) Hydrologic change in flood peak discharge Decrease b) Increased sediment load Decrease Avulsion with no c) Vegetative encroachment Decrease change in ratio, Sa/Se d) Log Jams Decrease e) Ice Jams Decrease Group 4 a) Animal trails No Change Other avulsions b) Capture (diversion into adjacent drainage) No Change
Note: Se is the gradient of the existing (main) channel and Sa is the gradient of the potential avulsion course.
A.4.5. Encroachment Progressive lateral movement of the channel toward the pipeline as a result of bank erosion toward the pipeline can be evaluated with similar qualitative and quantitative methods as outlined for bank erosion (Figure A.4-5).
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 22 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Encroachment Hazard
Figure A.4-5. Example of an Encroachment Hazard (Google Earth imagery year: 2004)
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 23 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
Ashworth, P.J. 1996. Mid-channel bar growth and its relationship to local flow strength and direction. Earth Surface Processes and Landform 21(2): 103–123.
Blench, T. 1969. Mobile-bed Fluviology. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. Borah, D.K. 1989. Scour depth prediction under armouring conditions. Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE 115 (HY10):1421-1425. Coles, S. 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values. Springer Verlag London Limited. pp.208. Galay, V.J., Yaremko, E.K., and Quazi, M.E. 1987. River bed scour and construction of stone rip rap protection. In: Sediment Transport Gravel Bed Rivers. Edited by: C.R. Thorne, J.C. Bathurst and R.D. Hey. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., p. 353-382. Gilleland, E. and Katz, R.W. 2006. Analyzing Seasonal to Interannual Extreme Weather and Climate Variability with the Extremes Toolkit. Research Applications Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research. Grant, G.E. 2012. The geomorphic response of gravel-bed rivers to dams: perspectives and prospects. In: Gravel-Bed Rivers: Processes, Tools, Environments. Edited by: M. Church, P. M. Biron and A. G. Roy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. Ch. 15. Joyce, S. and Chandler, A. 2004. A Method for the Analysis of Scour Potential and Protective Works Design at Pipeline Crossings of Mobile-Bed Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in Pipelines Engineering and Construction, American Society of Civil Engineers. San Diego, California, July 15-18. Lacey, G. 1930. Stable Channels in Alluvium. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Volume 229. Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Madsen, H., Rasmussen, P.F., and Rosbjerg, D. 1997. Comparison of annual maximum series and partial duration series methods for modeling extreme hydrological events, 1, at- site modeling. Water Resources Research 33(4): 747-758. Melville, B. and Coleman, S. 2000. Bridge Scour. Water Resources Publications LLC. Highlands Reach, Colorado. Ministry of Transportation Ontario. (MTO) 1997. Drainage Management Manual. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Drainage and Hydrology Section, Transportation Engineering Branch. Chapter 5: Bridges, Culverts and Stream Channels. Neill, C.R. 1964. River-bed Scour: A Review for Bridge Engineers. Research Council of Alberta. Canadian Good Roads Association. Technical Publication No. 23. pp.47.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC April 2014 Hydrotechnical Investigation and Analysis Methodology Project No.: 0095-150-14
Pemberton, E.L. and Lara, J.M. 1984. Computing Degradation and Local Scour. Technical Guideline for Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, United States. Schumm, S. A. 2005. River Variability and Complexity. Mussetter Engineering, Inc., USA. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3, pp 31. Shields, I.A. 1936. Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bed-load movement. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Pasadena, California. Schmidt, J.C. and Wilcock, P.R. 2008. Metrics for assessing the downstream effects of dams. Water Resources Research 44:1-19. Ulrich, C., Rajah, S.K., Talich, C. and Galatas, J. 2005. A Case History of Scour Impacted Pipelines in River Crossings Part I – Scour Evaluation. Proceedings of the Conference on Pipeline Design, Operations, and Maintenance in Today’s Economy, Houston, Texas. Aug. 21-24. USGS. 1982. Flood Flow Frequency. Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data. Office of Water Data Coordination. Reston, Virginia. 194 pp. Veldman, W. 2008. Pipeline Geo-Environmental Design and Geohazard Management. Chapter 3, Open Cut and Elevated River Crossings. Edited by Moness Rizkalla. ASME. Yaremko, E.K., and Cooper, R.H. 1983. Influence of Northern Pipelines on River Crossing Design. In: Pickell, M.B. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Conference on Pipelines in Adverse Environments II, American Society of Civil Engineers. San Diego, California, November 14- 16, 1983. pp. 49-63. Watt, W. E. (Editor-in Chief), 1989. Hydrology of Floods in Canada: a Guide to Planning and Design. N.R.C., Ottawa, Canada. 245 pp. Weatherly, H. and Jakob, M. 2013. Geomorphic response of Lillooet River, British Columbia, to meander cutoffs and base level lowering. Submitted to Geomorphology. Wolman, M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 35(6): 951-956.
