REFERENCE 1 Change Approval and Notification

Change Approval and Notification (Changes In and About a Stream) Tracking Number: 100286295

Applicant Information If approved, will the authorization be issued to Company/Organization an Individual or Company/Organization? What is your relationship to the Employee company/organization?

APPLICANT COMPANY / ORGANIZATION CONTACT INFORMATION Please enter the contact information of the Individual/Organization who is acting on behalf of the applicant. Name: Lotic Environmental Doing Business As: Phone: 250-421-7802 Fax: Email: [email protected] BC Incorporation Number: Extra Provincial Inc. No: Society Number: GST Registration Number: Contact Name: Sherri McPherson Mailing Address: 2193 Mazur Road Cranbrook BC V1C 6V9

CORRESPONDENCE E-MAIL ADDRESS If you would like to receive correspondence at a different email address than shown above, please provide the correspondence email address here. If left blank, all correspondence will be sent to the above given email address. Email: [email protected] Contact Name: Sherri McPherson

CO-APPLICANTS A co-applicant is an Individual or Company/Organization listed on the title of the land, mine or undertaking who was not previously identified as the principal applicant. Are there co-applicants for this application? Yes Co-applicants who are Organizations must consent to Yes providing their name, address and phone number and Individuals must consent to providing their name and email address. Do you have permission from the co-applicants to enter their personal information?

You have indicated earlier in the application that there is one or more co-applicant. Please add each co-applicant by clicking on the 'Add Individual' or 'Add Organization' button below depending if the co-applicant is an individual or an organization. Due to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regulations you are only able to enter the name and email address for an individual. Name: City of Fernie Doing Business As: Phone: 250-423-2227 Fax: 250-423-3034 Email: [email protected] BC Incorporation Number: Extra Provincial Inc. No: Society Number: GST Registration Number: Mailing Address: Fernie City Hall - 501 3rd Avenue PO Box 190

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 1 of 7 Fernie BC V0B 1M0

ELIGIBILITY Please answer the following questions related to your Change Approval/Notification. Question Answer Warning Is this application to support oil and gas activity that is being No authorized by the Oil and Gas Commission?

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT AND FIRST NATION FEE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Do you belong to, are you applying on behalf of, or are you: • A provincial government ministry • The Government of Canada • A First Nation for water use on reserve land • A person applying to use water on Treaty Lands • A Nisga'a citizen • An entity applying to use water from the Nisga'a Water Reservation? No

APPLICATION BY GOVERNMENT Please indicate if you are someone who works in the government OR you are working on behalf of the government.

Are you, or are you applying on behalf of, a Yes government entity? What type of government are you applying for? Local / Regional Government

TYPE OF WORKS Please select the type of Notifications/Approvals you want to apply for as part of this application.

Please select the type of works Notification to be undertaken:  Road Crossing Culvert - Construction / Maintenance / Removal  Clear Span Bridge - Construction / Maintenance / Removal  Pipeline Crossing – Construction / Maintenance  Dry Hydrant – Construction / Maintenance  Pier, Wharf, (including docks) – Construction / Maintenance / Removal  Cutting of annual vegetation in a stream channel  Dike or Erosion Protection Works - Repair / Maintenance  Storm Sewer Outfalls – Construction / Maintenance  Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil or other invasive aquatic vegetation  Ice Bridge / Winter Ford or Snowfill - Construction / Maintenance  Maintenance of minor and routine nature by a public utility  Removal of a beaver dam (as authorized under the Wildlife Act)  Construction of a temporary ford  Construction of a temporary diversion around a worksite

Notification and may only be undertaken by the Crown in right of either British Columbia or a Municipality, or their agents:  Stream Channel - Restoration / Maintenance Notification of the following changes does not require an application. You must report these changes to a habitat officer within 72 hours after making the change. You must comply with any Terms and Conditions specified by the habitat officer that relate to Section 44(2) of the Water Sustainability Regulation. Clearing of an obstruction from a bridge or culvert during a flood emergency Construction of placement of erosion protection works or flood protection works during a flood emergency

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 2 of 7 Approval:

 Bank Erosion Protection  Bridge (other than clear span) - Construction / Maintenance / Removal  Stream Diversion  Large Debris Removal by machine - Plan required  Gravel removal  Other: Dike upgrade and extension, including improved bank erosion protection

Please note that the ultimate decision whether this constitutes a Notification or a Change Approval lies with the Province of British Columbia SITES Click on the Add Sites button to add one or more sites.

SITE

Location ID: Maiden Lake Dike Improvement

STREAM

Name of the Stream: Elk River and Unnamed tributary (watershed code 349-248100-25000) Source Flows Into: Elk River

PROPOSED WORKS

Detailed Description of Works: The Elk River Flood Mitigation Plan, which was initiated following the 2013 flood event, identified the Maiden Lake Dike Improvement Project (the Project) as the highest priority for the City of Fernie (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants [NHC]) 2019). The flood protection for the Maiden Lake Dike was determined to be low or non-existent, potentially allowing high Elk River water levels to enter the City of Fernie and flood the surrounding area (NHC 2019). In 2017, the City of Fernie applied for National Disaster Mitigation Program funding to further raise and extend the dike. This funding was approved, and the Project is planned to be completed in 2019.

McElhanney has prepared the engineering designs (attached) and will be the construction manager. Lotic Environmental has prepared the Environmental Assessment and Best Management Practices (BMP) document (also attached), and will conduct environmental quality assurance reviews during construction.

The Project involves varying types of dike upgrade depending on location, as well as culvert work, as summarized below.

*Note - all works will first involve preparing the site by stripping and stockpiling organic topsoil and pathway gravel, and removing isolated trees.

