TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC
TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6
PROJECT NO.: 0095150-04 DISTRIBUTION: DATE: February 20, 2015 TMP ULC: 2 copies DOCUMENT NO.: 0095150-14-SUM BGC: 2 copies OTHER: 1 copy
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of the engineering design and assessment for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been retained to complete geotechnical feasibility assessments for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at select stream crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. In September 2014, BGC supervised the drilling of three boreholes adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment at Sumas River east of Abbotsford, BC. WorleyParsons, under subcontract to BGC, completed geophysical surveys at the same site in August 2013 and November 2014. Analysis of historical aerial photographs shows that the banks of Sumas River appear stable with respect to bank erosion and avulsion, and the proposed HDD alignment is not expected to be compromised by these hydrotechnical hazards. Results from the scour analysis estimate a maximum scour depth of approximately 2.0 m below the channel thalweg during a 200-year flood event, corresponding to an elevation of 1.5 m below sea level. Given this result, the depth of cover above the proposed HDD borepath remains adequate for the entire HDD length. The HDD entry and exit points are located beyond the dykes that parallel the Sumas River at an elevation of approximately 3.8 and 11.8 masl, respectively. The HDD exit point is approximately 4.7 m above 200-year flood elevation for the Sumas River and is not expected to be at risk of flooding during the 200-year flood event. However, the HDD entry point is approximately 3.3 m below the 200-year flood elevation, and is at risk of being inundated in the event that the dyke system fails. BGC understands the dykes along the Sumas River are designed to contain a peak flow of 350 m3/s (a 50-year flood event) that includes potential flow from the Nooksack River (Klohn, 1989). Large peak flows for the Sumas River are possible due to the overflow of the Nooksack River during high flow events. Due to the close proximity of the proposed HDD crossing to the downstream confluence of the Sumas River with the Fraser River, flood levels at the crossing point could be influenced by the Fraser River (NHC, 2008). Consequently, the HDD entry point could be inundated should a large flood event occur in the Fraser River; however, this flood depth is not expected to result in sufficient scour to expose the HDD entry point (BGC, 2015). Results of geotechnical drilling indicate that the site is underlain by a thin layer (approximately 3 m) of loose, uniform sand from the HDD entry point to beneath the Sumas River. This changes to a well graded colluvial sand and gravel layer beneath the HDD exit point. The thin sand layer is underlain by very soft, stratified lacustrine silt and sand, while the surficial sand and gravel colluvium in the west floodplain extends to a depth ranging from approximately 10 to 20 m (downward sloping to the east). Beneath these layers is a very soft glaciolacustrine silt and clay unit that is interpreted to extend beyond the depths of the boreholes drilled. The presence of boulders or cobbles was not evident during the investigative drilling program. Bedrock was not encountered during investigative drilling; however, seismic refraction geophysical survey results indicate that the bedrock surface may be approximately 10 metres
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page i BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 below ground surface (mbgs) along the base of Sumas Mountain beneath the HDD exit point. Based on geophysical surveys and the drilling results, bedrock is not expected to be encountered along the proposed the HDD borepath, but the exact depth to the bedrock interface is uncertain. Minor sloughing was encountered within the lacustrine sand and the colluvial sand and gravel deposits in BH-BGC14-SUM-03, and within the stratified sand and silt unit in BH-BGC14-SUM- 02. Drilling fluid circulation losses during investigative drilling were minimal (10%) throughout drilling all three boreholes. Some drilling fluid losses may be encountered along the HDD borepath, and will have to be addressed through the use of the appropriate drilling fluids, the use of casing or by other techniques. Coarse grained colluvial deposits are interpreted at the HDD exit point. Given the cohesionless nature of these deposits combined with the relative difference in elevation between the exit and entry points, drilling mud pressures during construction should be carefully controlled throughout this region to prevent the release of drilling fluids to the surface. Beneath the river bed, the minimum separation depth between the proposed HDD borepath and the river bed is approximately 22 m. Assuming hydrostatic pressures, the anticipated drill fluid pressures should not exceed the confining stress provided by the overburden above the drill path considering the small elevation difference between the river and the entry/exit points. As such, the risk of loss of containment where drilling fluids may enter the river is anticipated to be low. However, given the nature of the soft soils observed during investigative drilling, the risk of loss of containment should be further assessed 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 the three boreholes and the geophysics, an HDD crossing at this location can be considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided concerns associated with loss of containment in the soft lacustrine deposits and cohesionless sediments as well as borehole stability within the softer fluvial/glaciofluvial sand and glaciolacustrine silts can all be addressed during design and construction of the crossing. 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 - Sumas River_sb Page ii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii LIST OF TABLES ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv LIST OF DRAWINGS ...... iv LIST OF APPENDICES ...... iv LIMITATIONS ...... v 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 2 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, GEOLOGY AND HYDROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...... 3 3.1. Overview ...... 3 3.2. Surficial Geology ...... 4 3.3. Bedrock Geology ...... 4 3.4. Terrain Mapping ...... 5 Terrain Types ...... 5 3.5. Hydrotechnical Assessment ...... 6 Setting ...... 6 Flood Frequency Analysis ...... 6 Scour ...... 8 Bank Erosion ...... 8 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 THE HDD BOREPATH .....14 5.1. Eastern Floodplain (HDD Entry Point) ...... 15 5.2. Sumas River and Sumas Mountain Slope (HDD Borepath and Exit Point) .....15 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 16 6.1. General Considerations...... 16 6.2. Borepath Stability ...... 16 6.3. Circulation and Potential for Loss of Fluids ...... 16 7.0 CLOSURE ...... 18 REFERENCES ...... 19
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page iii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Peak instantaneous flow estimates (QIMAX) for the Sumas River [RK 1114.6] crossing...... 7 Table 3-2. Sumas River historic aerial photographs database...... 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Location of the proposed Sumas River pipeline crossing point...... 3 Figure 4-1. The Electrical Resistivity Range for Sumas River ERT Survey...... 12
LIST OF DRAWINGS
DRAWING 01 Bank Erosion & Avulsion Review DRAWING 02A Terrain Mapping DRAWING 02B Terrain Mapping Legend DRAWING 03 Interpreted Geological Section DRAWING 04A Geophysics Results Electrical Resistivity Tomography Survey DRAWING 04B Geophysics Results Seismic and MASW Survey DRAWING 05 Field Photos
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A HYDROTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX D VIBRATING WIRE PIEZOMETER DOCUMENTATION
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page iv BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
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 - Sumas River_sb Page v BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
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. 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 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. As part of the design process for the twinning of the pipeline, geotechnical and hydrotechnical investigations are being undertaken at watercourse crossings to support feasibility assessments for establishing the preferred crossing methodology, and where appropriate, contingency options. Known reference points along the existing Trans Mountain pipeline system are commonly referred to as Kilometer 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 - Sumas River_sb Page 1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
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 stream crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. The scope of work for the feasibility assessment of the Sumas 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) Terrain mapping assessment along the proposed pipeline corridor at a scale of 1:20,000. Planning for contingency river crossing methods is outside the scope of this study and will be addressed by the pipeline design engineer for the portion of the route under consideration, in this case, Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM). As such, no comments on the applicability of the current route to alternate crossing methods are provided herein. The purpose of this report is to summarize the anticipated geotechnical site conditions at the proposed Sumas 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 - Sumas River_sb Page 2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION, GEOLOGY AND HYDROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
3.1. Overview The Sumas River site is situated along the base of Sumas Mountain in Abbotsford, BC. The location of the site along the proposed TMEP alignment is shown in Figure 3-1 below.
Figure 3-1. Location of the proposed Sumas River pipeline crossing point.
In the region of the proposed TMEP alignment, Sumas River is approximately 40 m wide at bankfull and approximately 2 m deep. At this location, the Sumas River has been artificially straightened and is dyked along the east (right) bank (Drawing 01). It flows north from the United States in the Cascade Mountains towards the Fraser River. Approximately 9 km downstream of the proposed HDD crossing, the Sumas River converges with the Vedder Canal and drains north into the Fraser River. The proposed TMEP alignment is located approximately 8 m south of the existing conventional TMPL crossing. The proposed bore path is approximately 580 m long and crosses at a minimum depth of approximately 22 m beneath
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 the Sumas River. Both river banks are at elevations of approximately 2 m above sea level (masl) and have slope angles less than 5 degrees from the horizontal beyond the immediate river banks. At the location of the crossing, the river banks are approximately 1 m above the typical river level.
3.2. Surficial Geology The Sumas River pipeline crossing site is within the physiographic subregion of the Fraser Lowland. This physiographic region is within the Georgia Depression (Holland, 1976). The Fraser Lowland has been a depositional site since the late Tertiary (Clague et al., 1983). During the Fraser Glaciation, glaciers flowed from ice sheets centered over the Cascade and Coast Mountain Ranges to the south and west towards the Pacific Ocean (Ryder et al., 1991). The Fraser Lowland was a site for large volumes of sediment deposited into the Pacific Ocean. Following the retreat of the ice sheet approximately 11,300 years ago (Clague et al., 1983), the Fraser River has transported, reworked, and deposited large volumes of sediment into the Fraser River valley. This deposition has advanced the Fraser River Delta approximately 45 km in the last 10,500 years. Sumas Lake was a large freshwater wetland situated in the Sumas Valley at the eastern base of Sumas Mountain; however, it was drained in the 1920s (Cameron, 1989). The Sumas River HDD crossing site is located approximately on the former western lakeshore. The dominant surficial deposits of the Fraser Lowland are fluvial, glaciofluvial, glaciomarine, glaciolacustrine, lacustrine, and colluvium with localized bedrock outcrops and variable anthropogenic fill. Typically the fluvial and lacustrine deposits overlie the glaciolacustrine, glaciomarine, glaciofluvial, and till units but these sediments may be exposed at the surface. Surficial deposit thicknesses in the Fraser Lowland are variable and range from 10 to 300 m (Armstrong, 1984). Surficial mapping of the Fraser Lowland was completed in the 1970s (Armstrong 1979; 1980a; 1980b; 1980c). Armstrong (1980b) indicates that the surficial units encountered at the Sumas River crossing primarily consist of lacustrine and colluvial deposits. Lacustrine units contain variable silts and clays with sand. Colluvial deposits are mainly coarse fan material including sands and gravel, but can also be variable and may be composed of any of the previously described units, or cobbles and boulders in a matrix of sand, and are mapped as up to 15 m thick.
3.3. Bedrock Geology Bedrock within the Fraser Lowland is primarily Eocene (56 to 33.9 million years before present) clastic rocks and units of the Harrison, Bridge River, and Chilliwack terranes (Journeay et al., 2000). These units include coarse grained clastics, cherty and argillaceous limestone, and volcanics of the Chilliwack Group; amphibolite and gneisses of the Sumas metamorphic complex; intermediate to felsic volcanics and volcaniclastics of the Harrison Lake Formation; and extensive coarse grained clastics and rare volcanic units of the Kitsilano Formation.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
Journeay et al. (2000) indicates that bedrock in the vicinity of the Sumas River HDD crossing consists of the Nanaimo assemblage – alternating sequences of sandstone, conglomerate and shale, as well as the Central Coast Plutonic Complex – a foliated hornblende-biotite quartz granodiorite found throughout most of Sumas Mountain.
3.4. Terrain Mapping As part of an overall terrain assessment for TMEP, BGC mapped the terrain along the proposed pipeline corridor at a scale of 1:20,000 by analyzing air photos, satellite imagery, and LiDAR topography. Terrain mapping was spot-checked by site visits and field observations (Trans Mountain, 2014). Local variations in terrain over areas of approximately 2 to 3 hectares, or over distances of less than approximately 150 meters may not be captured in the scale of terrain mapping. Terrain mapping for the Sumas River crossing is shown in Drawing 02A, with the terrain code legend shown in Drawing 02B.
Terrain Types Terrain types mapped at the Sumas River crossing and shown on Drawing 02A include fluvial, lacustrine, colluvium, glacial till and anthropogenic deposits described below: A. Anthropogenic Anthropogenic units are mapped in areas that have been modified by human activity such that the engineering properties of the original materials have been altered. In the vicinity of the Sumas River crossing, anthropogenic units are mapped on the west side of the crossing on the upper slopes of Sumas Mountain that have been modified for surface mining activity. B. Lacustrine Lacustrine deposits consist of fine grained material deposited in still water. They consist of silts, clays and sandy loams. Lacustrine material is mapped on the east side of the crossing where Sumas Lake historically existed. C. Colluvium Colluvium consists of surficial materials transported downslope by gravity through a range of processes including gradual downslope creep, landsliding, rockfall and debris flows. In the vicinity of the Sumas River crossing, colluvium is mapped on the western portion near the toe of the Sumas Mountain slope. D. Till Till is material deposited by glacial ice. It is often consolidated by the weight of the glacier, and is usually poorly sorted (i.e. broadly graded) and most often matrix supported. This material is mapped on the upper slopes of Sumas Mountain on the west side of the Sumas Crossing.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
A terrain stability analysis was carried out by BGC in conjunction with terrain mapping of the TMEP route (Drawing 2A). This analysis classified the regions surrounding the entry and exit points as Terrain Stability Class I (no significant stability problems exist).
3.5. Hydrotechnical Assessment LiDAR coverage, historical air photographs, survey data, and site observations were used to assess the potential for hydrotechnical hazards to impact the proposed pipeline. Hazards evaluated by BGC included bank erosion, scour, and avulsion. The methodologies used to complete this hazard assessment are presented in Appendix A.