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 25 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14
APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River BGC ENGINEERING INC.
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ON TEST HOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Number: 0095-150-04
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
CORE GRAB NO RECOVERY SPT SHELBY TUBE SHEAR VANE
CLASSIFICATION BY PARTICLE SIZE(1) PROPORTION OF MINOR COMPONENTS SIZE RANGE BY WEIGHT US STANDARD SIEVE “and” 35% to 50%. SIZE “y/ey” 20% to 35% NAME (mm) (2) Retained Passing “Some” 10% to 20% Boulders >300 12 inch - “Trace” 0% to 10% Cobbles 75 - 300 3 inch 12 inch Gravel: PARTICLE SHAPE Coarse 19 - 75 0.75 inch 3 inch Flat Particles with width/thickness >3 Fine 5 - 19 No. 4 0.75 inch Elongated Particles with length/width >3 Sand: Flat and Particles that meet both criteria Coarse 2 - 5 No. 10 No. 4 Elongated Medium 0.4 - 2 No. 40 No. 10 ANGULARITY Fine 0.074 - 0.4 No. 200 No. 40 Fines (Silt or Clay)(3) <0.074 - No. 200 “Angular” Particles have sharp edges and relatively planar sides with unpol- ished surfaces. DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS DESCRIPTION SPT - FIELD IDENTIFICATION “Subangular” Particles are similar to angular “N”(4) description but have some rounded “Very Loose” 0-4 edges. “Loose” 4-10 Easy to drive wooden stake “Subrounded” Particles have nearly planar sides “Compact” 10-30 but have well rounded corners and edges. “Dense” 30-50 Difficult to drive wooden stake more then 50 mm. “Rounded” Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges. “Very dense” >50 CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS DESCRIPTION SPT- UNDRAINED SHEAR FIELD IDENTIFICATION (6,7) (5) “N” STRENGTH - “Su” kPa “Very soft” <2 <12 Easily penetrated several cm by the fist. “Soft” 2-4 12-25 Easily penetrated several cm by the thumb. “Firm” 4-8 25-50 Can be penetrated several cm by the thumb with moderate effort. “Stiff” 8-15 50-100 Readily indented by the thumb but penetrated only with great effort. “Very Stiff” 15-30 100-200 Readily indented by the thumb nail. “Hard” >30 >200 Indented with difficulty by the thumbnail.
(1) Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). (2) Approximate metric conversion. (3) Fines are classified as silt or clay on the basis of Atterberg limits (refer to Plasticity Chart). (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count uncorrected, after Terzaghi and Peck, 1948. (5) Undrained shear strength can be estimated by vane (gives Su), pocket penetrometer (gives unconfined compressive strength, i.e., 2 Su), or unconfined compression test (gives 2 Su). (6) Approximate correlation with Standard Penetration Test blow counts, after Terzaghi and Peck, 1948. (7) “R” represents sampler refusal during Standard Penetration Test.