DIKE UPGRADE: The existing dike will be raised to the flood construction level (approx. 1 m) and extended to be a total length of 745 m. The flood protection design is dependent on location:

1. The bank along the Elk River side channel is subject to scour and requires an earth dike with riprap (approx. 180 m). The current riprap armouring the front face of the dike is constructed of poor quality shale rock, and is exhibiting signs of weathering and degradation and will thus be removed. Depending on location, the riprap will be replaced with either 250 kg class (1.2 m thickness) or 100 kg class rock (0.7 m thickness). The riprap currently extends 0.5 m into the channel and is not keyed in. The new riprap will be extended to a 2 m width, and also will not be keyed in. The front and back of the dike will be

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 3 of 7 sloped to 2:1. The dike will be built up with a base of course compacted rock to the flood elevation, with a top width of 4.0 m. Topsoil will be spread on the back slope, to a 150 mm thickness, and hydroseed will be applied.

2. Along Maiden Lake, an earth dike with a path will be installed (approx. 310 m). The front and back slopes will vary depending on the location (2.5:1 or 3:1). The dike will be built up with a base of course compacted rock to the flood elevation, with a top width of 4 m. Topsoil will be spread on the both slopes, to a 150 mm thickness, and hydroseed will be applied.

3. Along the watercourse east of Maiden Lake, lock-block flood protection will be installed in order to minimize the footprint (approx. 85 m). As per the designs, a 2 or 3 block high wall will be installed. Lock block joints will be grouted.

4. Along 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive (approx. 180 m), an Earth Dike with path (2.5:1 side slope) will be installed between the road and the golf course.

CULVERT EXTENSION: At the west end of the lock block wall, the outlet of the existing 900 mm diameter culvert crossing under 19th street will be extended. The existing concrete end structure will be salvaged and a new culvert outlet will be installed. The bedding and pipe zone material will be bulk dike fill compacted to 98%.

CULVERT REPLACEMENT: The existing 450 mm diameter culvert beneath 6th Avenue will be removed and replaced with a 700 mm CSP culvert. The culvert has been resized to accommodate storm water flows. The pipe bedding will be clean drain rock with riprap end treatments. The culvert will be set lower than the existing stream bed, at a very flat grade (flow will be <0.5 m/s) to improve fish passage.

Footprint of Project: 8,425 m2

PROPOSED TIMING FOR WORKS

Start Date: Jul 16, 2019 End Date: Sep 30, 2019 Is the proposed timing within the approved No regional timing window? If works are proposed outside the listed windows the proponent must engage a qualified professional to assess species and habitats present and determine if a site specific plan can be developed to ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act

Reason to do work outside of approved Based on the Project elevation of 1006 masl and the fish species present, the timing window: window for instream works at this location is July 16 – August 31. All instream work is planned to be completed within this window. Work up the slope out of the water may proceed outside of this window, if required.

Location specific environmental sensitivities and associated mitigation measures are outlined in the attached BMP document.

LOCATION OF WORKS

Provide a legal description of the land(s) The project is situated on three lots: where works are proposed: 1. Parcel Identifier (PID) 025-420-534-534, Plan # NEP71247, REM Lot 1. 2. Plan # NEP91181 3. PID 010-359-371, Plan # NEP1374, REM Lot 2.

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Geographic Coords of Works: 49.5172010, -115.0576410 Photo of Works Location: LAND OWNERSHIP AT THE WORKS

Land Ownership:  Applicant owns land  Land is Crown Land but applicant has tenure  Land is Crown Land but tenured to Ministry of Transportation  A third Party owns the land but the applicant has lease or tenure  A third Party owns the land but applicant has written consent Name of Land Owner that owns the land where your works are proposed: To be provided  Land is Crown Land but the applicant does not have a tenure

For all private lands, you must obtain and provide the landowner’s written consent. The consent form must describe the proposed project and contain the landowners address, telephone number and postal code. Upload a copy of the landowner's written consent using the upload documents section of this form.

CONTACTS If you are not carrying out the work, indicate contractor/company’s name, professional affiliation, mailing address, postal code and telephone numbers. If a different company is designing and supervising the work, please include this information as well

Contact Info Type of Contact Name: McElhanney Ltd. Design and Supervision Doing Business As: Phone: 250-425-0158 Fax: Email: [email protected] BC Inc. Number: GST Registration Number: Contact Name: Kevin Mohr Mailing Address: Unit 1-125 Industrial Road 3 Sparwood BC V0B 2G1 Cert:

LOCATION INFORMATION

LAND DETAILS

DRAWINGS A Drawing to Scale is required that meets the Application Drawing Standards. Choose one of the options below to submit the required map/drawing.

Additionally, it is recommended that you provide a topographical map showing the general location of the property where the water is proposed to be used and the works constructed in relation to nearby communities, highways, railways and other water sources.

(this additional map will not be necessary if your Drawing to Scale is provided using the Geomark Service or a spatial file such as .KML or .KMZ)

ATTACHED DOCUMENTS

Document Type Description Filename

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Engineering Drawings Engineer designs 00837 - Maiden Lake Dike Im...

Other Best Management Practices Fernie Maiden Lake Dike Imp...

Other City of Fernie Letter of Consent.pdf

Other City of Fernie co-applicant form Co-Applicant Approval Form.pdf

Other Private landowner Rayonier Rayonier Consent - City of ...

Other Schickedanz letter of Consent Schickedanz consent.pdf

PRIVACY DECLARATION PRIVACY NOTE FOR THE COLLECTION, USE AND DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION Personal information is collected by FrontCounter BC under the legal authority of section 26 (c) and 27 (1)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act). The collection, use, and disclosure of personal information is subject to the provisions of the Act. The personal information collected by FrontCounter BC will be used to process your inquiry or application(s). It may also be shared when strictly necessary with partner agencies that are also subject to the provisions of the Act. The personal information supplied in the application package may be used for referrals or notifications as required. Personal information may be used by FrontCounter BC for survey purposes.For more information regarding the collection, use, and/or disclosure of your personal information by FrontCounter BC, please contact FrontCounter BC at 1-877-855-3222 or at: FrontCounter BC Program Director FrontCounter BC, Provincial Operation 441 Columbia Street Kamloops, BC V2C 2T3  Check here to indicate that you have read and agree to the privacy declaration stated above. REFERRAL INFORMATION Some applications may also be passed on to other agencies, ministries or other affected parties for referral or consultation purposes. A referral or notification is necessary when the approval of your application might affect someone else's rights or resources or those of the citizens of BC. An example of someone who could receive your application for referral purposes is a habitat officer who looks after the fish and wildlife in the area of your application. This does not apply to all applications and is done only when required.