Setting At the crossing, the Sumas River flows northeast on the north side of the Trans-Canada Highway along the base of Sumas Mountain. The reach in which the crossing is located has been artificially straightened and is dyked along the east (right) bank. The channel is straight with a bankfull width of 40 m and is entrenched within a floodplain 90 m wide. The gradient is very shallow at 0.0002 m/m (0.02%) and water levels at the crossing are affected by backflow conditions from Barrowtown Pump Station about 7 km downstream. A road embankment acts as a dyke to limit the floodplain on the west side and it is set back 30 m from the left bank and the steep slopes of Sumas Mountain begin just outside the floodplain on the west side. Land behind the east (right bank) dyke is used for agriculture. The area around the crossing and to the east, known as the Sumas Prairie, used to be occupied by a shallow lake, until it was drained by the construction of the Sumas Drainage Canal in 1924 (IRC, 1994). The flows in the river are highly regulated downstream of the crossing at the pump station, which, due to the low relief in this region, can have direct backflow effect on the water levels at the crossing. Water levels at the pump station are regulated by either gravity-draining floodgates or pumping. The floodgates are typically only closed during the summer period, May to September. The floodgates are primarily closed to prevent backwater flooding of the area due to high water levels in the Fraser River and Vedder Canal during the freshet, but they remain closed throughout the remainder of summer to allow proper storage of water for irrigation needs (MWLAP, 2004). Peak flows in the Lower Mainland are typically associated with large rainfall or rain-on-snow events in the October to December period. It is not known to what extent the backwater effect of the Barrowtown Pump Station is at the proposed HDD crossing when the floodgates are closed. However, for the analysis contained here-in, it was assumed that there is no backwater effect during peak flow events.
Flood Frequency Analysis Flow estimates on the Sumas River are complicated by overflow from the Nooksack River watershed to the south as the divide that separates the two drainage basins is at a very low relief (FEMA, 2013). The Nooksack River is predicted to overflow at a recurrence interval
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 between 10 and 20 years, although the exact interval is difficult to assess (FEMA, 2013). As part of an assessment of the Sumas River dyke system, Klohn (1989) developed flood quantiles for the Sumas River that considered flow contributions from the Nooksack River and backwater effects from the Fraser River for the 20, 50 and 200-year return periods. Specifically, the 200-year flood event for the Sumas River was estimated as 550 m3/s by combining the 200-year overflow event for the Nooksack River (465 m3/s) with the 20-year event for the Sumas River (85 m3/s). The flood quantiles reported in Klohn (1989) for the 20, 50 and 200-year were scaled to the proposed HDD crossing based on a drainage area of 249 km2 for the crossing. Flow estimates for the 2, 5, 10 and 100-year flood event were estimated through interpolation. Peak instantaneous streamflow estimates at the Sumas River site for various return periods are as follows:
Table 3-1. Peak instantaneous flow estimates (QIMAX) for the Sumas River [RK 1114.6] crossing.
Basin 3 Pipeline QIMAX for Given Return Periods (m /s) Area Crossing (km2) 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 20-yr 50-yr 100-yr 200-yr
Sumas River 249 100 140 180 225 350 430 550
Average cross sectional flow hydraulics for the crossing were estimated using Manning’s equation, a surveyed cross-section, a channel gradient of 0.02% and the peak flows listed in Table 3-1. The cross-section and channel gradient used for the evaluation are based on a topographic survey conducted by McElhanney Consultant Services Ltd., in October and November 2014. The corresponding water elevation for the 200-year return period flood is estimated at 7.1 masl as shown on Drawing 03. Of note is that this estimated flood level assumes the river is free-flowing with no backwater effects as a result of the downstream Barrowtown Pump Station. The surveyed heights of the left and right bank dykes at the crossing are 11.3 and 7.1 masl, respectively. The predicted 200-year return period flood elevation of 7.1 m would indicate the dykes are on the verge of overtopping at the proposed crossing. Klohn (1989) determined that there are sections of the dyke system that are more susceptible to flooding, and that during the 200-year return period flood the dyke on the right bank would be overtopped. However, the extent of the flooding was not specified. BGC further understands the dykes along the Sumas River are designed to contain a peak flow of 350 m3/s, which is a 50-year return period (Klohn, 1989). In addition, during the design flood for the Fraser River the model predicts a water surface elevation at the confluence of the Sumas River and Vedder River of 10.5 masl (NHC, 2008). Given these water levels dykes near the Barrowtown pump station could be overtopped and result in the consequent flooding of the proposed pipeline route. The HDD entry and exit point for the proposed HDD are approximately 3.8 and 11.8 masl, respectively. The entry point is approximately 3.3 m below 200-year return period flood elevation and has the potential to be inundated if the dyking system fails. The exit point is
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 approximately 4.7 m above the 200-year flood elevation and 1.3 m above the Fraser River design flood elevation. Consequently, flooding is not a hazard to the exit point.
Scour BGC has completed a detailed scour analysis for the Sumas River site to evaluate general scour conditions over the point at which the proposed HDD alignment crosses the Sumas River. Results from the analysis estimate a maximum scour depth of approximately 2.0 m below the channel thalweg elevation during a 200-year flood event, corresponding to a maximum scour elevation of 1.5 m below sea level. The estimated 200-year scour depth is shown on Drawing 03. The depth of cover above the proposed HDD borepath remains greater than 22 m at the channel thalweg should this amount of scour occur. Given this result, scour is not considered a hazard for the proposed HDD borepath.
Bank Erosion BGC has completed an evaluation of the historical lateral erosion of the Sumas River using a comparison of historical aerial photographs between the years 1949 and 2010. 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 remained unchanged over the period of analysis (1949 to 2010) in the region of the proposed HDD crossing alignment.
Table 3-2. Sumas River historic aerial photographs database. Ref No. Photo No. Date1 Scale (Approx.) SRS6912 148, 149 2004 1:20,000 SRS6064 255, 256 1999 1:30,000 BCB93026 101, 117 1993 1:15,000 BCC451 96, 97 1986 1:10,000 BC82037 41, 42 1982 1:10,000 BC5591 26 1974 1:12,000 BC5318 115 1969 1:12,000 BC5317 227 1969 1:12,000 BC5065 250 1963 1:12,000 BC5072 71, 72 1963 1:12,000 BC1785 72, 86 1954 1:15,000 BC778 27, 52 1949 1:15,000 BC207 31, 32 1940 1:20,000 Note: 1: The 2010 aerial photograph is considered a current image and is not included in the historic database.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 8 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
The Sumas River is a straight reach for 500 m upstream and downstream of the proposed HDD crossing. This section of the Sumas River functions as an irrigation canal. There has been no change to the channel planform since the river was dyked and channelized prior to the 1940s. Dykes on either bank provide confinement to the channel and contribute to increased bank stability. A ground inspection of the site confirmed no observable bank instability adjacent to the proposed HDD alignment. Given these results, bank erosion in the vicinity of the proposed HDD crossing is not considered a hazard at this time.
Avulsion The Sumas River is confined within two dykes with a general limited capacity for lateral migration or avulsion. No relic channel scars have been identified in a review of the historical aerial photographs. In addition, there are no signs of active bank erosion or channel adjustment along either bank that may indicate potential for an avulsion channel during flood events. Given these observations, avulsion is not considered a hazard at this site at this time.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION In September 2014, BGC supervised the drilling of three boreholes adjacent to the proposed TMEP HDD alignment at the Sumas River (RK 1114.6). WorleyParsons completed geophysical surveys at the same site in August and November 2014. The proposed HDD alignment is included in Drawing 03. The entire portion of the proposed HDD borepath is located within the existing Kinder Morgan TMPL right-of-way (RoW) to the south of the TMPL. WorleyParsons carried out geophysical surveys using both electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and seismic refraction survey methodologies along the alignments shown in Drawing 04. ERT was carried out along the entire length of the proposed HDD route stretching approximately 50 m beyond the entry point and approximately 150 m beyond the exit point. Seismic refraction surveys were carried out on a portion of this alignment, approximately 375 m in length on each side of the floodplain beneath the entry and exit points. Drawing 05 contains site photographs of drilling activities during the 2014 site investigation.
4.1. Geotechnical Drilling Data Three boreholes (BH-BGC14-SUM-01, BH-BGC14-SUM-02 and BH-BGC14-SUM-03) were drilled adjacent to the proposed HDD borepath to a minimum elevation of approximately 37 m below sea level (approximately 8 m beneath the maximum preliminary borepath depth) as shown in Drawing 03. Basic design drawings of the proposed Sumas River HDD borepath were provided by HMM on July 21, 2014. Borehole BH-BGC14-SUM-01 was drilled on the grassy east floodplain of the Sumas River to a depth of 40.2 mbgs, approximately 180 m west of the entry point. Two vibrating wire piezometers were installed in BH-BGC14-SUM-01 upon completion at depths of 15 and 30 mbgs, respectively. Piezometers were installed at site to determine the location of the phreatic surface, once the effects of drilling on the water table have subsided. This information was required as part of the Seismic Liquefaction Risk Assessment for the site, and the data for which will be discussed as part of this separate study. BH-BGC14-SUM-02 was also drilled on the east floodplain of Sumas River at the bottom of the outside toe of the east dyke near a residential lot, approximately 335 m west of the entry point. It was drilled to a depth of 40.8 mbgs. Two piezometers were installed in BH-BGC14- SUM-02 upon completion at depths of 15 mbgs and 30 mbgs, respectively, as part of the seismic liquefaction risk assessment. Borehole BH-BGC14-SUM-03 was drilled on the west bank of Sumas River near a pedestrian walkway along the river edge, on the flood plain between the river and the western dyke. This borehole was drilled to a depth of 40.5 mbgs. Two piezometers were installed in BH-BGC14- SUM-03 upon completion at depths of 15 mbgs and 30 mbgs, respectively, as part of the seismic liquefaction risk assessment.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 10 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
Mud rotary drilling with Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) completed every 1.5 m was used to advance the three boreholes to their target depths. In softer fine-grained soils, with SPT blow counts less than 12, shear vane tests were performed and sample collection using a fixed piston sampler was attempted. Four successful fixed piston samples were retrieved from BH- BGC14-SUM-01, two successful Shelby tube samples were retrieved from BH-BGC14-SUM- 02, and a total of three successful shear vane tests were completed in BH-BGC14-SUM-01 and BH-BGC14-SUM-02. No casing was installed during drilling in any of the three boreholes. Data collected includes the following: SPT blow counts and visual description (according to the Unified Soil Classification System) of soil units based on visual examination of material retrieved in the SPT sampler Moisture, grain sizes and Atterberg Limits of selected samples, based on laboratory testing Downhole shear vane tests with peak and remoulded shear strengths measured Fixed piston and Shelby tube samples for advanced laboratory testing of fine grained soils Depth to stabilized water table as observed upon completion of drilling. Appendix B contains the borehole logs for BH-BGC14-SUM-01, BH-BGC14-SUM-02 and BH-BGC14-SUM-03. BGC noted that the drilling and sampling methods used did not retrieve particles larger than gravel size (50 mm), so the percentage of larger sized clasts are inferred from drilling results. Figures C-01A, C-01B and C-01C in Appendix C provide the results from the grain size analysis, while figures C-02A, C-02B and C-02C provide the results from the Atterberg Limits tests. Appendix D contains the vibrating wire piezometer calibration sheets.
4.2. Geophysical Survey Data The geophysics survey scope for the Sumas River crossing included provision of 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 Two individual seismic refraction surveys along 375 m portions of the proposed HDD alignment. This serves to provide some quality assurance to the ERT results and can also be used to draw inferences on subsurface geology A multi-channel analysis on surface waves (MASW) used to support the Seismic Liquefaction Risk Assessment for the pipeline 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.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 11 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
Figure 4-1. The Electrical Resistivity Range for Sumas River ERT Survey.
Electrical resistivity values at the Sumas River site range from 5-1000 ohm-m. This is indicative of conductive, saturated lacustrine silts and clays and coarser lacustrine and colluvial sand and gravel deposits commonly found in the Fraser Lowland and at the base of Sumas Mountain, described in Section 3.2 above. For the Sumas River ERT survey, the resistivity survey values are interpreted to indicate the presence of the following materials: 5 – 50 ohm-m: Silt and clay glaciolacustrine deposits 50 – 150 ohm-m: Lacustrine silt and sand deposits > 150 ohm-m: Sand and gravel material (e.g. colluvial and fill deposits). Typical P-wave velocities expected in the bedrock beneath the Sumas River crossing (Section 3.3) are approximately 2500-3000 m/s. Boundaries to a harder underlying material such as an over consolidated glacial till or bedrock can also be inferred by a rapid vertical gradient in P-wave velocities. The seismic refraction survey data indicates a potential bedrock contact within the surveyed region (Drawing 4A) underlying the west side of the crossing. Although not explicitly used to support the geological interpretation for the site, the MASW data has been included here in Drawing 4B for completeness.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 12 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
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 - Sumas River_sb Page 13 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
5.0 INFERRED GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE HDD BOREPATH Based on the results of geotechnical drilling and geophysical surveys obtained to date, BGC has developed a geological section of the proposed HDD crossing. This section is included in Drawing 03. Below is a summary of drilling conditions experienced within the four primary geological units identified during this geotechnical investigation and expected to be contacted by the bore path: SAND (Lacustrine Deposits) – High (90-100%) drilling mud returns were experienced in the upper uniform lacustrine sand deposit in all three boreholes. This deposit typically consisted of loose, fine to coarse sand with trace fines. No borehole instabilities were encountered throughout drilling in this unit; however, minor sloughing occurred at 1.5 mbgs in BH-BGC14-SUM-03. SPT N values range from 7 to 18. SAND AND GRAVEL (Colluvial Deposits) – High (90%) drilling mud returns were generally experienced in BH-BGC14-SUM-03 while drilling through the colluvial sand and gravel. Minor sloughing, typically on the order of 5 to 15 cm, was experienced occasionally throughout the borehole in the sand and gravel unit. The density of the gravely sand varied from compact to very dense (N values of from 14 up to refusal). SILT AND SAND (Lacustrine Deposits) – High (90-100%) drilling fluid returns were experienced in all boreholes while drilling through this sand and silt unit. Density of the stratified layer varied from very soft to soft (N values of 0 to 4). Minor sloughing in BH- BGC14-SUM-02 occurred within a 12-hour period overnight during investigative drilling. SILT AND CLAY (Glaciolacustrine Deposits) – High (90-100%) drilling mud returns were experienced in all three boreholes while drilling through the silt and clay deposit. The density of this glaciolacustrine unit varied from very soft to firm (N values from 0 to 5, with peak and residual shear values of approximately 62-67 kPa and 10-14 kPa respectively). No borehole instabilities were encountered within this unit. Drilling terminated at target depths in this unit at BH-BGC14-SUM-01 and BH-BGC14-SUM- 02 and likely extends further down to till or bedrock. The majority of the HDD borepath advances through this very soft, low plastic silt and clay unit. Stabilized groundwater levels were observed in all three boreholes prior to beginning drilling each day and two to three hours following the completion of drilling and immediately prior to grouting. These groundwater levels were observed to be from 1.0 to 1.5 mbgs. Shallow (15 mbgs) and deep (30 mbgs) vibrating wire piezometers were also installed in all three boreholes and were monitored on October 22nd, 2014. The shallow piezometers BH-BGC14- SUM-01 and BH-BGC14-SUM-02 showed a phreatic surface of 1.2 mbgs and 1.6 mbgs respectively, while the deep piezometers both showed a phreatic surface of 1.9 mbgs. This indicates a downward hydraulic gradient on the east side of the crossing and is consistent with the site being located adjacent to the Sumas River in an area of expected groundwater recharge. The shallow piezometer at BH-BGC14-SUM-03 showed a phreatic surface of 1.9 mbgs, while the deep piezometer showed a phreatic surface at 1.3 mbgs. This indicates a slight upward hydraulic gradient on the west side of the crossing, consistent with the borehole
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 14 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04 being located at the base of Sumas Mountain in a likely area of groundwater discharge. Artesian conditions were not observed at the site. Bedrock was not encountered during drilling at this crossing; however, it was inferred from seismic survey results beneath the west bank and HDD exit point at a depth of approximately 10 m. A review of 6 domestic water well records drilled within 500 m of the site (Waterline, 2014) showed that shale or granitic bedrock was encountered upon drilling at various depths from 1-20 mbgs. The following is a summary of the anticipated geotechnical conditions along the proposed HDD path.