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ON TEST HOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Number: 0095-150-04
PLASTICITY OF COHESIVE SOILS (7) DESCRIP- SILT CLAY CRITERIA TION (8) High WL >50 WL >50 It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.
Medium - 30 Low WL<50 WL<30 The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. Non-Plastic NP - A 1/8 inch (3 mm) thread cannot be rolled at any water content. PLASTICITY OF COHESIVE SOILS(8) 60 50 40 CH 30 CI Plasticity Index (%) Index Plasticity 20 CL MH or OH 10 ML or OL CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit (%) MOISTURE CONDITION DILATANCY(11) Descrip- Description Criteria Criteria Dry Absence of moisture tion None No visible change in the spec-men Moist Damp but no visible water during shaking or squeezing Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table Slow Water appears slowly on the sur- face of the specimen during shaking CEMENTATION and disappears slowly upon squeezing Description Criteria Rapid Water appears quickly on the sur- Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or little pressure face of the specimen during shaking Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure and disappears quickly upon squeezing Strong Will not crumble or break with finger pressure (8) This plasticity classification conforms to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and to ASTM D-2487, except for the addition of an intermediate category for clay, where the liquid limit is between 30% and 50% (CI). Under ASTM and USCS, all clays with a liquid limit less than 50% are classified as low plasticity (CL). (9) WL = Liquid Limit (%) (10) Classifications as per USCS. (11) Test for dilatancy conducted by shaking and squeezing a moulded ball of soil that is 12 mm in diameter. (12) Test for dry strength conducted on natural soil pieces or moulded balls about 25 mm in diameter that have been dried at less than 60°C. SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ON TEST HOLE AND TEST PIT LOGS Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Number: 0095-150-04 STRUCTURE Lithological Graphic Log Legend (10) Description Criteria Cohesive Soils Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or CH/SM CL/SM USCS High Plasticity USCS Low Plasticity colour with layers at least 6 mm thick; Clay / Silt / Sand Silt, Clay, & Sand note thickness MH OL Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or USCS Elastic Silt USCS Low Plasticity Organic Silt or Clay colour with the layers less than 6 mm CL MLS thick; note thickness USCS Low Plasticity USCS Sandy Silt Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fracture Clay with little resistance to fracturing ML CL/ML USCS Silt USCS Low Plasticity Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or Silty Clay glossy, sometimes striated CH/MH CH USCS High Plasticity USCS High Plasticity Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down Clay Clay into small angular lumps which resist fur- CH/MH/S/G CL/ML SAND ther breakdown USCS Low Plasticity USCS Low Plasticity Silty Clay Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different Clay, Gravel, Sand, Silt soils, such as small lenses of sand scat- MLGS CLG USCS Gravelly Silt USCS Low Plasticity tered through a mass of clay; note thick- Gravelly Clay ness Homogeneous Same colour and appearance throughout Granular Soils Heterogeneous Colour and appearance vary throughout GW GW/SW&B USCS Well-graded USCS Well-graded IDENTIFICATION OF INORGANIC FINE-GRAINED SOILS Gravel Gravel/Sand/Boulders FROM MANUAL TESTS SPG SC USCS Poorly-graded USCS Clayey Sand Soil Symbol Dry Strength Dilatancy Gravelly Sand SW SP-SM ML None to Low Slow to Rapid USCS Well-graded USCS Poorly-graded Sand Sand with Silt CL Medium to High None to Slow BLDRCBBL SW-SM Boulders and Cobbles USCS Well-graded MH Low to Medium None to Slow Sand with Silt GW/SW GP CH High to Very High None USCS Well-graded USCS Poorly-graded Sandy Gravel Gravel DRY STRENGTH SP-SC GM USCS Poorly-graded USCS Silty Gravel (12) Description Criteria Sand with Clay None The dry specimen crumbles into powder SWG SP USCS Well-graded USCS Poorly-graded upon applying pressure or handling Gravelly Sand Sand Low The dry specimen breaks into pieces or GW-GM SP USCS Well-graded USCS Poorly-graded crumbles with considerable finger pres- Gravelly with Silt Sand sure SM High The dry specimen cannot be broken with USCS Silty Sand finger pressure. Specimen will break into pieces between thumb and a hard sur- Other face BEDROCK PT Very High The dry specimen cannot be broken be- Bedrock USCS Peat tween the thumb and a hard surface Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Page 1 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Right Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 31 Jul 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,694E, 5,470,465N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 03 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 70.