Please enter contact information below for the person who would best answer questions about your application that may arise from anyone who received a referral or notification.

Company / Organization: Lotic Environmental Contact Name: Sherri McPherson Contact Address: 2193 Mazur Road Cranbrook BC V1C 6V9 Contact Phone: 250-464-4564 Contact Email: [email protected]

 I hereby consent to the disclosure of the information contained in this application to other agencies, government ministries or other affected parties for referral or First Nation consultation purposes. SIGNATURES

CO-APPLICANTS You will have to obtain approval from all co-applicants before you can proceed with your application. Please select one option for each.

Name Status of Signature Request City of Fernie Declaration Form uploaded

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 6 of 7 IMPORTANT NOTICES Please review the "Important Notices" below and then check the declaration at the bottom confirming that everything in this application is complete and accurate.

 I understand that the submission of this application does not provide authority under the Water Sustainability Act to construct works in and about a stream. I also understand that my application must first be investigated and a decision made on the application as to whether an approval may be granted and, as part of that review, additional information may be requested of me.  The application may be subject to further requirements under the federal Fisheries Act. Please refer to Fisheries and Oceans Canada Projects Near Water webpage (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html) for information on how to ensure your project complies with the Fisheries Act.

DECLARATION  By submitting this application form, I, declare that the information contained on this form is complete and accurate. APPLICATION AND ASSOCIATED FEES

Item Amount Taxes Total Outstanding Balance Changes in and about a Stream $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 Application Fee OFFICE

Office to submit application to: Cranbrook

PROJECT INFORMATION

Is this application for an activity or project which No requires more than one natural resource authorization from the Province of BC?

OFFICE USE ONLY Office File Number Project Number Cranbrook Disposition ID Client Number

Tracking Number: 100286295 | Version 1.0 | Submitted Date: Apr 25, 2019 Page 7 of 7

REFERENCE 2 DFO Canada Request for Review

REFERENCE 3 Dike Maintenance Act Approval Application

DIKE MAINTENANCE ACT APPROVAL - APPLICATION FORM

PART 1. CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant: Applicant File Number (if applicable): City of Fernie 24410083700

Name of Applicant Contact or Agent: Kevin Mohr P.Eng of McElhanney Ltd.

E-mail Address of Contact: [email protected]

Home Phone: Business Phone: Fax Number: (250) 425 5434 (250) 425 0158 ( ) Mailing Address for Correspondence from Ministry of Environment: McElhanney Ltd. 1800 Willowbrook Drive | Cranbrook, BC

Postal Code: V1C 7H9 Applicant or Agent’s Signature(s): Date: April 15, 2019

NOTE : The purpose of this form is to highlight this application’s major points to allow Ministry staff to both understand the key aspects of the project and to prioritize the application accordingly. For more information on the processing of this application, please read the preceding Approval Process .

PART 2. PROPOSED WORKS Location of Proposed Works Chainage specified on dike maps at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/fhm-2012/maps.html or UTM Coordinates

The Project is located at the north end of Fernie UTM 11U 640584.08 E, 5486748.67 N. GPS Number 61 – Dike Name Great North Dike.

Project Name and/or Identifier: City of Fernie Maiden Lake Dike Improvements

File: dike_maintenance_act_approval_application (1).docx DIKE MAINTENANCE ACT APPROVAL - APPLICATION FORM

Briefly describe your proposed works: Providing flood protection to the current Flood Construction Level which is 1004.00 (2013 Flood plus Climate Change and 0.6m of Freeboard) along the Maiden Lake Dike (North Lands Dike) in Fernie. This involves raising the existing Dike by approximately 1.0m and realigning a portion of the dike such that it can be tied to high ground while minimizing road crossings. A lock-block wall, sealed with elastomeric grout is utilized for one portion of the alignment because of special constraints caused by existing infrastructure and land use. Erosion protection improvements are also provided where the dike is not set back from the Elk River.

Provide a proposed construction schedule & note any constraints/milestones if important:

The proposed construction schedule is to start in mid-July and be complete by September 30 th . This schedule is subject to approval from FLNRORD for works in and about a stream and a DFO Project Review.

This project is grant funded and is also subject to favourable pricing being received by bidding contractors.

Briefly describe your approach to ensure the integrity of existing flood protection system(s) is not compromised by the installation of the works:

As described in the design brief, a geotechnical investigation was completed by others, previously. Building off of these findings and recommendations we have designed a project that will raise the flood construction levels while maintaining the existing integrity. Our mandate during construction is to perform continual site inspections during stripping and grading activities to identify existing conditions that do would not provide the desired geotechnical properties.

Where earth dikes are being raised, the stability of the existing soils was deemed to be appropriate for the additional fill being placed. In all cases the overall foot print of the dike will be larger than the existing to allow for stable slopes. The raised dike will be constructed out of appropriate bulk dike fill materials.

The existing rip rap erosion protection was deemed to be built out of poor quality shale stone rock that is weathering and degrading. This rip rap erosion protection will be replaced with quality rock meeting the BC Riprap Design Guide, and Ministry of Transportation Materials Specifications.