5.1. Eastern Floodplain (HDD Entry Point) The proposed HDD entry point is situated at an elevation of approximately 4 meters above sea level (masl). Based on investigative drilling at BH-BGC14-SUM-01 and relatively low resistivity from geophysical ERT survey data, subsurface conditions at the HDD entry point are expected to consist of lacustrine sand to a depth of approximately 3 m, underlain by stratified, lacustrine silt and sand to a depth of approximately 5 m.
5.2. Sumas River and Sumas Mountain Slope (HDD Borepath and Exit Point) As the proposed HDD borepath advances approximately 40 m laterally, correlation of the drilling results from BH-BGC14-SUM-01 with ERT data indicates the borepath will enter a unit of very soft, glaciolacustrine silt and clay. It will continue through this unit for much of the proposed distance underneath the eastern floodplain and Sumas River until it enters a coarse sand and gravel colluvium unit at approximately 450 m laterally from the entry point. Upon entering the coarse sand and gravel colluvium, the borepath has advanced beyond the extent of the borehole data. The limits of the colluvium, therefore, are inferred from ERT data alone. The borepath is likely to continue through the course colluvial layer until surfacing at the HDD exit point at an elevation of 11.8 masl. The depth to bedrock on the HDD exit side is unknown, but results of the seismic refraction geophysical survey suggest that the bedrock surface maybe present just below the depth of the borepath. Although the borepath is not interpreted to intersect the bedrock surface, the uncertainty of the exact depth to bedrock should be considered during HDD planning. BGC collected samples of soil for laboratory index testing. These results are summarized on the borehole logs in Appendix B and detailed results are shown in Appendix C.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 15 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
6.0 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 banks of Sumas River appear stable with regards to bank erosion and avulsion and the proposed HDD alignment is not expected to be compromised by these hydrotechnical hazards. The HDD exit point is approximately 4.7 m above 200-year flood elevation for the Sumas River and is not expected to be at risk to flooding during the 200-year flood event. The entry point is approximately 3.3 m below the 200-year flood elevation, and is at risk of being inundated in the event that the dyke system is overtopped or fails. Due to the proximity of the proposed HDD to the downstream confluence with Sumas River and the Fraser River, flood levels at the Sumas River crossing can be influenced by that of the Fraser River. Consequently the entry point could be inundated, should a large flood event occur in the Fraser River, but significant scour is not anticipated near these locations (BGC, 2015). The 200-year scour depth is estimated to be approximately 2.0 m below the channel thalweg elevation and corresponds to an elevation of 1.5 m below sea level. During this event, the HDD borepath is still expected to maintain adequate cover. The presence of boulders was not evident during the investigative drilling program. Geophysical survey results suggest that cobbles may be present within the surficial colluvium unit at the HDD exit side.
6.2. Borepath Stability In general, soils encountered during investigative drilling appear to be stable. Minor borehole sloughing (approx. 5–15 cm of material) was encountered within the lacustrine sand and colluvial sand and gravel deposits in BH-BGC14-SUM-03, and within the stratified silt and sand unit in BH-BGC14-SUM-02. Bedrock was not encountered during drilling, although it was inferred by seismic refraction surveys between the 2500 and 3000 m/s P-wave velocity contours. This infers a shallow bedrock depth of approximately 10 mbgs beneath the HDD exit point and the bedrock depth appears to increase with depth towards the east. Where the drilling exits the very soft silt and clay into the much stiffer colluvium and/or if it contacts the bedrock, directional control of the borepath during construction may be difficult.
6.3. Circulation and Potential for Loss of Fluids
Drilling fluid circulation losses during investigative drilling were very low with approximately 0% to 10% lost. Some drilling fluid losses may be encountered during
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 16 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
HDD construction, and will have to be addressed through the use of the appropriate drilling fluids, the use of surface casing or by other techniques. Coarse grained colluvial deposits are interpreted at the HDD exit point. Given the cohesionless nature of these deposits combined with the relative difference in elevation between the exit and entry points, drilling mud pressures during construction should be carefully controlled throughout this region to prevent the release of drilling fluids to the surface. Based on the bathymetry survey, the minimum separation depth between the proposed HDD borepath and the river bed is approximately 22 m. Assuming hydrostatic pressures and notwithstanding the point above, the anticipated drill fluid pressures should not exceed the confining stress provided by the overburden above the drill path considering the small elevation difference between the river and the entry/exit points. As such, the risk of loss of containment where drilling fluids may enter the river is anticipated to be low. However, given the nature of the soft soils observed during investigative drilling, the risk of loss of containment should be further assessed 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 the three boreholes and the geophysics, an HDD crossing at this location can be considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided concerns associated with loss of containment in the soft lacustrine deposits and cohesionless sediments as well as borehole stability within the softer fluvial/glaciofluvial sand and glaciolacustrine silts can all be addressed during design and construction of the crossing. 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 - Sumas River_sb Page 17 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
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:
Nicholas Wodzianek, B.A.Sc., E.I.T. Sam Murray, P.Eng. Junior Geotechnical Project Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Kevin Biggar, Ph.D., P.Eng. Dr. Alex Baumgard, P.Eng., P.Geo. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
SSM/AJB/KWB/mjp/sjk
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 18 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
REFERENCES
Armstrong, J.E. 1984. Environmental and engineering applications of the surficial geology of the Fraser Lowland, British Columbia. 83-23, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa. Armstrong, J.E. 1980a. Surficial geology Chilliwack (west half) Open File 1487A. Geological Survey of Canada. Armstrong, J.E. 1980b. Surficial geology Mission Open File 1485A. Geological Survey of Canada. Armstrong, J.E. 1980c. Surficial geology New Westminster Open File 1484A. Geological Survey of Canada. Armstrong, J.E. 1979. Surficial geology Vancouver Open File 1486A. Geological Survey of Canada. BGC Engineering Inc. 2013. Route Physiography and Hydrology Report: 48-63. BGC Engineering Inc. 2014. Quantitative Geohazard Frequency Assessment. BGC Engineering Inc. 2015. Overbank Flow Scour Assessment. In progress. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection (MWLAP), 2004. Summary of Surface Water Quality Sampling on Sumas River and Tributaries. Abbotsford, British Columbia. October 2004. Cameron, V.J., 1989. The Late Quaternary Geomorphic History of the Sumas Valley. Master’s Thesis, Simon Fraser University. Clague, J.J., Luternauer, J.L., and Hebda, R.J. 1983. Sedimentary environments and postglacial history of the Fraser delta and Lower Fraser valley, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 20: 1314-1326. Dahlin, T, 1996, 2D Resistivity Surveying for Environmental and Engineering Applications, Vol. 14, No. 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2013. Flood Insurance Study for Whatcom County, Washington and Incorporated Areas (No. 530783CV001C). Holland, S.S. 1976. Landforms of British Columbia: a physiographic outline. Bulletin 48, The Government of the Province of British Columbia. IRC Integrated Resource Consultants Inc., 1994. Agricultural Land Use Survey in the Sumas River Watershed – Summary Report. July 1994. 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. Klohn Leonoff Consulting Engineers, 1989. Engineering Studies for Floodplain Management Plan. Final Report prepared for the District of Abbotsford.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 19 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC February 20, 2015 Sumas River at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, 2008, Fraser River Hydraulic Model Update, Final Report, Report prepared for the BC Ministry of Environment, Palacky, G.J, 1987, Resistivity Characteristics of Geologic Targets, Society of Exploration Geophysics, v. 1. 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. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2014. Trans Mountain Expansion Project Application to the National Energy Board. Terrain Mapping and Geohazard Inventory - Revision 1, filed as part of NEB Technical Update #1, August 1, 2014. Waterline Resources Inc. 2013. Groundwater Technical Report fot the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project. REP-NEB-TERA-00004. December 2013.
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb Page 20 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, February 20, 2015 SUMAS RIVER at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
DRAWINGS
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb BGC ENGINEERING INC. PAGE: 8 OF 8 NAME: 1114.6 DESC: SUMAS RIVER
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5 0 0 5 0
, , , , , ,
0 0 1 0 0 1
6 6 6 1949 IMAGERY 6 6 6 2010 IMAGERY
5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 E 00 E E E 00 E E 1 1 50 50
0 0 25 25
2 2 50 50
0 0 N³ 5,436,000 20 20 N 5,436,000
150 150
100 100
250 250
N 5,435,500 N 5,435,500 200 200
R R
E E M
P 150 150 V V
7 I I 3 :
6 R R
: e S S m i 50 50 T
A A 5 1 M M 0 2
, U U 3
1 S S y r a ! ! u r b e F
, y ! ! a HDD EXIT POINT HDD EXIT POINT d i r F
: e t a HDD ENTRY POINT HDD ENTRY POINT D
d
x N 5,435,000 N 5,435,000 m . w 100 100 e i v e R _ n o i s l u v A _ n o i s Y o A r
E W Y _ H A k IG n H W a H B A IG _ D H
P A A
D N A D D
\ C A s - N t S A n N e A -C m R S s T N s A e R s T s A _ y t i l i b i s a N 5,434,500 N 5,434,500 e F _ D D H _ l a c i n h c e t o e G _ y r a n i m i l e r P
_ SCALE 1:10,000 P LEGEND E
M 200 100 0 200 400 600 T _
5 PROPOSED HDD BOREPATH 1 9 0 4
1 FLOW DIRECTION
0 METRES 2 \ s
0 0 0
0 0 t r
0 0 0
0 0 o
0 0 0 5 HISTORIC CHANNEL 5
p THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED OR ENLARGED.
, , ,
, , e
1 0 1
0 0
R ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON
6 6 6
6 6 \
5 5 5 n
5 5
o ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. TMPL RoW i t
E E E
E E c u d
o SCALE: PROJECT: r NOTES: 1:10,000 P
\ PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT S
I 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DATE: SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 G \ 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6", AND DATED FEBRUARY 2015. FEB 2015 B G C E N G IN E E R IN G IN C . 0
5 TITLE:
1 3. PROPOSED HDD PROFILE PROVIDED BY HATCH MOTT MACDONALD ON JULY 21, 2014. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY \ DRAWN: B G C 5
9 4. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON GEOBASE DEM RETRIEVED MARCH 2013. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 m. PROJECTION IS NAD 83 ZONE 10. MIB BANK EROSION AND AVULSION REVIEW
0 CLIENT: 0
\ 5. ORTHOIMAGE PROVIDED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FROM I-CUBED: INFORMATION INTEGRATION & IMAGING, LLC., DATED 2010.
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 GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO NW PROJECT No.: DWG No.: e j o LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR r APPROVED:
P 0095-150 01 \
: ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. AJB X 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
5,436,000 9 Cv/Rks 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 , , , , , , , , 0 IV 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cv 0 0 0 0 0 0 FGb III Cv//Rs-VR"s I Mb V II
A III Ru//Mw II
³ Rak Ff Mv Cv/Rsk III III I Cv//Rk IV IV
R
E
V I
5,435,500 R 5,435,500 RK 1116 ! Mw//Ru S Mw|Ru A Cv.Rks II II M IV U
S
Cv/Rk-E BH-BGC14-SUM-02 III HDD EXIT POINT Cb II RK 1115 HDD ENTRY POINT LEGEND A ! RK 1113 Cv III ! zsLp A@! M BOREHOLE
A III @ A A@ I 6 gsCj 3 : A@ 8 I ! ! HDD ENTRY/EXIT : RK 1114 e Mw//Rua ! m i T Mw|Rau III PROPOSED HDD 5 1
0 II
2 BOREPATH
, BH-BGC14-SUM-03 6 1 5,435,000 5,435,000 y Cv//Rsk Mw r BH-BGC14-SUM-01 PROPOSED PIPELINE a IV u III r Av|sFb
b ALIGNMENT e Mv F I
, y III Ab|zsLp a DEBRIS FLOW d I n o Cv/Rk-VE M
: Mbw|Ru PRIMARY SURFICIAL e III t a II
D MATERIAL TYPE
Cv//Rk-Rs d x IV m . ANTHROPOGENIC P A M _
N COLLUVIUM I A R R
E FLUVIAL T _ ) 6 .