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 39.16 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 13.10 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 0 1 SILT (ML) R Gravelly (fine to coarse), low plasticity, hard, brown, some organic R odour, dry, no structure, no cementation, no dry strength, no dilatancy, R no foreigns. [FILL] SPT-01 - Recovered 0.1 m 1 SPT-02 - Recovered 0.23 m 2 ORGANICS (OL) 14 Dark brown, dry, woody, silty, woody particles, no foreigns. 13 [TOPSOIL] 12 2 3 SPT-03 - Recovered 0.24 m 11 R GRAVEL (GW) R 3 Fine to medium grained, sandy, well graded, very dense, max particle size = 15 mm, angular, grey, no odour, dry, no structure, no cementation, no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] 4 4 SPT-04 - Recovered 0.20 m 33 49 50 5 5 SPT-05 - Recovered 0.10 m 10 R 6 GRAVEL (GM) Fine grained, silty, well graded, very dense, max particle size = 15 R mm, angular, grey, no odour, moist, no structure, no cementation, no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] 7 6 R SPT-06 - No recovery R R 8 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Page 2 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Right Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 31 Jul 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,694E, 5,470,465N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 03 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 70.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 39.16 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 13.10 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 8 SPT-07 - Recovered 0.30 m, changes to coarse grained, some silt, 9 7 dense and wet 21 26 15 10 SPT-08 - Recovered 0.28 m 8 SAND (SP) 1 Medium grained, trace gravel, poorly graded, compact, max particle 5 size = 10 mm, subangular, greyey brown, wet, no structure, no 7 11 cementation, no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] SAND (SW) 6 9 Medium to coarse grained, gravelly, well graded, very dense, max 12 32 particle size = 30 mm, angular, brown, no structure, no cementation, 44 no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] SPT-09 - Recovered 0.29 m 13 SPT-10 - Recovered 0.30 m 9 10 Switched to Mud Rotary 23 26 14 SPT-11 - Recovered 0.30 m, changes to medium grained, max 11 particle size = 50 mm 17 35 29 15 SPT-12 - Recovered 0.26 m 16 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Page 3 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Right Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 31 Jul 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,694E, 5,470,465N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 03 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 70.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 39.16 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 13.10 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 16 12 GRAVEL (GW) 24 Fine grained, sandy, well graded, very dense, max particle size = 40 23 mm, angular, greyish brown, wet, no structure, no cementation, no 27 foreings. [FLUVIAL] 17 13 SPT-13 - Recovered 0.20 m 30 R R 18 SPT-14 - Recovered 0.08 m 15 19 14 SAND (SW) R Medium grained, some gravel, trace silt, well graded, very dense, max R particle size = 5 mm, subangular, greyish brown, wet, no structure, no cementation, no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] 20 15 GRAVEL (GM) 23 Fine grained, some silt, trace sand, well graded, very dense, max R particle size = 40 mm, subangular, grey, wet, no structure, no R cementation, no foreigns. 21 [FLUVIAL] SPT-15 - Recovered 0.15 m 21.0 m - Lost 100% circulation. Regained fully after 0.3 m. 22 SPT-16 - Recovered 0.30 m 16 SAND (SW) 26 Medium grained, some gravel, well graded, very dense, max particle 30 size = 30 mm, subangular, grey, wet, no structure, no cementation, no 33 foreigns. [TILL] Changes to fine grained and dark grey with orange mottling. 23 SPT-17 - Recovered 0.38 m, changes to medium grained, trace gravel 17 and dense 16 24 19 24 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Page 4 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Right Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 31 Jul 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,694E, 5,470,465N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 03 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 70.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 39.16 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 13.10 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 24 25 SPT-18 - Recovered 0.17 m, changes to SAND(SP) and gravel, very 18 dense 38 29 30 26 SPT-19 - Recovered 0.23 m, changes to coarse grained, trace silt 19 17 34 27 29 28 SPT-20 - Recovered 0.35 m 20 GRAVEL (GP) 27 Fine grained, sandy, poorly graded, very dense, max particle size = 30 30 mm, subangular, grey, wet, no structure, no cementation, no foreigns. 