Have you referred to the ‘Provincial Design and Construction Are there any exceptions to this guide? Guide’ in your design? Yes or No (circle one) Yes or No (circle one)

2 DIKE MAINTENANCE ACT APPROVAL - APPLICATION FORM

If yes, how and why have you deviated? This is a dike improvement project that is located within an existing City, surrounded by infrastructure and private lands. The following are the deviations that have been made to reduce the dike’s impact on adjacent private lands and the environment: 1) 3:1 side slopes on the waterside were not provided throughout. A 2.5:1 slope was utilized from [1+590 to 1+510], [1+420 to 1+280], & [1+175 to 0+994.31]. Utilizing granular bulk dike fill with 15% or greater fines will allow for us to construct stable slopes at this angel. 2) A lock block wall is utilized instead of an earth dike along 18 th avenue [1+280 to 1+195]. This is required due to adjacent utilities and limit space. 3) 7.5m SRWs from the toe of dike slope are not provided throughout. Existing buildings and privately-owned lands prohibit this is some cases, where possible the City will obtain this from the private land owners. The dike is located within a road right of way along some of the alignment, in this instance the 7.5m SRW is not noted on the drawings: The following describes the deviations from this design guideline:

STA Range Maintenance SRW Maintenance SRW Comments Landside (?) Waterside (?) 1+745 to 1+610 Yes No Dike not set back from River 1+610 to 1+460 No No City maintained storm ponds 1+460 to 1+380 No No City Maintained storm pond on Waterside, Private Land /building too close on land side 1+380 to 1+280 No No City maintained road/S torm Pon d 1+280 to 1+200 No No City maintained road, Lock Block Wall along Pri vate Land 1+170 to 0+994.31 No Yes City maintained road/

4) At STA1+005 an existing watermain exists under the proposed dike alignment. Due to the watermain’s depth of bury being 5m below the crest of dike, well within the ground water table and given the local topography (elevation of the road and land side structures) it is deemed to have an insignificant influence on the effectiveness of flood protection.

Land Ownership Please check one of the following: The applicant is the owner of the property The property is Crown land. Tenure/License Number: The property is owned by the following Landowner (i.e., Landowner is different from applicant): Landowner’s Name: Land Owners have been contacted by the City of Fernie and we are awaiting consent letters.

3 DIKE MAINTENANCE ACT APPROVAL - APPLICATION FORM

Address:

City: Province: Postal

Phone: e-mail:

Do you have the landowner’s written approval to enter the lands(s) to complete the works? Yes No Note: a) Ownership of all parcels of land on which the proposed works will occur must be identified, b) do not attach the written approval with the application, but keep it for your files as you may be asked to provide it during an inspection or audit

4 DIKE MAINTENANCE ACT APPROVAL - APPLICATION FORM

PART 3. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS Check off attachments to this application form:  General Location Plan - yes  Detailed Site Plan - yes  Preliminary Design Drawings and Specifications - yes  Design Brief - yes  Previous correspondence regarding this site from the Ministry - no

If any required attachments are not included, please explain why. No previous written correspondence from the Ministry.

Have you included attachments not listed above? Please list them below. Engineer of Record Forms

Please confirm whether an Environmental Assessment (EA) certificate is required for this project. Yes or No (circle one). If yes, attach a copy of the EA-certificate.

If no, is there a pending approval? Yes or No (circle one). If yes, please note that DMA approval cannot be granted until a copy of the EA-certificate has been submitted as a part of DMA application.

Note: Please forward a copy of this application to the appropriate Deputy Inspector of Dikes office as specified at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdfs_word/diod_contact_list-2012.pdf and to the Diking Authority responsible for the dike’s operation and maintenance (see database: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdfs_word/dikesauthority.pdf )  Please confirm that a copy of this application has been forwarded to the Diking Authority - Yes Diking Authority contact information

Jenny Weir, City of Fernie 1-250-423-6817 (Note that Dave Cockwell has retired)/

5

REFERENCE 4 Geotechnical Report

BOX 688 FERNIE, BC, V0B 1M0 Phone-250.423.4829 Fax-250.423.4819 [email protected]

December 21, 2018

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 30 Gostick Place North Vancouver, BC

Attention: Mr. Dale Muir, P.Eng.

RE: GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT FERNIE DIKE CITY OF FERNIE FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN FERNIE, BC

Dear Mr. Muir,

Please find enclosed two bound copies of the subject report as per your request.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me any time at (250) 423-4829.

Yours truly,

D.A. Clapp, P.Eng.

DAC/dac encl.

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2

GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT FERNIE DIKE CITY OF FERNIE FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN FERNIE, BC

Prepared For: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants North Vancouver, BC

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Box 688, Fernie, BC 250 423 4829

December 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 1 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...... 1 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...... 2 4.1 Soil Conditions ...... 2 4.2 Soil Permeability Conditions ...... 5 4.3 2013 Flood Conditions ...... 6 4.4 Laboratory Test Results ...... 7 4.5 Groundwater Conditions ...... 8 4.6 Dike Conditions ...... 9 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ...... 11 5.1 Dike and Underlying Materials ...... 11 5.2 Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity ...... 11 5.3 Seepage Assessment ...... 12 5.4 Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis ...... 12 5.5 Liquefaction Assessment ...... 13 5.6 Settlement Assessment ...... 13 6.0 CLOSURE ...... 14 7.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ...... 15

APPENDICES

Appendix I Figures Appendix II Photos Appendix III Test pit and Borehole Logs Appendix IV Lab Test Reports Appendix V Dike Cross-Sections

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report documents the findings and recommendations of a geotechnical site investigation completed by Groundtech Engineering Ltd. (Groundtech) on engineered portions of the Fernie Dike. The dike owner for this project is the City of Fernie (COF). The geotechnical investigation was completed as a component of a Flood Mitigation Plan being coordinated by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), the lead engineering consultant for the project.

A floodplain assessment for the Elk River in the vicinity of Fernie was completed by NHC in 2017; this assessment used updated flow data for the Elk River that included flow information for the 2013 flood event. The updated 200-year flood elevations were higher than the previous 200-year flood elevations and indicated most of the dike has to be raised to provide adequate flood and erosion protection.