4 GLACIOFLUVIAL 1 1
1 Mv/Cv Fp _ SCALE 1:10,000 Mw|Rau K III I LACUSTRINE R
( 200 100 0 200 400 III 600 _ R
E 5,434,500 GLACIAL TILL 5,434,500 V I R _
S METRES BEDROCK A Mw//Ra
M Cj FAp U
III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S I I LABEL LEGEND
THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN0 REDUCED OR ENLARGED. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ WATER 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 A Cv//Rk , , , , , , , , 2 ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON Cb-Rs TERRAIN LABEL 9 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 0
\ III 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 s ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. t Cf Cf 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 FLOW DIRECTION 5
n III TERRAIN STABILITY CODE e II II m s s e s s A _ y t i l i
b ELEVATION PROFILE - 5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION (m) i 80 s a e F _ D ) D H
_ RK 1115 m l 60 ( a ! c i n h N
c SUMAS RIVER e t O o I e WATER ELEVATION T G 40 _ y A r 1.9 masl a V n i E m
i BH-BGC14-SUM-01 l e L r P
E 20 _
P SCALE 1:10,000 E M
T 200 100 0 200 400 600 RK 1114 _ RK 1113 A@ ! A@ ! 5 A@
1 !
9 0 0 4 1
0 BH-BGC14-SUM-03
2 METRES BH-BGC14-SUM-02 \ s t r o p e R \ NOTES: RK DISTANCE (m) n o i t 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. c u 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6", AND DATED FEBRUARY 2015. d
o SCALE: PROJECT: r 3. PIPELINE RK BASED ON THE V10 CORRIDOR CENTERLINE DATED JULY 2014. 1:10,000 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD P \ FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - S 4. WATERBODY DATA FROM NRCAN CANVEC. I DATE: G SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 \ 5. ORTHOIMAGE PROVIDED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FROM I-CUBE: INFORMATION INTEGRATION & IMAGING, LLC., DATED BETWEEN JANUARY 2008 THROUGH AUGUST 2010. FEB 2015
0 BGC ENGINEERING INC. 5 6. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR, PROVIDED BY McELHANNEY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1.0 m. TITLE: 1 AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY \ DRAWN: 5 7. FOR A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE TERRAIN MAPPING TERMS AND SYMBOLS SEE THE COMPLETE LEGEND IN DRAWING 02B. B GC TERRAIN MAP 9 MIB
0 CLIENT:
0 8. THIS MAP IS A SNAPSHOT IN TIME. CHANGES IN LAND USE (E.G. DEVELOPMENT, RIVER MIGRATION) MAY WARRANT RE-DRAWING OF CERTAIN AREAS. \
s CHECKED: t c 9. PROJECTION IS NAD 83 ZONE 10. NW PROJECT No.: DWG No.: e j
o 10. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS r APPROVED:
P 0095-150 02A \ ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT 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.
: AJB X TMEP Terrain Mapping Legend
B G C E N G IN E E R IN G IN C .
B G C
E 560,250 E 560,500 E 560,750 N N 5,435,250 N MISSION, BC
PROPOSED TMEP LANGLEY, BC RIVER CROSSING SUMAS RIVER 6:10 PM ABBOTSFORD, BC
Time: SCALE 1:1,000,000 TMPL SUMAS TO SUMAS TANK FARM NPS24 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000
Feb 13 15 MAPLE FALLS, USA N 5,435,250 TMPL SUMAS TO SUMAS TANK FARM NPS20 METRES TMPL RoW (;,67,1*703/ PP 3,3(/,1( THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. Plot Date 03
A
Layout: - E 561,000 TMPL RoW
E 560,250
SCALE 1:2,500 25 0 25 50 75
SUMAS RIVER E 560,500 E 560,750 E 561,000 METRES N 5,435,000 THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. N 5,435,000
WEST EAST 75 75 03_SUMAS_RIVER_(RK_1114.6)_INTERPRETED_GEOLOGICAL_SECTION.dwg
50 50 SCOUR EL. -1.5 m BATHYMETRIC SURFACE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE (McELHANNEY, NOVEMBER 2014) (UPI, LIDAR, APRIL 18, 2014) HDD EXIT POINT BH-BGC14-SUM-03 200-YEAR 25 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 25 ? (OFFSET = 7 m N) STREAM FLOW (OFFSET = 4 m N) (OFFSET = 12 m N) HDD ENTRY POINT EL. 7.1 m ? SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 0 ? 0 ?
ELEVATION (m) -25 -25 ELEVATION (m)
? -50 -50
-75 -75 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 150 SCALE 1:2,500 BOREHOLE DISTANCE (m) 25 0 25 50 75 A CROSS-SECTION - METRES THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS LEGEND NOTES: INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. ? INFERRED TOP OF BEDROCK 1. PROFILE GROUND SURFACE BASED ON LIDAR, PROVIDED BY McELHANNEY PLAN CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 INFERRED GEOLOGY CONTACT PROPOSED HDD 2. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR, PROVIDED BY McELHANNEY BOREHOLE INTERPRETED GEOLOGY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS ENTRY / EXIT POINTS 1.0 m. LACUSTRINE SAND (SP) 3. BATHYMETRIC PROFILE PROVIDED BY McELHANNEY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., EXISTING BORE HOLE DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2014. COLLUVIAL SAND (SW-SM) AND GRAVEL 4. PROPOSED HDD ALIGNMENT AND PROFILE PROVIDED BY HATCH MOTT PROPOSED HDD BOREPATH MacDONALD, AND DATED JULY 21, 2014. 200-YEAR FLOW EXTENT LACUSTRINE SILT (ML) AND SAND (SM) 5. ORTHOIMAGE PROVIDED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FROM I-CUBE: INFORMATION INTEGRATION & IMAGING, LLC., DATED 2010. SECTION GLACIOLACUSTRINE SILT (ML) AND CLAY (CL) 6. PIPELINE RK BASED ON THE V10 CORRIDOR CENTERLINE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 7. PREDICTED 200-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL IS BASED ON A CROSS-SECTIONAL GEOMETRY 200-YEAR FLOW ELEVATION SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) ONLY AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE TRUE EXTENT OF OVERBANK FLOODING. 8. PROJECTION IS NAD 83 UTM ZONE 10U. INTERPRETED TOP OF SCOUR BEDROCK 9. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 10. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED ³35(/,0,1$5<+'')($6,%,/,7<$66(660(17680$65,9(5$795.´ BOREHOLE DEPTH (mbgs) ELEVATION (m) COMMENTS SCALE: AS SHOWN PROJECT: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY AND DATED FEBRUARY 2015. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 DATE: 11. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE BH-BGC14-SUM-01 1.3 2.0 STABILIZED FOLLOWING BH COMPLETION FEB 2015 MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY TITLE: DRAWN: AH INTERPRETED GEOLOGICAL SECTION %*&*(1(5$7(',7%*&6+$//+$9(12/,$%,/,7<)25$1<'$0$*(625/266 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 1.0 3.0 STABILIZED FOLLOWING BH COMPLETION CLIENT: ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT CHECKED: NW $87+25,=('%<%*&$1<86(2)255(/,$1&(83217+,6'2&80(1725,76 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 1.5 2.9 STABILIZED FOLLOWING BH COMPLETION PROJECT No.: DWG No.: 0095-150 03 CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. APPROVED: KWB X:\Projects\0095\150\CAD\OVERALL\PRODUCTION\REPORT\20140911_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_SUMAS_RIVER_AT_RK_1114.6\ E 560,250 E 560,500 E 560,750
E 561,000 N N 5,435,250 6:09 PM Time:
TMPL SUMAS TO SUMAS TANK FARM NPS24 Feb 13 15 N 5,435,250 TMPL SUMAS TO SUMAS TANK FARM NPS20 TMPL RoW (;,67,1*703/ PP 3,3(/,1( Plot Date 04A Layout: TMPL RoW TMPL RoW
E 560,250
SCALE 1:2,500 25 0 25 50 75
E 560,500 E 560,750 E 561,000
METRES SUMAS RIVER N 5,435,000 THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. N 5,435,000
SOUTHWEST ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY SURVEY NORTHEAST 60 60
40 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 40 04A_SUMAS_RIVER_(RK_1114.6)_GEOPHYSICS_RESULTS_ERT_SURVEY.dwg (WORLEY PARSONS FIELD SURVEY, AUGUST, 2013) HDD EXIT POINT 20 (OFFSET = 3 m E) BH-BGC14-SUM-03 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 HDD ENTRY POINT 20 (OFFSET = 4 m S) (OFFSET = 1 m S) (OFFSET = 11 m S) (OFFSET = 3 m E) 0 1500 0 3500 30002500 2000 2000 4000 2500 1000 -20 1500 -20 ELEVATION (m) ELEVATION (m) -40 -40
-60 -60 ? ? -80 ? ? -80 -761 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 66 BOREPATH DISTANCE (m) SCALE 1:2,500 FIELD PARAMETER: 25 0 25 50 75 ELETRICAL RESISTIVITY DATE COLLECTED: AUGUST 18, 2013 (ohm-m) ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION: METRES GRADIENT PLUS THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. MINIMUM ELECTRODE SPACING: 5 m
LEGEND P-WAVE VELOCITY PLAN BOREHOLE PROPOSED HDD ENTRY / EXIT POINTS LACUSTRINE SAND (SP) EXISTING BORE HOLE COLLUVIAL SAND (SW-SM) EXITING PIPELINE ALIGNMENT AND GRAVEL PROPOSED HDD BOREPATH LACUSTRINE ERT SURVEY ALIGNMENT SILT (ML) AND SAND (SM) SECTION GLACIOLACUSTRINE SILT (ML) AND CLAY (CL) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION INTERPRETED TOP OF BEDROCK (FROM GEOPHYSICS ONLY) SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) NOTES: 1. GEOPHYSICS SURVEY INTERPRETATION AND GROUND SURFACE PROFILE PROVIDED BY WORLEY PARSONS, 6. PROJECTION IS NAD 83 UTM ZONE 10U. SCALE: PROJECT: DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2014. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. AS SHOWN PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY 2. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR, PROVIDED BY McELHANNEY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., 8. 7+,6'5$:,1*0867%(5($',1&21-81&7,21:,7+%*& 65(32577,7/('³35(/,0,1$5<*(27(&+1,&$/ ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 DATE: FEB 2015 DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1.0 m. HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 AND DATED FEBRUARY 2015. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY TITLE: 3. PROPOSED HDD ALIGNMENT AND PROFILE PROVIDED BY HATCH MOTT MacDONALD, DATED JULY 21, 2014 AND DRAWN: GEOPHYSICS RESULTS ELECTRICAL 9. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY AH PROJECTED ONTO WORLEY PARSONS FIELD SURVEY ALIGNMENT. 385326(27+(57+$17+(385326()25:+,&+%*&*(1(5$7(',7%*&6+$//+$9(12/,$%,/,7<)25 CLIENT: RESISTIVITY TOMOGRAPHY SURVEY 4. PIPELINE RK BASED ON THE V10 CORRIDOR CENTERLINE. CHECKED: ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT NW PROJECT No.: DWG No.: 5. ORTHOIMAGE PROVIDED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FROM I-CUBE: INFORMATION INTEGRATION & $87+25,=('%<%*&$1<86(2)255(/,$1&(83217+,6'2&80(1725,76&217(17%<7+,5'3$57,(6 0095-150 04A IMAGING, LLC., DATED 2010. SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. APPROVED: KWB X:\Projects\0095\150\CAD\OVERALL\PRODUCTION\REPORT\20140911_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_SUMAS_RIVER_AT_RK_1114.6\ E 560,250 E 560,500 E 560,750
E 561,000 N 5,435,250
6:09 PM N Time: Feb 13 15 Plot Date
04B TMPL SUMAS TO SUMAS TANK FARM NPS24
N 5,435,250 TMPL SUMAS TO SUMAS TANK FARM NPS20 Layout: (;,67,1*703/ PP 3,3(/,1( TMPL RoW
TMPL RoW
E 560,250
SCALE 1:2,500 25 0 25 50 75
E 560,500 E 560,750 E 561,000
METRES SUMAS RIVER N 5,435,000 THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. N 5,435,000
SOUTHWEST 2013 SEISMIC SURVEY 2014 SEISMIC SURVEY NORTHEAST 60 60 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 40 (WORLEY PARSONS FIELD SURVEY, AUGUST, 2013) 40 HDD EXIT POINT BH-BGC14-SUM-03 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 04B_SUMAS_RIVER_(RK_1114.6)_GEOPHYSICS_RESULTS_SEISMIC_AND_MASW_SURVEY.dwg 20 (OFFSET = 3 m E) (OFFSET = 4 m S) (OFFSET = 1 m S) (OFFSET = 11 m S) HDD ENTRY POINT 20 (OFFSET = 3 m E) 0 1500 0 3500 30002500 2000 2000 4000 2500 1000 ELEVATION (m) ELEVATION (m) -20 1500 -20
-40 -40 -761 -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 125 SCALE 1:2,500 BOREPATH DISTANCE (m) FIELD PARAMETER: FIELD PARAMETER: 25 0 25 50 75 P-WAVE VELOCITY DATE COLLECTED: AUGUST 18 AND 19, 2013 DATE COLLECTED: NOVEMBER-12-2014 (m\s) METRES GEOPHONE SPACING: 5 m GEOPHONE SPACING: 5 m THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS SHOT SPACING: 20 m SHOT SPACING: 10 m INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. SOURCE: SLEDGEHAMMER SOURCE: WEIGHT DROP
MASW SURVEY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 20 20
0 0 LEGEND
PLAN 200 FIELD PARAMETER: -20 600 400 -20 PROPOSED HDD ENTRY / EXIT POINTS 1000 800 DATE COLLECTED: NOVEMBER-12-2014 GEOPHONE SPACING: 5 m EXISTING BORE HOLE P-WAVE VELOCITY -40 -40 ELEVATION (m) ELEVATION (m) SHOT SPACING: 10 m EXITING PIPELINE ALIGNMENT S-WAVE VELOCITY CONTOURS 1200 SOURCE: WEIGHT DROP SCALE 1:2,500 BOREHOLE -60 -60 PROPOSED HDD BOREPATH 25 0 25 50 75 -200 -100 0 SEISMIC SURVEY ALIGNMENT LACUSTRINE SAND (SP) BOREPATH DISTANCE (m) METRES COLLUVIAL SAND (SW-SM) AND GRAVEL THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ALL SCALE NOTATIONS S-WAVE VELOCITY MASW SURVEY ALIGNMENT INDICATED ARE BASED ON ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. (m/s) SECTION LACUSTRINE SILT (ML) AND SAND (SM) INTERPRETED TOP OF BEDROCK GLACIOLACUSTRINE SILT (ML) AND CLAY (CL) (FROM GEOPHYSICS ONLY) SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) NOTES: 1. GEOPHYSICS SURVEY INTERPRETATION AND GROUND SURFACE PROFILE PROVIDED BY WORLEY PARSONS, 6. PROJECTION IS NAD 83 UTM ZONE 10U. SCALE: PROJECT: DATED, NOVEMBER 13, 2014 AND DECEMBER 11, 2014. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. AS SHOWN PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY 2. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR, PROVIDED BY McELHANNEY CONSULTING SERVICES LTD., 8. 7+,6'5$:,1*0867%(5($',1&21-81&7,21:,7+%*& 65(32577,7/('³35(/,0,1$5<*(27(&+1,&$/ ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 DATE: FEB 2015 DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2014. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1.0 m. HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 AND DATED FEBRUARY 2015. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY TITLE: 3. PROPOSED HDD ALIGNMENT AND PROFILE PROVIDED BY HATCH MOTT MacDONALD, DATED JULY 21, 2014 AND DRAWN: GEOPHYSICS RESULTS 9. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY AH PROJECTED ONTO WORLEY PARSONS FIELD SURVEY ALIGNMENT. 385326(27+(57+$17+(385326()25:+,&+%*&*(1(5$7(',7%*&6+$//+$9(12/,$%,/,7<)25 CLIENT: SEISMIC AND MASW SURVEY 4. PIPELINE RK BASED ON THE V10 CORRIDOR CENTERLINE. CHECKED: ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT NW PROJECT No.: DWG No.: 5. ORTHOIMAGE PROVIDED BY KINDER MORGAN CANADA, FROM I-CUBE: INFORMATION INTEGRATION & $87+25,=('%<%*&$1<86(2)255(/,$1&(83217+,6'2&80(1725,76&217(17%<7+,5'3$57,(6 0095-150 04B IMAGING, LLC., DATED 2010. SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. APPROVED: KWB X:\Projects\0095\150\CAD\OVERALL\PRODUCTION\REPORT\20140911_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_SUMAS_RIVER_AT_RK_1114.6\ 6:08 PM Time: Feb 13 15 Plot Date 05 Layout:
PHOTO 1: LOOKING EAST ALONG THE EXISTING TMPL PHOTO 2: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT SAMPLE FROM 3.05 m - 3.66 m. PHOTO 3: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT SAMPLE FROM 9.14 m - 9.75 m. (YELLOW FLAGS IN LINE WITH PICTURE CENTRE - TYPICAL LACUSTRINE UNIFORM SAND AT THE SURFACE ENCOUNTERED TYPICAL STRATIFIED LACUSTRINE SILT AND SAND UNIT ENCOUNTERED DURING 05_SUMAS_RIVER_(RK_1114.6)_FIELD_PHOTOS.dwg BH-BGC14-SUM-03 DRILLSITE SHOWN ON THE RIGHT) DURING DRILLING. DRILLING.