30 [TILL] 29 SPT-21 - Recovered 0.33 m, 10 cm lense of medium grained SAND 21 (SP) 28 25 30 30 31 SPT-22 - Recovered 0.29 m 22 23 36 31 32 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Page 5 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Right Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 31 Jul 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,694E, 5,470,465N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 03 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 70.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 39.16 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 13.10 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 32 SAND (SW) 23 Medium to coarse grained, some gravel, trace silt, well graded, very 19 dense, max particle size = 10 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, wet, 22 33 no structure, no cementation, no foreigns. 23 [TILL] SPT-23 - Recovered 0.38 m 34 SPT-24 - Recovered 0.34 m, changes to gravelly, some silt. 24 18 26 27 35 SPT-25 - Recovered 0.29 m 25 14 20 36 21 37 SPT-26 - Recovered 0.28 m 26 26 34 45 38 SPT-27 - Recovered 0.26 m 27 GRAVEL (GW) 20 39 Medium to coarse grained, some sand, trace silt, well graded, very 28 dense, max particle size = 50 mm, subangular, brown, no odour, wet, 29 no structure, no cementation, no foreigns. [TILL] . . . 40 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Page 6 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Right Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 31 Jul 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,694E, 5,470,465N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 03 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 70.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 39.16 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 13.10 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 40 Borehole completed at target depth of 39.16 m below ground surface. Borehole grouted to surface with bentonite grout. No instrumentation installed. SPT Sampler Details: 24" length, 2" diameter, driven by automatic trip hammer. All SPT sampling was carried out in accordance with ASTM 41 D1586. Garmin GPSMAP 62s handheld GPS accuracy +/- 3 m. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Page 1 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Left Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 05 Aug 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,434E, 5,470,349N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 07 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 58.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.22 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 11.71 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 0 1 SAND (SP) 10 Fine grained, trace gravel, trace silt, poorly graded, compact, max 12 particle size = 20 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, dry, no structure, 10 no cementation, some rootlets up to <100 mm diameter. [TOPSOIL] SPT-01 - Recovered 0.30 m 1 SPT-02 - Recovered 0.45 m, changes to medium grained, compact, 2 and light brown 7 10 19 2 3 SPT-03 - Recovered 0.19 m, changes to fine grained, gravelly, trace 15 clay, very dense, dark brown, moist and some cementation 18 3 R 4 SILT (ML) 4 Sandy, some clay, some gravel, low plasticity, hard, light brown, no 7 odour, moist, no structure, weak cementation, no dry strength, no 16 dilatancy, no foreigns. 28 [FLUVIAL] 5 SPT-04 - Recovered 0.37 m 5 R SPT-05 - No recovery R R 6 7 6 SPT-06 - Recovered 0.20 m 36 R SAND (SW) R Medium grained, and gravel, trace silt, well graded, very dense, max particle size = 40 mm, angular, greyish brown, no odour, dry, no structure, weak cementation, no foreigns. 8 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Page 2 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Left Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 05 Aug 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,434E, 5,470,349N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 07 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 58.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.22 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 11.71 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 8 [FLUVIAL] SPT-07 - Recovered 0.19 m 7 9 7 GRAVEL (GM) Fine grained, sandy, some silt, well graded, dense to very dense, max 12 particle size = 40 mm, angular, greyish brown, no odour, dry, no 18 structure, weak cementation, no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] 10 SPT-08 - Recovered 0.19 m 8 6 29 R 11 SPT-09 - Recovered 0.38 m 12 9 11.85 m - Switched to Mud Rotary 7 SAND (SP) 39 Very fine grained, trace gravel, silty, poorly graded, very dense, max 27 particle size =< 1 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, wet, no structure, weak cementation, no foreigns. [FLUVIAL] SPT-10 - Recovered 0.29 m, changes to medium grained, lens of fine 13 10 32 to coarse GRAVEL (GW). 