The scope of work for the geotechnical investigation was defined in the COF’s Request for Proposal. The scope of work is as follows:

A geotechnical investigation is required for the Engineered Dike Sections to confirm strength and permeability. Geotechnical investigations should include test pits and/or drill tests to classify materials, water table observations and compaction. These investigations should assess seismic susceptibility, bearing capacity and permeability of the underlying materials to ensure any proposed designs adequately address seepage and settlement. If geotechnical investigations reveal unsuitable conditions additional sub- excavation should be recommended.

Key references for this geotechnical investigation are documented in Section 7 of the report.

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The engineered sections of the Fernie Dike are shown on Figure 1. Four sections of the dike were investigated:

 Annex West Fernie (mostly setback dike)  West Fernie (mostly setback dike)  Mountview (mostly setback dike)  Riverside (riverside dike/bank armouring)

The Northlands/Maiden Lake area was also investigated as a new dike is being considered for this area. Most of the dike sections investigated are setback dikes. Sections of the dike with riprap armouring include the section of the bank near the north bridge and a 1000 m long section of the west bank of the Elk River upstream and downstream of the West Fernie bridge, adjacent to West Fernie. The dike also has a small section that is armoured in West Fernie near Eckersley Street. Coal Creek also has riprap armouring downstream of the Mountview bridge. There is also a metal bin wall on the south bank of Coal Creek upstream of the Mountview bridge. The dike sections of interest are shown on Figure 1. Photos of the dike are found in Appendix II.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

Douglas A. Clapp, P.Eng., and Isabel Ferreira, E.I.T., both of Groundtech, completed the field investigation from August 7 to 10, 2018. The site investigation was conducted with a visual assessment of the dike. The soil and groundwater conditions were investigated using boreholes (B1 to B13) drilled with a sonic rig to

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 1

depths between 7.62 m of 16.76 m. All boreholes were completed with piezometers to allow for groundwater depth monitoring. The approximate borehole locations are shown on Figures 2 to 5.

Soils exposed in sonic samples and split spoon samples were visually classified and the associated stratigraphy was logged. The borehole logs are found in Appendix III. Soil strength was assessed using Standard Penetration Tests (SPT). SPT results are presented on the logs and in the report text as blows per 0.305 m (e.g., SPT 6 means 6 blows per 0.305 m). Torvane (Tor) and Pocket Penetrometer (PP) testing was also completed on sonic samples to measure undrained shear strength (Su). Representative samples of selected materials were collected for future reference and/or possible laboratory testing. It should be noted that most of the SPT tests (blow counts) overestimated the soil density of the dike material and underlying foundation soils as these soils had significant gravel content. Blow counts thought to be affected by gravel are indicated on the logs by RE (i.e., rock effect). This was taken into account when assessing soil density.

Groundtech attempted to investigate the backfill conditions of the Coal Creek bin wall. However, it was considered unsafe to access the site with a tracked geotechnical drill rig. The use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was considered; however, discussions with GPR contractors indicated GPR results would likely be inconclusive. As such, a GPR investigation was not undertaken.

McElhaney completed a geotechnical investigation (see reference 3) on a portion of the dike in 2013. Soil information from this investigation has been incorporated in this report for completeness.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

4.1 Soil Conditions

Northlands/Maiden Lake Area

B1, B2 and B13 were drilled in this area. The existing dike section in this area is from the North Fernie bridge to near Maiden Lake. The area west of Maiden Lake and the pathway leading to the Best Western Hotel are being considered for a new dike.

B1 was drilled to a depth of 7.62 m just south of Maiden Lake. The B1 soil stratigraphy consisted of a thin top soil layer underlain to a depth of 1.8 m by compact, dry, sandy gravel with some silt (i.e. fill). Soils between depths of 1.8 m and 6.71 m consisted of compact (i.e., SPT 15 to 38) mixtures of sand and gravel with minor amounts of silt and cobbles. Firm (SPT 6) wet, clayey silt was found between depths of 6.71 m and 7.62 m. After drilling, B1 was probed with the split spoon to a depth of 16.76 m where hard soils were encountered. The thickness of the clayey silt layer is estimated at 10 m.

B2 was drilled on the dike section west of Maiden Lake to a depth of 8.23 m. The upper fill layer to a depth of 0.76 m consisted of dense, dry sand and gravel with a trace of silt. Compact (SPT 24), dry to wet mixtures of sand and gravel with traces of both silt and cobbles was encountered between depths of 0.76 m to 6.1 m; the interval between depths of 3.05 m and 3.81 m included interbeds of sand with a trace of silt. The lower most zones included very stiff (SPT 23), wet, clayey silt underlain by soft (Tor Su 2 kPa), wet, clayey silt.

B13 was drilled on the pathway southwest of 19th Street that leads to the Best Western parking lot. There is a low lying, wet, forested area west of the pathway. The upper layers encountered included asphalt underlain by granular fill (dense, dry gravel and sand with a trace of silt) to a depth of 2.29 m. Middle zones included dense, wet gravel and sand with a trace of both silt and cobbles underlain by compact (SPT 11), wet sand with a trace of silt underlain by compact, wet gravel and sand with a trace of silt. The lower layers included dense, wet gravel with a trace of both sand and silt from depths of 5.79 m to 6.55 m. Soft Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 2

(SPT 4, Tor Su 12 kPa), wet, clayey silt was found to a depth of 16.76 m; dense/hard soils were found at this depth by probing.

Annex Area

B3 to B5 were drilled on the dike in the Annex area.