PHOTO 4: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT SAMPLE FROM 38.71 m - 39.32 m. PHOTO 5: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT SAMPLE FROM 12.80 m - 13.41 m. PHOTO 6: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 LOOKING EAST ALONG THE PROPOSED TMEP RIGHT OF TYPICAL GLACIOLACUSTRINE SILT AND CLAY ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING. TYPICAL COLLUVIAL SAND AND GRAVEL ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING WAY. THE EXISTING TMPL RUNS NEAR THE LEFT EDGE OF THE PHOTO. ALONG THE WEST BANK.
SCALE: PROJECT: N.T.S. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY NOTES: DATE: ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 1. PIPELINE RK BASED ON THE V10 CORRIDOR CENTERLINE. FEB 2015 AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY TITLE: 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DRAWN: AH FIELD PHOTOS 3. 7+,6'5$:,1*0867%(5($',1&21-81&7,21:,7+%*& 65(32577,7/('³35(/,0,1$5<*(27(&+1,&$/+'')($6,%,/,7<$66(660(17680$65,9(5$795.$1''$7(')(%58$5< CLIENT: 4. 81/(66%*&$*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$7(',7%*&6+$//+$9(12 CHECKED: NW PROJECT No.: DWG No.: /,$%,/,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 0095-150 05 CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. APPROVED: KWB X:\Projects\0095\150\CAD\OVERALL\PRODUCTION\REPORT\20140911_PRELIMINARY_GEOTECHNICAL_HDD_FEASIBILITY_ASSESSMENT_-_SUMAS_RIVER_AT_RK_1114.6\ Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, February 20, 2015 SUMAS RIVER at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
APPENDIX A HYDROTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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):
aAQ b (Eq. 1) p
Appendix A_Hydrotech Methodology Report Page 9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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, February 20, 2015 SUMAS RIVER at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOGS
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb BGC ENGINEERING INC.
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ON BOREHOLE LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Project Number: 0095-150-14 USCS CLASSIFICATION (1) PROPORTION OF MINOR COMPONENTS (4) GROUP GROUP NAME BY WEIGHT MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL “and” > 35% Coarse Clean gravel Well graded gravel, fine Gravel GW “y/ey” 20% to 35% grained <5% smaller to coarse gravel > 50% of “Some” 10% to 20% soils — than No. 200 coarse fraction Poorly graded gravel more sieve GP “Trace” > 0% to 10% retained on No. than 50% 4 (4.75 mm) Gravel with GM Silty gravel (2) retained PARTICLE SHAPE sieve >12% fines GC Clayey gravel on No. Flat Particles with width/thickness > 3 200 Clean sand SW Well graded sand, fine Particles with length/width > 3 (0.075 Sand to coarse sand Elongated >= 50% of < 5% passes Flat and Particles that meet both criteria mm) No. 200 sieve SP Poorly graded sand sieve coarse fraction Elongated passes No. 4 Silty sand Sand with SM (2) sieve >12% fines SC Clayey sand ANGULARITY Fine ML Silt Angular Particles have sharp edges and rela- Inorganic tively planar sides with unpolished grained Silt and clay CL Clay soils — surfaces. Liquid limit < 50 OL Organic silt, organic more Organic Particles are similar to angular de- than 50% clay Subangular passes MH High plasticity silt scription but have some rounded Silt and clay Inorganic edges. No. 200 CH High plasticity clay sieve Liquid limit Organic clay, organic Subrounded Particles have nearly planar sides but >= 50 Organic OH silt have well rounded corners and edg- Highly organic soils PT Peat es. (1) Rounded Particles have smoothly curved sides CLASSIFICATION BY PARTICLE SIZE and no edges. SIZE RANGE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS(4) US STANDARD SIEVE SIZE DESCRIPTION SPT N FIELD (6, 9) IDENTIFICATION NAME (mm) (3) Retained Passing None Boulders >300 12 inch - “Very Loose” 0-4 Cobbles 75 - 300 3 inch 12 inch “Loose” 4-10 Easily penetrated by 13 mm Gravel: Coarse 19 - 75 0.75 inch 3 inch rod pushed by hand Fine 4.75 - 19 No. 4 0.75 inch “Compact” 10-30 Easily penetrated by 13 mm rod driven by hammer Sand: Coarse 2 - 4.75 No. 10 No. 4 Medium 0.43 - 2 No. 40 No. 10 “Dense” 30-50 Penetrated 0.3 m by 13 mm Fine 0.075 - 0.43 No. 200 No. 40 rod driven by hammer
Fines (Silt or Clay)(4) <0.075 - No. 200 “Very dense” >50 Penetrated few cm by 13 mm rod driven by hammer CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS GRADE DESCRIPTION SPT UNDRAINED SHEAR FIELD IDENTIFICATION (8, 9) (7) “N” STRENGTH - “Su” kPa S1 “Very soft” <2 <12 Easily penetrated several cm by the fist. S2 “Soft” 2-4 12-25 Easily penetrated several cm by the thumb. S3 “Firm” 4-8 25-50 Can be penetrated several cm by the thumb with moder- ate effort. S4 “Stiff” 8-15 50-100 Readily indented by the thumb but penetrated only with great effort. S5 “Very Stiff” 15-30 100-200 Readily indented by the thumb nail. S6 “Hard” >30 >200 Indented with difficulty by the thumbnail.
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR SOIL DESCRIPTIONS ON BOREHOLE LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Project Number: 0095-150-14 PLASTICITY OF COHESIVE SOILS (10) DESCRIPTION SILT CLAY CRITERIA (10) 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. (4) Intermediate - 30%< WL<50% The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.
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(10) MOISTURE CONDITION (2) Description Criteria Dry Absence of moisture
Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table
CEMENTATION (2) Description Criteria Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or little pressure (12) DILATANCY Moderate Crumbles or breaks Description Criteria with considerable None No visible change in the spec-men during shaking or squeezing finger pressure Slow Water appears slowly on the surface of the specimen during shaking and disappears slowly upon squeezing Strong Will not crumble or break with finger Rapid Water appears quickly on the surface of the specimen during shaking pressure and disappears quickly upon squeezing
Notes: (1) ASTM D2487-11, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). (2) ASTM D2488-09a. (3) Approximate metric conversion. (4) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), 2006. (5) Fines are classified as silt or clay on the basis of Atterberg limits (refer to Plasticity Chart). (6) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count uncorrected, after Terzaghi and Peck, 1948. (7) Undrained shear strength can be estimated by shear vane (gives Su), pocket penetrometer (gives unconfined compressive strength, qu = 2 * Su), or unconfined compression test (gives qu = 2 * Su). (8) Approximate correlation with Standard Penetration Test blow counts, after Terzaghi and Peck, 1948. (9) “R” represents sampler refusal during Standard Penetration Test. (10) This plasticity classification conforms to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and to ASTM D-2487 (11) WL = Liquid Limit (%) (12) Test for dilatancy conducted by shaking and squeezing a moulded ball of soil that is 12 mm in diameter. (13) 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 BOREHOLE LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Project Number: 0095-150-14 STRUCTURE (2) Soil Symbols Legend Description Criteria High Plastic Clay Low Plastic Clay
Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or colour with layers at least 6 mm thick; note thickness Silt/Clay High Plastic Silt Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or colour with the layers less than 6 mm thick; note thickness Low Plastic Silt Clay/Sand Fissured Breaks along definite planes or fracture with little re- sistance to fracturing Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, some- Silt/Sand Poorly-graded Sand times striated
Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small Well-graded Sand Clay/Gravel angular lumps which resist further breakdown
Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as Silt/Gravel Sand/Gravel small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness Homogeneous Same colour and appearance throughout Well-graded Gravel Poorly-graded Gravel Heterogeneous Colour and appearance vary throughout High Plastic Organic Low Plastic Organic (2) SENSITIVITY Soil Soil St = Ratio of intact to remoulded strength Fill Peat/Topsoil St Sensitivity
St < 2 Low Sensitivity Boulders and Cobbles 2 < St < 4 Medium Sensitivity 4 < St < 8 Sensitive
8 < St < 16 Extra Sensitive Simplified Soil Symbols St > 16 Quick Clay Clay Sand (2) DRY STRENGTH Description Criteria(13) Silt Gravel None The dry specimen crumbles into powder upon applying pressure or handling Testing Results Legend Low The dry specimen breaks into pieces or crumbles with considerable finger pressure High The dry specimen cannot be broken with finger pres- sure. Specimen will break into pieces between thumb and a hard surface Very High The dry specimen cannot be broken between the thumb and a hard surface Sample Symbols
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR ROCK DESCRIPTIONS ON BOREHOLE LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Project Number: 0095-150-14
WEATHERING/ALTERATION (14) GRADE Description Field Identification A/W 1 Fresh and Unweathered No visible sign of rock material weathering A/W 2 Slightly Weathered or Discolouration indicated weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All Altered rock material may be discoloured by weathering and may be weaker than in its fresh condition. A/W 3 Moderately Weathered Less than 50% of rock material decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. Fresh/ or Altered discoloured rock present as a continuous framework or corestones. A/W 4 Highly Weathered or More than 50% rock material is decomposed or disintegrated to soil. Fresh/ Altered Discoloured rock present as discontinuous framework or corestones. A/W 5 Completely Weathered All rock material decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. Original mass structure or Altered still largely intact A/W 6 Residual Soil All rock material converted to soil; mass structure and material fabric destroyed. HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION FOR ROCK (15) GRADE Description Field Identification R6 Extremely Strong Specimen can only be chipped with flat end of geological hammer R5 Very Strong Specimen requires many blows of flat end of geological hammer to fracture R4 Strong Specimen requires more than one blow of flat end of geological hammer to fracture R3 Medium Strong Cannot be scraped or peeled with pocket knife; can be fractured with single firm blow of flat end of the geologic hammer R2 Weak Can be peeled with pocket knife with difficulty; shallow indentation made by firm blow with point of geological hammer R1 Very Weak Crumbles under firm blow with point of geological hammer; can be peeled by a pocket knife R0 Extremely Weak Indented by thumbnail JOINT CONDITION(16) Condition of Joints Rating Very rough surfaces. Not continuous. No 25 separation. Hard joint wall rock. Slightly rough surfaces. Separation 20 <1mm. Hard joint wall rock. Slightly rough surfaces. Separation 12 <1mm. Soft joint wall rock. Slickensided surfaces or gouge <5mm 6 thick or joints open 1-5mm. Continuous joints. Soft gouge >5mm thick or joints open 0 >5mm. Continuous joints. (14) After ISRM, 1981. (15) ISRM, 1977 (16) Joint condition is a numerical index that summarizes the typical surface properties and infilling of discontinuities within an interval (Bieniawski, 1976).