28 R 14 SPT-11 - Recovered 0.17 m 11 17 30 R 15 16 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Page 3 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Left Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 05 Aug 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,434E, 5,470,349N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 07 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 58.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.22 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 11.71 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 16 12 SAND (SW) 34 Fine to medium grained, gravelly, trace silt, well graded, very dense, 38 max particle size = 20 mm, angular light brown, no odour, wet, no 31 structure, strong cementation, no foreigns. [TILL] 17 SPT-13 - Recovered 0.26 m, changes to max particle size = 10 mm 13 16 20 R 18 19 SPT-14 - Recovered 0.23 m 14 45 38 30 20 SAND (SP) 15 Medium to fine grained, some gravel, poorly graded, dense, max 16 particle size = 10 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, wet, no 16 21 structure, weak cementation, no foreigns. 19 [TILL] SPT-15 - Recovered 0.28 m 22 SPT-16 - Recovered 0.40 m, changes to trace gravel and compact 16 12 12 14 23 SPT-17 - Recovered 0.40 m, changes to fine grained 17 11 13 24 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Page 4 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Left Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 05 Aug 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,434E, 5,470,349N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 07 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 58.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.22 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 11.71 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 24 SAND (SP) 16 Medium to fine grained, some gravel, poorly graded, compact to very dense, max particle size = 10 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, wet, no structure, weak cementation, no foreigns. [TILL] 25 SPT-18 - Recovered 0.29 m, changes to gravelly 18 18 34 36 26 SPT-19 - Recovered 0.28 m, changes to some gravel 19 16 14 27 21 28 SPT-20 - Recovered 0.37 m, changes to trace gravel, some silt 20 17 17 17 29 21 15 30 16 16 31 SPT-22 - Recovered 0.26 m, gravel lense from 31.23 to 31.33 m 22 30 33 25 32 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Page 5 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Left Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 05 Aug 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,434E, 5,470,349N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 07 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 58.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.22 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 11.71 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 32 SAND (SP) Medium to fine grained, some gravel, poorly graded, dense, max particle size = 10 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, wet, no structure, weak cementation, no foreigns. [TILL] 23 SPT-23 - Recovered 0.35 m 14 33 18 21 34 SPT-24 - Recovered 0.36 m 24 SAND (SW) 27 Medium to fine grained, gravelly, well graded, dense, max particle size 27 = 20 mm, subrounded, brown, no odour, wet, no structure, weak 19 cementation, no foreigns. 35 [TILL] 50 25 SPT-25 - Recovered 0.05 m R 36 R 37 SPT-26 - Recovered 0.25 m, changes to coarse grained, gravelly 26 25 23 31 38 39 SPT-27 - Recovered 0.05 m 27 24 40 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Page 6 of 6 Location: Coquihalla River - Left Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04 Survey Method: Garmin GPSMAP 62s Drill Designation: HT-700 Start Date: 05 Aug 13 Co-ordinates (m): 614,434E, 5,470,349N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 07 Aug 13 Ground Elevation (m): 58.0 Drill Method: Air Rotary/Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.22 Datum: NAD83 Zone 11 Fluid: Bentonite Mud Logged by: BNM Dip (degrees from horizontal): 90 Casing: HQ Cased To (m): 11.71 Reviewed by: AJB Direction: N/A Depth To Rock (m): N/A Approved by: KWB Su - kPa 40 80 120 160 % Fines UC/2 Lithologic Description Pocket Pen /2 RQD DCT (blows/300mm) SPT (blows/150mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W% WL% Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Grade Weathering Symbol SPT Blows per 150mm 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 40 16 11 Borehole completed at target depth of 40.22 m below ground surface. Borehole grouted to surface with bentonite grout. No instrumentation installed. SPT Sampler Details: 24" length, 2" diameter, driven by automatic trip 41 hammer. All SPT sampling was carried out in accordance with ASTM D1586. Garmin GPSMAP 62s handheld GPS accuracy +/- 3 m. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 TMEP (SOIL & ROCK) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 3/6/14 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Apr 04, 2014 Coquihalla River at RK 1043.2 Project No.: 0095-150-14 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Coquihalla River BGC ENGINEERING INC. SIZE OF OPENING (in) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3 24" 12" 6" 4" 3" 1" 3/ " /8" #6 #10 #20 100 4 #4 #40 #100 #200 CQ-01-SPT7 (8.7 - 9.0 mbgs) 90 CQ-01-SPT15 (20.3 - 20.5 mbgs) CQ-01-SPT19 (26.4 - 26.6 mbgs) 80 CQ-01-SPT34 (34.0 - 34.3 mbgs) CQ-02-SPT8 (10.2 - 10.3 mbgs) 70 CQ-02-SPT13 (17.4 - 17.6 mbgs) CQ-02-SPT20 (28.0 - 28.4 mbgs) CQ-02-SPT24 (34.1 - 34.5 mbgs) 60 50 40 30 PERCENT FINER THAN (%) PERCENT FINER 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAINSIZE (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE NOTE: Material classification plotted according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT NTS SZ PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY MAR 2014 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2 SZ KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS DWG TO BE READ WITH BGC REPORT TITLED "HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - COQUIHALLA RIVER AT RK 1043.2" DATED MAR 2014 C-01 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Morgan\150 - TMEP Pipeline Project\04 HDD Assessment\lab data\GSA_01.29.2014.grf Assessment\lab HDD Project\04 TMEP Pipeline - Morgan\150 Kinder N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-07 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 8.69 to 8.99 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.70 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 38.1 Method: Split, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 8/28/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-15 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 20.32 to 20.47 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.81 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 38.1 Method: Combined, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 9/10/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-19 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 26.40 to 26.63 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.71 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 25.4 Method: Split, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 8/28/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-01 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-24 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 34.00 to 34.34 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.68 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 38.1 Method: Split, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 8/28/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-08 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 10.19 to 10.31 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.81 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 19.1 Method: Combined, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 9/10/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-13 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 17.37 to 17.63 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.73 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 25.4 Method: Split, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 8/28/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 28.04 to 28.39 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.67 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 19.1 Method: Split, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 8/28/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ASTM C136 Client: BGC Engineering Inc. Borehole ID: BH-BGC13-CQ-02 Project: 0095-150-04 TMEP Sample No.: SPT-24 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 34.13 to 34.49 Project No.: 13-1415-0029 Phase: 12000 Lab Schedule No.: 176 Other Remarks: N/A Specific Gravity (calculated): 2.68 Shape: Max. Particle Size Passing (mm): 19.1 Method: Split, Washed USCS Particle Size Scale Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer 24 12 6 3 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Percent Finer by Mass 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine MM 8/28/2013 LP 9/16/2013 File:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (SINGLE) Template:LOCALHOST: GINT_GAL_TEMPLATE_DEV Library:_GAL LIBRARY.GLB mmiller 9/16/13 Tech Date Checked Date Golder Associates Ltd. 500 - 4260 Still Creek Drive Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5C 6C6 Tel: (604) 296 4200 Fax: (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America