B3 was drilled to a depth of 8.38 m. The upper fill layer in B3 consisted of compact, dry sand and gravel with a trace of silt. Underlying soils included compact, dry sand and gravel with some silt between depths of 0.76 m to 2.29 m underlain to 2.75 m by stiff to firm, moist mixtures of clay and silt with a trace of gravel. Compact, moist, silty sand with a trace to some clay was encountered between depths of 2.75 m to 3.0 m. Soils below this depth consisted of compact (SPT 30) mixtures of sand and gravel with trace amounts of both silt and cobbles. No silty clay layer was encountered in B3, but it may be present at deeper depths.

B4 was drilled to a depth of 8.23 m. The soil stratigraphy in B4 included compact, dry sand and gravel with some silt (i.e., fill) underlain by compact mixtures of sand and gravel with trace amounts of both silt and cobbles. Firm (SPT 5), wet, clayey silt was found between depths of 6.1 m and 7.0 m. The lowermost zone consisted of soft (Tor Su 10 kPa), wet, clayey silt.

B5 was drilled near the West Fernie bridge over the Elk River to a depth of 8.38 m. The upper (i.e., 0 m to 2.74 m) fill layer consisted of dense, dry sand and gravel. Underlying soils, to a depth of 6.1 m, consisted of compact (SPT 15 to 19) mixtures of sand and gravel with trace amounts of both silt and gravel. The lowermost horizon consisted of soft (Torvane Su 10 - 13 kPa), wet, clayey silt with a trace of gravel.

West Fernie Area

B6 to B8 were drilled on the dike section in the West Fernie area.

B6 was drilled on the dike near Riverside Road to a depth of 9.9 m. Fill comprised of compact (SPT 19 to 32), dry gravel and sand with trace amounts of silt and cobbles was encountered to a depth of 2.74 m. Underlying soils consisted of very loose (SPT 2), silty sand with a trace of clay between depths of 2.74 m and 4.42 m. Compact, wet gravel and sand with a trace of silt was encountered to a depth of 6.1 m underlain to 7.9 m by soft (Torvane Su 15 kPa), wet clayey silt. The lowermost zone is interpreted to be till consisting of stiff (PP Su 62 kPa) clayey silt with some sand and some gravel.

B7 was drilled to a depth of 8.38 m on the dike east of Hand Avenue. The upper fill layer consisted of compact, dry sand and gravel with some silt. The middle horizons consisted of compact (SPT 17), moist sand and gravel with trace amounts of both silt and cobbles in the lower portion of the interval. Very loose (SPT 2), wet, silty sand with a trace of clay was found between depths of 4.27 m and 6.1 m. A thin layer of compact (SPT 23), wet gravel and sand with a trace of silt was encountered to a depth of 6.4 m, underlain by soft (Tor Su 10 – 13 kPa), wet, clayey silt.

B8 was drilled/probed to a depth of 16.76 m. Fill consisting of compact (SPT 28), dry gravel and sand with trace amounts of both silt and cobbles was encountered to a depth of 1.52 m. Compact, dry to wet, gravel and sand with trace amounts of both silt and cobbles was encountered to a depth of 5.18 m. The lowermost zone consisted of soft (Tor Su 12 – 13), wet, clayey silt. Probing found dense/hard soils at a depth of 16.76 m. The thickness of the clayey silt layer is estimated at 11.6 m.

McElhaney TP1

TP1 was excavated to a depth of 4.2 m. Compact to dense, damp sandy gravel with a trace to some fines (i.e., fill) was encountered to a depth of 2.6 m. Fine to medium, compact, moist to wet sand with some Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 3

fines was encountered to a depth of 3.5 m. The lowermost layer consisted of stiff, moist fine sand and silt with a trace of clay.

McElhaney TP2

The upper fill soils consisted of compact, damp, sandy gravel with cobbles underlain by compact, damp sand and silt. Organics and sand were encountered between depths of 2.7 m and 3.0 m. The lowermost zone consisted of compact to dense gravel with some sand and a trace of fines. Total depth of TP2 was 4.0 m.

McElhaney TP3

Compact to dense, damp to moist, sandy gravel with a trace to some fines with a trace of cobbles (i.e., fill) was found to a depth of 1.6 m, underlain to 1.9 m with topsoil (i.e., organics, sand and fines). A thin layer of compact, damp medium to fine sand with a trace to some fines was identified between depths of 1.9 m and 2.1 m. Compact, damp, sandy gravel with a trace of fines was found to the bottom of the test pit at a depth of 3.6 m.

Mountview Area

B9 was drilled in the northern portion of the Mountview area on the dike section south of Coal Creek. The soils stratigraphy included dense, dry gravel and sand with some silt (i.e., fill) to a depth of 3.05 m. Underlying soils consisted of compact, moist, silty sand with some gravel, underlain by compact, silty sand with some gravel. Firm to soft, wet, clayey silt was found at a depth of 7.0 m. Probing encountered hard/dense soils at a depth of 15.5 m. The thickness of the soft clay layer is estimated at 8.5 m.

B10 was drilled to a depth of 8.23 m on the dike section west of the subdivision. The soils stratigraphy included a fill layer comprised of compact, dry sand and gravel with some silt. Compact, dry to wet mixtures of sand, gravel and silt were encountered between depths of 3.05 m and 6.10 m. The lowermost zone consisted of firm (Tor Su 35 kPa), wet, clayey silt; probing indicates these soils extended to a depth of 8.83 m.

B11 was drilled/probed to a depth of 15.24 m near the Mt. McLean Street access to James White Park. The fill layer consisted of compact, dry mixtures of sand and gravel with some silt and a trace of cobbles. The underlying soils were similar in density and texture except the silt content varied from some to a trace (lower in the interval). Firm, wet, clayey silt was found in the 4.57 m to 5.1 m interval. The lowermost zone was comprised of soft (Tor Su 12 – 13 kPa), wet, clayey silt. The thickness of the clayey silt layer is estimated at 10 m.