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR ROCK DESCRIPTIONS ON BOREHOLE LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Project Number: 0095-150-14
Lithological Graphic Log Legend Texture (14) Rock Term Particle Size Examples Very Coarse > 60 mm Porphyritic Shale Sandstone Coarse 2 - 60 mm Breccia, Gneiss (measurable grains) Medium 0.06 - 2 mm Sandstone, Gabbro, Granite, Schist Coal, Lignite Breccia (visible grains) Fine 0.002 - 0.06 mm Tuff, Siltstone, Claystone, Mudstone, Siltstone Mudstone Very Fine < 0.002 mm Basalt Fabric Conglomerate Limestone Term Description Homogeneous/ Equigranular or homogeneous grains Granite Rhyolite Uniform Bedded Deposited in layers, can be sedimentary or volcaniclastic rocks Dolomite Chalk Foliated Minerals are aligned due to shearing or metamorphism Gneissic Alternating layers of different colour or texture with mineral Chert, Flint Halite alignment and typically parts along layers Porphyritic Crystalline texture with bimodal grain size distribution, fine to medium grained groundmass with coarse to very coarse Gypsum Anhydrite phenocrysts Stockwork Veins (typically quartz, calcite, or gypsum/anhydrite) make up greater than 10% of the rock mass, they may be aligned
Diorite, Syenite Andesite, Trachyte with foliation or irregularly oriented Microfractured Hairline fractures are the primary fabric of the rock, typically oriented in all directions and intersecting one another Gabbro Basalt Brecciated Healed or welded angular clasts with matrix, may be matrix – or clast-supported
Peridotite Granite Porphyry, Felsite
Porphyrite, Porphyry Dolerite/Diabase
Slate, Phyllite Schist
Migmatite Gneiss
Quartzite Serpentinite
Marble Amphibolite, Eclogite
Fault Zone Bedrock
SYMBOLS AND TERMS FOR ROCK DESCRIPTIONS ON BOREHOLE LOGS
Project Name: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Project Number: 0095-150-14
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard D2487-11: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, PA. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard D2488-09a: Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). West Conshohocken, PA. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans South African Institute of Civil Engineers. 15, 335-344. Canadian Geotechnical Society 2006. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th Edition. pp. 488. International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). 1977. International Society for Rock Mechanics Com- mission of Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests: Suggested Methods for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses. Committee on Field Tests, Document No. 4, pp. 319-368. International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). 1981. International Society for Rock Mechanics: Com- mission of Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses, Basic Geotechnical Description of Rock Masses. International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mineral Science, and Geomechanics. Vol. 18, pp. 85-110. Terzaghi, K., and Ralph B. Peck, 1948, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York
Revision: August 11, 2014
Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Page 1 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Flood Plain Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 08 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,771E, 5,435,137N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 10 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 3.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.23 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 0 SAND (SP) Fine to coarse, some silt, uniformly graded, loose, dark grey, moist to wet, gradient structure, no cementation, trace organics present as wood fragments, sensitive to mechanical vibrations. [LACUSTRINE] 0.0-10.0 m - Approximately 10% loss in drilling fluid circulation. 1 Water table measured at a depth of 1.2 m below ground surface on September 10, 2014 with the drill hole at the final depth of 40.2 m.
SPT 01 SPT 01 - Recovered 0.44 m. 1 2 2 4
3 SILT (ML) And SAND (SM), clayey to trace clay, trace gravel, low to no plasticity, SPT 02 2 very soft to firm, grey, moist to wet, stratified, weak cementation, 2 sticky, low to medium dry strength, rapid dilatancy. 3 Sand is fine, silty to trace silt, trace clay, uniformly graded, very loose to loose, grey to dark grey, moist to wet, stratified, no cementation. 4 Sand and silt layers range from approximately 5-100 cm. [LACUSTRINE] SPT 02 - Silt lenses present, approximately 20 mm thick. Recovered 0.45 m.
SPT 03 SPT 03 - SAND (SM) and silt, fines content 38.3%. Recovered 0.41 m 3 5 1 2
6
SPT 04 SPT 04 - Recovered 0.51 m. 1 2 0
7
SPT 05 - Some sand. The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample into the ground after the first blow, after sinking SPT 05 approximately 10 cm. Recovered 0.55 m. 1 8 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Page 2 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Flood Plain Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 08 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,771E, 5,435,137N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 10 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 3.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.23 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 8 SILT (ML) 0 And SAND (SM), clayey to trace clay, trace gravel, low to no plasticity, 0 very soft to firm, grey, moist to wet, stratified, weak cementation, SH1 sticky, low to medium dry strength, rapid dilatancy. Sand is fine, silty to trace silt, trace clay, uniformly graded, very loose G1 to loose, grey to dark grey, moist to wet, stratified, no cementation. 9 Sand and silt layers range from approximately 5-100 cm. [LACUSTRINE] SH1 - Fixed piston sample. Recovered 0.41 m. SPT 06 SPT 06 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 1 sample approximately 8 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.48 m. 0 0
10 SILT (ML) And CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft to firm, grey, moist to wet (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand lenses approximately 3-20 mm thick, medium to high dry strength, slow to no dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 0 11 SPT 07 SPT 07 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0
12
SPT 08 SPT 08 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.34 m. 0 0 13 SH2 SH2 - Fixed piston sample. Recovered 0.35 m. G2
13.9 m - Downhole shear vane test conducted. Type 3 - 14.6 cm by 14 6.4 cm vane used. Peak shear strength = 62 kPa. Remolded strength = 10 kPa.
15
SPT 09 SPT 09 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0 16 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Page 3 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Flood Plain Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 08 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,771E, 5,435,137N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 10 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 3.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.23 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 16 SILT (ML) And CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft to firm, grey, moist to wet (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand lenses approximately 3-20 mm thick, medium to high dry strength, slow to no dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 17 SPT 10 SPT 10 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
18
SPT 11 SPT 11 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0 19
20 SPT 12 SPT 12 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
20.7-21.3 m - Some coarse material inferred from drilling action. 21
SPT 13 SPT 13 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0 22
23 SH3 SH3 - Fixed piston sample. Recovered 0.70 m.
G3
24 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Page 4 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Flood Plain Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 08 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,771E, 5,435,137N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 10 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 3.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.23 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 24 SILT (ML) And CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft to firm, grey, moist to wet (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand lenses approximately 3-20 mm thick, medium to high dry strength, slow to no 0 SPT 14 dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. 0 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 0 25 SPT 14 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 25.1-25.3 m - Coarse material inferred from drilling action.
26 SPT 15 SPT 15 - Recovered 0.29 m. 2 3 2
27
SPT 16 SPT 16 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 28 0
29 SPT 17 SPT 17 - Trace gravel. The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk 0 the SPT sample a minimum of 30 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 0 m. 4
30
30.5-35.0 m - Low dry strength.
SPT 18 SPT 18 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 40 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 31 3
32 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Page 5 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Flood Plain Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 08 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,771E, 5,435,137N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 10 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 3.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.23 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 32 SILT (ML) SPT 19 And CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft to firm, grey, moist 0 to wet (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand lenses 5 approximately 3-20 mm thick, medium to high dry strength, slow to no 0 dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 33 SPT 19 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample approximately 15 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m.
SH4 SH4 - Fixed piston sample. Recovered 0.71 m. 34 G4 34.4 m - Downhole shear vane test conducted. Type 3 - 14.6 cm by 6.4 cm vane used. Peak shear strength = 105.2 kPa (no rod friction integrated into calculations). 35
SPT 20 SPT 20 - Recovered 0.61 m. 3 4 1
36
SPT 21 SPT 21 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 1 37 sample into the ground after the first blow, after sinking approximately 0 15 cm. Recovered 0.61 m. 0
38
SPT 22 SPT 22 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 1 sample into the ground after the first blow, after sinking approximately 0 15 cm. Recovered 0.61 m. 0
39
SPT 23 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample into the ground after the first blow, after sinking approximately SPT 23 10 cm. Recovered 0.61 m. 1 40 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Page 6 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Flood Plain Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 08 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,771E, 5,435,137N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 10 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 3.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.23 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 40 SILT (ML) 0 And CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft to firm, grey, moist 0 to wet (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand lenses approximately 3-20 mm thick, medium to high dry strength, slow to no dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 41 Borehole completed at target depth of 40.2 m below ground surface. Borehole grouted to surface with bentonite grout.
SPT Sampler Details: 24" length, 2" diameter, driven by automatic trip hammer. All SPT sampling was carried out in accordance with ASTM D1586. 42 Garmin GPSMAP 62s handheld GPS accuracy +/- 3 m.
Two vibrating wire piezometers installed at 15 and 30 m below ground surface: - 15 mbgs - VW30098 - 30 mbgs - VW30095 43 Vibrating wire piezometer phreatic surface readings (measured on OCT 22, 2014): - 15 mbgs: 1.2 mbgs (2.1 masl) - 30 mbgs: 1.9 mbgs (1.4 masl)
44
45
46
47
48 TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Page 1 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 10 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,617E, 5,435,162N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 12 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.84 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 0 SILT (ML) Sandy, low plasticity, firm, grey, moist, no structure, weak cementation, low to medium dry strength, rapid dilatancy. [FILL] 0.0-4.6 m - Mud rotary drilling using a 6¼ inch tri-cone drill bit.
1 Water table measured at a depth of 1.0 m below ground surface on September 12, 2014 with the drill hole at the final depth of 40.8 m.
SPT 01 SPT 01 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 1 3 2 sample approximately 8 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.43 m. 3 SAND (SP) Fine to coarse, some to trace silt, trace gravel, uniformly graded, loose, grey, moist, homogenous, no cementation, trace organics present as wood fragments. [LACUSTRINE] 1.8-4.5 m - Fine to coarse. 3
SPT 02 SPT 02 - Silt lens approximately 3 cm thick. Recovered 0.53 m. 4 4 3
4
SILT (ML) SPT 03 And SAND (SM) to sandy, clayey to trace clay, low plasticity, very soft 2 5 to soft, dark grey, moist to wet (wetter than plastic limit), stratified, 2 weak cementation, sticky, medium dry strength, slow to rapid 2 dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. Sand is fine, silty to trace silt, trace clay, uniformly graded, very loose to loose, dark grey, moist, stratified, weak cementation. [LACUSTRINE] 4.6 m - Switched to a 4¾ inch baffled tri-cone drill bit. 6 SPT 03 - Recovered 0.35 m.
7 SPT 04 SPT 04 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 2 sample approximately 8 cm into the ground. Appears sensitive to 0 mechanical vibrations inside the split spoon. Recovered 0.52 m. 2
8 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Page 2 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 10 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,617E, 5,435,162N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 12 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.84 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 8 SILT (ML) And SAND (SM) to sandy, clayey to trace clay, low plasticity, very soft to soft, dark grey, moist to wet (wetter than plastic limit), stratified, 2 SPT 05 weak cementation, sticky, medium dry strength, slow to rapid 1 dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. 4 Sand is fine, silty to trace silt, trace clay, uniformly graded, very loose 9 to loose, dark grey, moist, stratified, weak cementation. [LACUSTRINE] SPT 05 - Firm. Recovered 0.51 m.
10 SPT 06 SPT 06 - Sandy. The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the 0 SPT sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
SH1 SH1 - Shelby sample. Recovered 0.71 m. 11 G1
SPT 07 SPT 07 - Recovered 0.52 m. 1 1 2 12
12.8 m - Minor sloughing occurred over a 12 hour period overnight. 13 SPT 08 SPT 08 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 20 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.52 m. 1 1
14
SPT 09 SPT 09 - Recovered 0.61 m. 1 1 0 15
16 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Page 3 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 10 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,617E, 5,435,162N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 12 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.84 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 16 SPT 10 SILT (ML) 1 And SAND (SM) to sandy, clayey to trace clay, low plasticity, very soft 0 to soft, dark grey, moist to wet (wetter than plastic limit), stratified, 0 weak cementation, sticky, medium dry strength, slow to rapid dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. Sand is fine, silty to trace silt, trace clay, uniformly graded, very loose 17 to loose, dark grey, moist, stratified, weak cementation. [LACUSTRINE] SPT 10 - Recovered 0.61 m. 17.4-19.1 m - Sand and silt become laminated. SPT 11 SPT 11 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 30 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 1 18
19 SPT 12 SAND (SP-SM) 4 Fine to coarse, some silt, trace gravel, poorly graded, compact, 8 sub-angular, greenish grey, white, moist, homogenous, moderately 8 cemented. [LACUSTRINE] 20 SPT 12 - Recovered 0.50 m.
SPT 13 SPT 13 - SAND (SP-SM), fines content 10.3%. Recovered 0.38 m. 9 7 21 11
22 SILT (ML) SPT 14 And CLAY (CL), low plasticity, very soft to soft, grey, moist (wetter than 0 plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 30-70 0 mm thick, weak cementation, sticky, medium to high dry strength, slow 0 dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 23 SPT 14 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample approximately 53 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m.
SPT 15 SPT 15 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 50 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 24 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Page 4 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 10 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,617E, 5,435,162N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 12 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.84 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 24 SILT (ML) 0 And CLAY (CL), low plasticity, very soft to soft, grey, moist (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 30-70 SH2 mm thick, weak cementation, sticky, medium to high dry strength, slow dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. G2 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 25 SH2 - Shelby sample. Recovered 0.70 m. 25.2 m - Downhole shear vane test conducted. Type 3 - 14.6 cm by 6.4 cm vane used. Peak shear strength = 67.0 kPa. Remolded shear strength = 13.9 kPa.
26
SPT 16 SPT 16 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 0 27 sample approximately 38 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.47 m. 1
28
SPT 17 SPT 17 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 38 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 3
29
SPT 18 SPT 18 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 30 sample approximately 20 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 1 0
31
SPT 19 SPT 19 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
32 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Page 5 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 10 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,617E, 5,435,162N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 12 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.84 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 32 SILT (ML) And CLAY (CL), low plasticity, very soft to soft, grey, moist (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 30-70 mm thick, weak cementation, sticky, medium to high dry strength, slow dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. SPT 20 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 1 33 SPT 20 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample into the ground after the first blow. Recovered 0.61 m. 0
34
SPT 21 SPT 21 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 1 sample into the ground after the first blow. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
35
0 36 SPT 22 SPT 22 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample approximately 23 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 2
37
SPT 23 SPT 23 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 56 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0 38
38.7-40.8 m - Sand varves are approximately 1-2 mm thick. 39 SPT 24 SPT 24 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT 0 sample approximately 38 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 1
40 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Page 6 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - East Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 10 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,617E, 5,435,162N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 12 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.84 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 40 SILT (ML) And CLAY (CL), low plasticity, very soft to soft, grey, moist (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 30-70 0 SPT 25 mm thick, weak cementation, sticky, medium to high dry strength, slow 0 dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. 0 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 41 SPT 25 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the SPT sample approximately 48 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. Borehole completed at target depth of 40.8 m below ground surface. Borehole grouted to surface with bentonite grout.
SPT Sampler Details: 24" length, 2" diameter, driven by automatic trip 42 hammer. All SPT sampling was carried out in accordance with ASTM D1586.
Garmin GPSMAP 62s handheld GPS accuracy +/- 3 m.
Two vibrating wire piezometers installed at 15 and 30 m below ground surface: 43 - 15 mbgs - VW30103 - 30 mbgs - VW30097
Vibrating wire piezometer phreatic surface readings (measured on OCT 22, 2014): - 15 mbgs: 1.6 mbgs (2.4 masl) - 30 mbgs: 1.9 mbgs (2.1 masl) 44
45
46
47
48 TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Page 1 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - West Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 13 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,521E, 5,435,170N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 15 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.46 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 0 SAND (SP) And Gravel, fine to coarse, unit inferred from drilling action and drill returns. [FILL] 0.0-6.7 m - Mud rotary drilling using a 6¼ inch tri-cone drill bit.
1
SAND (SP) Fine to coarse, trace silt, trace gravel, uniformly graded, loose, sub-angular, dark grey, moist to wet, homogenous, no cementation, trace organics present as wood fragments. SPT 01 4 [FLUVIAL] 4 2 Water table measured at a depth of 1.5 m below ground surface on 5 September 15, 2014 with the drill hole at the final depth of 40.5 m. SPT 01 - Approximately 5 cm of slough inside borehole prior to SPT. Recovered 0.41 m.
3
SPT 02 SPT 02 - SAND (SP-SM), fines content 6.3%. Recovered 0.47 m. 3 4 4
4
SPT 03 SPT 03 - Recovered 0.14 m, recovery too poor for sampling. 3 5 5 5
6 SAND (SW-SM) And Gravel, fine to coarse, some to trace silt, trace clay, well graded, SPT 04 compact to very dense, maximum particle size is approximately 40 7 mm, sub-angular to angular, light reddish brown, tan, dark brown, 8 moist, homogenous, weak cementation. 7 [COLLUVIUM] 7 6.0 m - Top of sand and gravel unit inferred from drilling action. 6.1-40.5 m - Approximately 10% loss in drilling fluid circulation. SPT 04 - Recovered 0.32 m. 6.7 m - Switched to a 4¾ inch baffled tri-cone drill bit.
8 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Page 2 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - West Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 13 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,521E, 5,435,170N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 15 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.46 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 8 SAND (SW-SM) And Gravel, fine to coarse, some to trace silt, trace clay, well graded, compact to very dense, maximum particle size is approximately 40 9 SPT 05 mm, sub-angular to angular, light reddish brown, tan, dark brown, 8 moist, homogenous, weak cementation. 6 [COLLUVIUM] 9 SPT 05 - Silty, approximately 8 cm of slough inside borehole prior to SPT. Recovered 0.33 m.
10 SPT 06 SPT 06 - SAND (SW-SM), gravelly, fines content 11.2%. 8 Approximately 8 cm of slough inside borehole prior to SPT. Recovered 9 0.30 m. 9
11
SPT 07 SPT 07 - Silty, approximately 5 cm of slough inside borehole prior to 27 SPT. Recovered 0.42 m. 18 21 12 11.9 m - Switched to a 4¾ inch tri-cone drill bit.
13 13.0-13.1 m - Light beige. SPT 08 SPT 08 - Gravel content varies throughout sample. Recovered 0.51 m. 37 36 27
14
SPT 09 SPT 09 - Recovered 0.33 m. 41 34 R 15
16 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Page 3 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - West Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 13 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,521E, 5,435,170N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 15 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.46 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 16 SPT 10 SAND (SW-SM) 33 And Gravel, fine to coarse, some to trace silt, trace clay, well graded, 38 compact to very dense, maximum particle size is approximately 40 33 mm, sub-angular to angular, light reddish brown, tan, dark brown, moist, homogenous, weak cementation. [COLLUVIUM] 17 SPT 10 - SAND (SW-SM) and gravel, fines content 8.8%. Recovered 0.51 m.
SPT 11 SPT 11 - Recovered 0.45 m. 17 16 14 18
19 SPT 12 SPT 12 - Recovered 0.51 m. 11 14 SILT (ML) 7 AND CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft, grey, moist (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 1-10 mm thick, weak cementation, high dry strength, 20 slow dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 19.4-19.5 m - Sand, fine to medium, trace silt, uniformly graded, compact, dark grey, moist, homogenous, no cementation. SPT 13 SPT 13 - Very stiff, moisture is near plastic limit, 3 cm-long organic 8 seed encountered. Recovered 0.61 m. 9 21 9
22 SPT 14 SPT 14 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 25 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 1 0
23
SPT 15 SPT 15 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 45 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 24 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Page 4 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - West Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 13 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,521E, 5,435,170N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 15 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.46 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 24 SILT (ML) 0 AND CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft, grey, moist (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 1-10 mm thick, weak cementation, high dry strength, slow dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 25
SPT 16 SPT 16 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 25 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 1 0
26
SPT 17 SPT 17 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 0 27 approximately 50 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0
28
SPT 18 SPT 18 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 20 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 2 0
29
SPT 19 SPT 19 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 30 approximately 50 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
31
SPT 20 SPT 20 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 56 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
32 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Page 5 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - West Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 13 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,521E, 5,435,170N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 15 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.46 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 32 SILT (ML) AND CLAY (CL), trace sand, low plasticity, very soft, grey, moist (wetter than plastic limit), varved structure with sand layers approximately 1-10 mm thick, weak cementation, high dry strength, slow dilatancy, trace organics present as wood fragments. SPT 21 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] 0 33 SPT 21 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 38 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 2
34
SPT 22 SPT 22 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample 0 approximately 22 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 1 0
35
0 36 SPT 23 SPT 23 - The weight of the rods and hammer alone sunk the sample approximately 53 cm into the ground. Recovered 0.61 m. 0 0
37
SPT 24 SPT 24 - Sand seams occur every 5 cm, the weight of the rods and 0 hammer alone sunk the sample approximately 53 cm into the ground. 0 Recovered 0.61 m. 0 38 SAND (SP-SM) Fine to coarse, gravelly, some silt, trace clay, poorly graded, very dense, maximum particle size is approximately 35 mm, sub-angular to rounded, dark grey, moist, homogenous, strong cementation. R SPT 25 [COLLUVIUM] 39 38.1 m - Top of colluvium unit inferred from drilling action. SPT 25 - SAND (SP-SM), gravelly, fines content 11.4%. Approximately 5 cm of slough inside borehole prior to SPT. Recovered 0.10 m.
40 (Continued on next page) TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Project: Trans Mountain Expansion Project DRILL HOLE # BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Page 6 of 6 Location: Sumas Canal - West Bank Project No.: 0095-150-04
Survey Method: Handheld Garmin 62s GPS Drill Designation: HT 700 Start Date: 13 Sep 14 Co-ordinates (m): 560,521E, 5,435,170N Drilling Contractor: Foundex Exploration Ltd. Finish Date: 15 Sep 14 Ground Elevation (m): 4.0 Drill Method: Mud Rotary Final Depth of Hole (m): 40.46 Datum: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10U Fluid: Bentonite Mud and Polymer Logged by: NW Dip (degrees from horizontal): -90 Casing: N/A Cased To (m): N/A Reviewed by: LDM 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/300mm) Moisture Content & SPT N Core Recovery WP% W%WL%
Depth (m) Sample Type Sample No. Symbol 150mm Blows per SPT Details Install 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 40 SAND (SP-SM) Fine to coarse, gravelly, some silt, trace clay, poorly graded, very SPT 26 6 dense, maximum particle size is approximately 35 mm, sub-angular to 49 rounded, dark grey, moist, homogenous, strong cementation. R [COLLUVIUM] SPT 26 - Approximately 15 cm of slough inside borehole prior to SPT. 41 Recovered 0.23 m. Borehole completed at target depth of 40.5 m below ground surface. Borehole grouted to surface with bentonite grout.
SPT Sampler Details: 24" length, 2" diameter, driven by automatic trip hammer. All SPT sampling was carried out in accordance with ASTM 42 D1586. Garmin GPSMAP 62s handheld GPS accuracy +/- 3 m.
Two vibrating wire piezometers installed at 15 and 30 m below ground surface: - 15 mbgs - VW30102 43 - 30 mbgs - VW30096
Vibrating wire piezometers phreatic surface readings (measured OCT 22, 2014): - 15 mbgs: 1.9 mbgs (2.5 masl) - 30 mbgs: 1.3 mbgs (3.1 masl) 44
45
46
47
48 TMEP (SOIL & ROCK W INSTRUMENTS) TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL BGC.GDT 1/23/15 TMEP_SOILROCK.GDL INSTRUMENTS) ROCK W & TMEP (SOIL Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, February 20, 2015 SUMAS RIVER at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb BGC ENGINEERING INC. BH-BGC14-SUM-01
SIZE OF OPENING (in) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3 3 " 24" 12" 6" 4" 3" 1" /4" /8 #4 #6 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100 SPT 03 (4.57 - 5.18 mbgs) 90 SPT 05 (7.62 - 8.23 mbgs) SPT 10 (16.76 - 17.37 mbgs) 80 SPT 20 (35.05 - 35.66 mbgs)
70
60
50
40
PERCENT FINER THAN PERCENT FINER 30
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).
NTS SZ TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY FEBRUARY 2015 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER V10 RK 1114.6 NW KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS
C-01A 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Morgan\150TMEP - Pipeline Project\04 HDD Assessment\lab data\Sumas River\GSA_SUM_2015.grf BH-BGC14-SUM-02
SIZE OF OPENING (in) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3 3 " 24" 12" 6" 4" 3" 1" /4" /8 #4 #6 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100 SPT 04 (6.71 - 7.32 mbgs) 90 SPT 06 (9.75 - 10.36 mbgs) SPT 13 (20.42 -21.03 mbgs) 80 SPT 22 (35.66 - 36.27 mbgs)
70
60
50
40
PERCENT FINER THAN PERCENT FINER 30
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).
NTS SZ TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY FEBRUARY 2015 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER V10 RK 1114.6 NW KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS
C-01B 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Morgan\150TMEP - Pipeline Project\04 HDD Assessment\lab data\Sumas River\GSA_SUM_2015.grf BH-BGC14-SUM-03
SIZE OF OPENING (in) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3 3 " 24" 12" 6" 4" 3" 1" /4" /8 #4 #6 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 100 SPT 02 (3.05 - 3.66 mbgs) 90 SPT 06 (9.75 - 10.36 mbgs) SPT 10 (15.85 - 16.46 mbgs) 80 SPT 15 (23.47 - 24.08 mbgs) SPT 20 (31.09 - 31.70 mbgs) SPT 25 (38.71 - 38.80 mbgs) 70
60
50
40
PERCENT FINER THAN PERCENT FINER 30
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).