Stanford Area

B12 was drilled just northwest of the Stanford Inn parking lot to a depth of 9.75 m. Granular fill was found to a depth of 3.05 m and is described as silty topsoil over compact, dry, mixtures of sand and gravel with a trace to some silt. Cobbly gravel with some sand and a trace of silt was found to a depth of 4.57 m. The lower interval consisted of soft (Tor Su 10 – 15 kPa), wet, clayey silt. Based on the stratigraphy of B11 the clayey silt layer could extend to a depth of approximately 15 m.

Soil Stratigraphy Considerations

The dike fill material generally consists of compact to dense mixtures of sand and gravel with a trace to some fines. There is a clay layer, at depth, below the ground surface in the area of the dike and proposed area for diking. The soils above the clay layer, to the underside of the existing dike, are generally coarse Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 4

grained, permeable soils. Table 1 below presents depth data for the clay layer:

Table 1 Depth Data for Clay Layer Borehole/Cross-section Top of Bottom of Description of soils from underside of Dike/Ground Dike to Dike to Clay Layer surface to Top of Clay Layer (m) Clay Layer (m) (m) B1/XS1 6.7 NA NA (no dike). B13/XS2 6.55 NA NA (no dike). B2/XS3 6.1 4.6 Compact sand and gravel with a trace silt. B3/XS4 NA NA Compact sand and gravel with some silt. B4/XS5 6.4 4.58 Compact sand and gravel with a trace to some silt. B5/XS6 6.4 5.64 Compact sand and gravel with a trace silt. B6/XS7 6.1 3.36 Compact sand and gravel with a trace silt. B7/XS8 6.4 5.96 Compact sand and gravel with a trace silt; very loose silty sand. B8/XS9 5.2 3.68 Compact sand and gravel with a trace silt. B9/XS10 7.0 3.95 Compact, silty sand and mixtures of sand and gravel with a trace to some silt. B10/XS11 6.1 3.05 Compact sand and gravel with a trace to some silt. B11/XS12 4.6 3.0 Compact sand and gravel with a trace to some silt. B12/XS13 4.6 3.1 Compact sand and gravel with a trace to some silt Average 5.99 3.9

4.2 Soil Permeability Conditions

The dike and upper layers of the underlying soils are permeable. Table 2 presents permeability estimates for the dike and underlying materials:

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 5

Table 2 Soil Permeability Dike Material Sample Permeability Method m/sec B1 S1 1.6 x 10-3 Hazen B2 S3 8.1 x 10-3 Hazen B9 S2 4 x 10-4 Hazen B11 S2 1.6 x 10-3 Hazen TP1 SA1 5.8 x 10-3 Permeameter TP2 SA3 4.6 x 10-4 Permeameter Average 3.0 x 10-3

Underlying Material B1 S8 1.4 Hazen B2 S6-10 4.0 x 10-3 Hazen B3 S11 6.3 x 10-2 Hazen B5 S5-6 1.0 x 10-2 Hazen B5 S3 4 x 10-2 Hazen B9 S3-6 1.6 x 10-3 Hazen B12 S7 2.25 x 10-2 Hazen TP1 SA3 2.1 x 10-3* Permeameter TP1 SA3 3.6 x 10-3* Hazen TP1 SA4 1 x 10-4* Permeameter

TP3 SA2 4.2 x 10-1 Permeameter Average 2.2 x 10-1

*Note:the average of the two values was used to calculate the overall average.

The Hazen method uses the D10 values from the gradation. For the samples that were assessed, the underlying soils are two orders of magnitude more permeable than the dike materials.

4.3 2013 Flood Conditions

NHC provided stage-time data for the 2013 Elk River peak flow event. Table 3 presents rate of fall data for the river stage for that event:

Table 3 Rate of Fall Data For Elk River 2013 Peak Flow Event Time Interval (hr) Rate of Fall (cm/sec) 1 4.3 x 10-3 6 9.9 x 10-3 12 3.28 x 10-4 24 5.0 x 10-4 48 5.1 x 10-4

Note: the rate of fall values are similar to the permeability values estimated for the dike materials.

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 6

4.4 Laboratory Test Results

Groundtech Tests

A washed gradation test (ASTM C136 and C117) was completed on 12 soil samples to determine gradational characteristics. Moisture content test was also completed on the samples. The test results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Washed Gradation Test Data Cobble Moisture Gravel Sand Silt Sample (%) Content Description (%) (%) (%) (%) B1 S1 61.8 26 12.2 6.1 Sandy gravel, some silt B1 S8 77.7 20.6 1.7 4.0 Sandy gravel, trace silt B1 S13 27 B2 S3 65.4 25.6 9.0 2.4 Sandy gravel, trace silt B2 S6, S7, S8, S9, S10 4.3 56.8 28.3 10.6 6.8 Sandy gravel, some silt, trace cobble B3 S5, S6, S7, S8 0.1 30.9 69 33.8 Sandy silt B3 S11 75.5 19.4 5.1 5.7 Gravel, some sand, trace silt B4 S14 23.4 B5 S3 70.3 22.9 6.9 1.8 Sandy gravel, trace silt B5 S5, S6 64 27.2 8.9 5.1 Sandy gravel, trace silt B5 S10 25.4 B7 S12 21.4 B8 S13 25.2 B9 S2 48.2 35.5 16.2 2.5 Gravel and sand, some silt B9 S3, S4, S5, S6 13 51.5 22.9 12.5 6.8 Sandy gravel, some cobble, some silt B11 S2 6.7 46.9 32.6 13.8 2.7 Sandy gravel, some silt, trace cobble B11 S5 27.1 B12 S7 34.1 44.4 13.5 8.1 2.4 Cobbly gravel, some sand, trace silt B12 S11 25.6 B12 S17 26.0

Most of the above samples have good drainage characteristics.