NTS SZ TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY FEBRUARY 2015 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER V10 RK 1114.6 NW KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS
C-01C 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Morgan\150TMEP - Pipeline Project\04 HDD Assessment\lab data\Sumas River\GSA_SUM_2015.grf BH-BGC14-SUM-01 50 SPT 04B (6.30 - 6.71 mbgs) SPT 07 (10.67 - 11.28 mbgs) SPT 09 (15.24 - 15.85 mbgs) 40 SPT 16 (27.43 - 28.04 mbgs) SPT 20 (35.05 - 35.66 mbgs) SPT 21 (36.58 - 37.19 mbgs)
30 f
20 PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
10 data\Sumas River\Atterberg_20150105_SUM.gr 0 0 102030405060708090100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) - TMEP Assessment\lab HDD Project\04 Pipeline
NTS SZ TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY FEBRUARY 2015 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 NW KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY ATTERBERG LIMIT ANALYSIS RESULTS
DWG TO BE READ WITH REPORT TITLED "HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6" DATED JANUARY 2015 C-02A 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Kinder N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Morgan\150 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 50
40
30 f
20 PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
10 data\Sumas River\Atterberg_20150105_SUM.gr 0 0 102030405060708090100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) - TMEP Assessment\lab HDD Project\04 Pipeline
NTS SZ TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY FEBRUARY 2015 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 NW KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY ATTERBERG LIMIT ANALYSIS RESULTS
DWG TO BE READ WITH REPORT TITLED "HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6" DATED JANUARY 2015 C-02B 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Kinder N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Morgan\150 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 50 SPT 13 (20.42 - 21.03 mbgs) SPT 15 (23.47 - 24.08 mbgs) SPT 17 (26.52 - 27.13 mbgs) 40 SPT 20 (31.09 - 31.70 mbgs)
30 f
20 PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
10 data\Sumas River\Atterberg_20150105_SUM.gr 0 0 102030405060708090100 LIQUID LIMIT (%) - TMEP Assessment\lab HDD Project\04 Pipeline
NTS SZ TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL HDD FEASIBILITY FEBRUARY 2015 AJB BGC ENGINEERING INC. ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6 NW KWB BGC AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY ATTERBERG LIMIT ANALYSIS RESULTS
DWG TO BE READ WITH REPORT TITLED "HDD FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT - SUMAS RIVER AT V10 RK 1114.6" DATED JANUARY 2015 C-02C 0 N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Kinder Kinder N:\BGC\Projects\0095 Morgan\150 Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 07 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 10.67 to 11.28 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 38 Plastic Limit 24 Plasticity Index 14 Natural Water Content (%) 39.3 Liquidity Index 1.1 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 09 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 15.24 to 15.85 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 38 Plastic Limit 27 Plasticity Index 11 Natural Water Content (%) 49.8 Liquidity Index 2.1 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 16 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 27.43 to 28.04 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 35 Plastic Limit 24 Plasticity Index 11 Natural Water Content (%) 36.5 Liquidity Index 1.1 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 35.05 to 35.66 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) 100 Liquid Limit 38 Plastic Limit 22 Plasticity Index 16 Natural Water Content (%) 37.1 Liquidity Index 0.9 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
MM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 21 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 36.58 to 37.19 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 37 Plastic Limit 24 Plasticity Index 13 Natural Water Content (%) 36.4 Liquidity Index 1.0 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 08 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 12.80 to 13.41 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 28 Plastic Limit 22 Plasticity Index 6 Natural Water Content (%) 34.7 Liquidity Index 2.1 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
MM 10/24/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 14 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 22.00 to 22.56 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 41 Plastic Limit 24 Plasticity Index 17 Natural Water Content (%) 41.4 Liquidity Index 1.0 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM/MM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 16 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 26.52 to 27.13 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 40 Plastic Limit 26 Plasticity Index 14 Natural Water Content (%) 41.2 Liquidity Index 1.1 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 21 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 34.14 to 34.75 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 38 Plastic Limit 24 Plasticity Index 14 Natural Water Content (%) 38.0 Liquidity Index 1.0 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 13 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 20.42 to 21.03 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 34 Plastic Limit 25 Plasticity Index 9 Natural Water Content (%) 25.7 Liquidity Index 0.1 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/24/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 15 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 23.47 to 24.08 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) 98 Liquid Limit 42 Plastic Limit 26 Plasticity Index 16 Natural Water Content (%) 39.5 Liquidity Index 0.8 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 17 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 26.52 to 27.13 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) ND Liquid Limit 39 Plastic Limit 27 Plasticity Index 12 Natural Water Content (%) 33.9 Liquidity Index 0.6 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 31.09 to 31.70 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
SUMMARY Percent Passing #40 Sieve (%) 100 Liquid Limit 40 Plastic Limit 28 Plasticity Index 12 Natural Water Content (%) 39.4 Liquidity Index 0.9 NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
60
55
50
45
40
35 Water Content % Water Content
30
25
20 1 10 100 Number of Blows
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG LIMITS (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) LIMITS Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 04B Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 6.30 to 6.71 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: Could not achieve 25 blows
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 04B 6.30 6.71 ND NP NP NP 40.3 NP
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 07 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 10.67 to 11.28 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 07 10.67 11.28 ND 38 24 14.0 39.3 1.1
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 09 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 15.24 to 15.85 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 09 15.24 15.85 ND 38 27 11.0 49.8 2.1
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 16 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 27.43 to 28.04 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 16 27.43 28.04 ND 35 24 11.0 36.5 1.1
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 35.05 to 35.66 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 20 35.05 35.66 100 38 22 16.0 37.1 0.9
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
MM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 21 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 36.58 to 37.19 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 21 36.58 37.19 ND 37 24 13.0 36.4 1.0
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 08 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 12.80 to 13.41 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 08 12.80 13.41 ND 28 22 6.0 34.7 2.1
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
MM 10/24/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 14 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 22.00 to 22.56 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 14 22.00 22.56 ND 41 24 17.0 41.4 1.0
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM/MM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 16 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 26.52 to 27.13 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 16 26.52 27.13 ND 40 26 14.0 41.2 1.1
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 21 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 34.14 to 34.75 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 21 34.14 34.75 ND 38 24 14.0 38.0 1.0
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 13 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 20.42 to 21.03 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 13 20.42 21.03 ND 34 25 9.0 25.7 0.1
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/24/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 15 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 23.47 to 24.08 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 15 23.47 24.08 98 42 26 16.0 39.5 0.8
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 17 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 26.52 to 27.13 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 17 26.52 27.13 ND 39 27 12.0 33.9 0.6
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D 4318-10 Client: BGC ID: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 31.09 to 31.70 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Other Remarks: N/A
Test Method: A-Multi Point Preparation Method: Wet
PLASTICITY CHART 80
70
60 CLAY (CH)
50 SILTY CLAY (CI) 40
CLAYEY SILT (MH) Plasticity Index Plasticity 30 SILTY CLAY (CL) ORGANIC SILT (OH)
20 A-Line
10
SILTY CLAY-CLAYEY SILT (CL-ML) CLAYEY SILT (ML) ORGANIC SILT (OL) 0 SILT (ML) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit
Percent Sym. Sample Sample / Specimen Depth Bottom Passing Liquid Plastic Plasticity Natural Liquidity Location Number (m) (m) #40 Sieve Limit Limit Index Water Content Index (%) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 20 31.09 31.70 100 40 28 12.0 39.4 0.9
NP - NON-PLASTIC RESULT ND - NOT DETERMINED
Note: The test data given herein pertain to the sample provided only. This report constitutes a testing service only.
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller CASAGRANDE (SINGLE) Form:_LAB_ATTERBERG Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Tech Date Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 03 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 4.57 to 5.18 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 99.5 #10 US MESH 2 99.4 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 99.2 #40 US MESH 0.425 98.8 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 97.9 #100 US MESH 0.15 88.9
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 62.7 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 38.3
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
TM/MM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 05 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 7.62 to 8.23 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 100.0 #10 US MESH 2 100.0 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 99.8 #40 US MESH 0.425 99.5 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 98.9 #100 US MESH 0.15 96.6
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 92.5 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 83.6 0.0544 78.8 20 0.0407 67.9 0.0304 56.2 0.0203 42.5 10 0.0124 28.0 0.0090 20.7 0 0.0065 15.5 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0046 13.1 0.0032 10.5 GRAVEL SAND 0.0014 6.0 BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/TM 10/29/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 10 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 16.76 to 17.37 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 100.0 #10 US MESH 2 100.0 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 99.9 #40 US MESH 0.425 99.4 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 98.8 #100 US MESH 0.15 98.2
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 97.6 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 96.5 0.0519 94.0 20 0.0378 88.5 0.0276 81.9 0.0181 73.8 10 0.0109 64.2 0.0080 56.5 0 0.0057 50.6 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0042 44.3 0.0030 35.7 GRAVEL SAND 0.0013 22.3 BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/DL 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-01 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 35.05 to 35.66 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 99.9 #10 US MESH 2 99.9 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 99.8 #40 US MESH 0.425 99.6 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 99.0 #100 US MESH 0.15 98.4
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 97.4 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 95.3 0.0374 89.7 20 0.0273 83.8 0.0181 74.4 0.0110 62.8 10 0.0081 54.5 0.0059 45.4 0 0.0043 37.9 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0030 30.2 0.0013 21.1 GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/DL 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 04 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 6.71 to 7.32 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 99.1 60 3/8" 9.5 99.1 #4 US MESH 4.75 99.1 #10 US MESH 2 98.8 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 98.2 #40 US MESH 0.425 97.0 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 92.0 #100 US MESH 0.15 79.5
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 67.3 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 54.2
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
TM/MM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 06 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 9.75 to 10.36 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 100.0 #10 US MESH 2 99.9 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 99.6 #40 US MESH 0.425 99.1 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 98.3 #100 US MESH 0.15 96.4
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 86.7 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 74.6 0.0578 70.2 20 0.0424 61.9 0.0308 55.2 0.0201 47.1 10 0.0119 39.6 0.0086 34.2 0 0.0062 29.9 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0044 24.4 0.0031 20.5 GRAVEL SAND 0.0013 12.5 BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/DL 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 13 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 20.42 to 21.03 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 99.4 60 3/8" 9.5 99.3 #4 US MESH 4.75 95.7 #10 US MESH 2 73.4 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 38.1 #40 US MESH 0.425 22.2 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 16.4 #100 US MESH 0.15 13.3
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 11.7 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 10.3
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
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-02 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 22 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 35.66 to 36.27 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 100.0 #10 US MESH 2 100.0 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 100.0 #40 US MESH 0.425 99.8 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 99.4 #100 US MESH 0.15 98.9
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 98.3 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 97.5 0.0355 95.5 20 0.0259 90.4 0.0171 82.7 0.0106 69.4 10 0.0078 60.3 0.0057 52.3 0 0.0041 43.9 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0030 36.1 0.0013 24.1 GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/DL 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 02 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 3.05 to 3.66 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 99.4 #10 US MESH 2 97.4 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 85.3 #40 US MESH 0.425 51.1 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 21.4 #100 US MESH 0.15 10.2
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 7.8 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 6.3
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
TM/MM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 06 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 9.75 to 10.36 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 93.7 60 3/8" 9.5 91.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 76.4 #10 US MESH 2 55.5 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 38.5 #40 US MESH 0.425 30.1 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 25.2 #100 US MESH 0.15 18.0
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 13.7 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 11.2
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
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 10 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 15.85 to 16.46 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 91.5 1/2" 12.7 84.9 60 3/8" 9.5 78.4 #4 US MESH 4.75 59.3 #10 US MESH 2 44.1 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 31.7 #40 US MESH 0.425 21.6 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 15.4 #100 US MESH 0.15 11.9
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 10.2 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 8.8
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
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 15 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 23.47 to 24.08 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 100.0 #10 US MESH 2 99.6 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 98.7 #40 US MESH 0.425 97.9 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 97.3 #100 US MESH 0.15 96.8
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 96.4 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 96.0 0.0362 94.4 20 0.0259 92.1 0.0172 83.4 0.0105 72.7 10 0.0077 64.5 0.0056 55.1 0 0.0041 47.3 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0029 38.1 0.0013 25.2 GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/DL 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 422 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 20 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 31.09 to 31.70 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 100.0 60 3/8" 9.5 100.0 #4 US MESH 4.75 100.0 #10 US MESH 2 99.9 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 99.8 #40 US MESH 0.425 99.5 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 99.0 #100 US MESH 0.15 98.5
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 98.0 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 97.6 0.0252 94.7 20 0.0167 86.6 0.0102 77.2 0.0075 68.4 10 0.0055 58.4 0.0041 49.5 0 0.0029 40.8 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) 0.0013 26.5
GRAVEL SAND BOULDER COBBLE FINES (Silt, Clay) Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
MM/DL 10/28/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Reference(s) SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM C136 Client: BGC Sample Location: BH-BGC14-SUM-03 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Sample No.: SPT 25 Location: N/A Depth Interval (m): 38.71 to 38.80 Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Lab Schedule No.:
Size of Opening (inches) U.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch) Hydrometer Legend 1224 36 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 4 10 4020 20010060 Particle USCS Particle Size Scale Percent Sieve Size Size 100 Passing (USS) (mm) (mm) 6" 152.4 100.0 90 3.5" 88.9 100.0 3" 76.2 100.0 80 2" 50.8 100.0 1 1/2" 38.1 100.0 1" 25.4 100.0 70 3/4" 19.1 100.0 1/2" 12.7 93.0 60 3/8" 9.5 86.4 #4 US MESH 4.75 71.4 #10 US MESH 2 37.8 50 #20 US MESH 0.85 28.7 #40 US MESH 0.425 24.1 40 #60 US MESH 0.25 18.9 #100 US MESH 0.15 14.8
Percent Finer by Mass #140 US MESH 0.106 12.8 30 #200 US MESH 0.075 11.4
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
TM 10/25/2014 LP 10/31/2014 Tech Date Checked Date
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:442 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) MMiller 11/1/14 Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Sheet 1 of 2 Reference(s) WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION ASTM D 2216 Client: BGC Project No.: 1408883 Phase: 1000 Project: Trans Mtn Expansion / 0095-150-14 Lab Schedule No.: Location: N/A
Depth Interval Sample Sample Specimen Water Content Location No. No. Depth Bottom (m) (m) (%) BH-BGC14-SUM-01 G1 8.77 8.79 36.8 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 G2 13.28 13.30 50.5 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 G3 23.54 23.56 52.2 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 G4 34.22 34.24 36.6 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 03 4.57 5.18 40.2 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 04B 6.30 6.71 40.3 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 05 7.62 8.23 45.5 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 07 10.67 11.28 39.3 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 09 15.24 15.85 49.8 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 10 16.76 17.37 49.0 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 16 27.43 28.04 36.5 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 20 35.05 35.66 37.1 BH-BGC14-SUM-01 SPT 21 36.58 37.19 36.4 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 G1 11.20 11.23 37.7 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 G2 24.90 24.93 44.9 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 04 6.71 7.32 40.1 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 06 9.75 10.36 40.4 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 08 12.80 13.41 34.7 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 13 20.42 21.03 14.7 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 14 22.00 22.56 41.4 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 16 26.52 27.13 41.2 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 21 34.14 34.75 38.0 BH-BGC14-SUM-02 SPT 22 35.66 36.27 36.4 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 02 3.05 3.66 21.8 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 06 9.75 10.36 1.2 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 10 15.85 16.46 10.2 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 13 20.42 21.03 25.7 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 15 23.47 24.08 39.5 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 17 26.52 27.13 33.9 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 20 31.09 31.70 39.4 BH-BGC14-SUM-03 SPT 25 38.71 38.80 11.4 BH-BGC14-VR-01 G1 26.76 26.78 78.4 BH-BGC14-VR-01 SPT 02 3.05 3.66 39.2 BH-BGC14-VR-01 SPT 07 10.67 11.28 9.3
LP 10/30/2014 National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:_LAB_WATER CONTENT (REPORT) MMiller 11/1/14 MMiller (REPORT) CONTENT Form:_LAB_WATER Output ID: Project Unique Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM IM National Checked Date
Golder Associates Ltd. 300-3811 North Fraser Way Burnaby, British Columbia Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: (604) 412 6899 Fax: (604) 412 6816 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, February 20, 2015 SUMAS RIVER at V10 RK 1114.6 Project No.: 0095150-04
APPENDIX D VIBRATING WIRE PIEZOMETER DOCUMENTATION
0095-150-04 HDD Geotechnical Feasibility Report - Sumas River_sb BGC ENGINEERING INC.