Atterberg Limits tests (ASTM D4318) were completed on seven fine-grained soil samples to determine plastic and liquid limits. The test results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Atterberg Limit Test Data Moisture Liquid Plastic Plasticity Soil Classification as per Borehole Sample Content (%) Limit (%) Limit (%) Index (%) Casagrande Chart B2 S13 19.1 28 15 13 CL B8 S13 25.2 26 17 9 CL B9 S7 25.8 31 19 12 CL B10 S6 25.8 30 19 11 CL B11 S5 27.1 28 18 10 CL B12 S11 25.6 26 18 8 CL B12 S17 26 29 19 10 CL

The moisture contents for some of the samples are close to the liquid limit suggesting they may be normally consolidated. Normally consolidated soils have experienced effective stresses no higher in the past than at present. The lab test reports are found in Appendix IV. Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 7

An Oedometer test was completed by Golder Associates on one fine-grained sample to determine consolidation parameters. The test results, which includes the average consolidation parameters from five other silt/clay samples from the Fernie area, are presented in Table 6:

Table 6 Odeometer Test Data Estimated Sample Overconsolidation Ratio Compression Index Cc Swell Index Cs (OCR) B6 S13 1.2 0.088 0.006 Average of five other n/a 0.16 0.02 samples from Fernie

The OCR value for sample B6 S13 indicates the soil is slightly over-consolidated. This means the sample has been exposed to slightly higher stresses in the past, relative to the present.

McElhaney completed a washed gradation test (ASTM C136 and C117) on one soil sample to determine gradational characteristics. A moisture content test was also completed on the sample. The test results are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7 McElhanney Washed Gradation Test Data Cobble Gravel Sand Silt Moisture Sample Description (%) (%) (%) (%) Content (%) TP2 SA3 58.4 41.6 23.2 Sand and silt (SM)

The above sample has significant silt content, indicating moderate to high frost action potential and poor drainage characteristics.

McElhaney completed washed gradation and hydrometer tests (ASTM C136, C117 and D422) on three soil samples. The test results are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 McElhanney Hydrometer Test Data Gravel Sand Silt Clay Moisture Sample Description (%) (%) (%) (%) Content (%) TP1 SA3 0.5 84.2 15.3 37.8 Sand with some silt (SM) Sand and silt with traces of TP1 SA4 0.8 49.7 46.6 2.9 40.9 clay and gravel (SM) Sandy gravel trace silt TP3 SA2 72.8 26.1 1.1 0 2.9 (GP)

Samples TP1 SA3 and TP1 SA4 have significant silt content, indicating slight to high frost action potential and poor drainage characteristics.

4.5 Groundwater Conditions

Table 9 presents the results of the groundwater monitoring program:

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 8

Table 9 Groundwater Monitoring

Borehole/Piezometer Depth to Groundwater (m) August 30, 2018 October 29, 2018 Comments Northlands/Maiden Lake Area B1 2.74 2.71 B2 4.14 4.1 B13 2.91 2.9 Annex Area B3 3.96 3.94 B4 3.89 3.93 B5 3.93 3.98 Adjacent to river West Fernie Area B6 4.08 3.92 B7 4.3 4.4 B8 3.69 3.73 Mountview Area B9 Dry dry B10 5.99 6.12 B11 4.2 4.15 Stanford Area B12 4.42 4.34 Adjacent to river

In the Fernie area groundwater flows typically present seasonal trends with an increasing trend through the spring-early summer to a peak, then a declining trend for the remaining seasons. The groundwater regime is driven by snowmelt. The level of the Elk River also influences the groundwater levels. Short term increases also occur due to rainfall events.

Additional groundwater data will be acquired by Groundtech in 2019 (see Section 5.4 of the report).

4.6 Dike Conditions

Table 10 presents topographic data for the dike that is based on survey work completed by Align Surveys.

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 9

Table 10 Dike Dimensional Characteristics Northlands/Maiden Lake* Landside Landside Riverside Riverside Height Slope Angle Width Height Slope Angle (m) (°) (m) (m) (°) Average 1.1 18.0 8.0 2.95 21.5 Minimum 0.9 12.1 7.5 2.45 19.3 Maximum 1.4 21.4 8.8 3.92 24.7 Annex Area Average 1.39 13.4 3.8 2.0 17.4 Minimum .06 0.8 2.2 0.2 1.4 Maximum 2.82 20.0 6.4 3.9 27.4

West Fernie Area Average 2.59 20.5 6.8 1.6 17.5 Minimum 0.24 9.5 3.6 .5 9 Maximum 4.15 32.1 16.6 3.0 26

Mountview Area

Average 2.73 18.5 5.3 2.3 22.4 Minimum 1.0 5.0 3.1 1.1 14.1 Maximum 4.1 28.1 28.1 3.5 33.9

Stanford Area** Average 3.69 27.1 Minimum 2.79 24.7 Maximum 5.84 43

*Note: Only cross-sections between the North Fernie Bridge and Maiden Lake were assessed for the Maiden Lake/Northlands Area. There is no dike at Sections 1 and 2. ** Note: This represents the armoured bank in the area.

Thirteen cross-sections of the dike were prepared with each cross-section near to a borehole. The cross- sections, which show the interpreted soil stratigraphy, are found in Appendix V. The cross-section locations are shown on Figures 2-5.

Spot checks along the existing dike indicated no signs of slope instability.

A metal bin wall on a section of Coal Creek between the Park Avenue bridge and the railway bridge to the east serves to provide flood and erosion protection. As noted in Section 3.0 of the report, attempts were made to investigate the bin wall backfill conditions due to concerns of the City of Fernie that some of the backfill may have been eroded by seasonal floodwater. The concrete walkway that covers the backfill does not present any significant distress (i.e., cracking settlement etc.). The metal facing of the bin wall is not significantly damaged. This being the case, no further investigations are recommended at this time. If the bin wall or a concrete walkway present signs of distress in the future, a geotechnical investigation should be initiated.

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 10

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The geotechnical assessment was comprised of assessing dike soils and foundation soils in terms of strength, density and permeability. Seepage characteristics of the dike and underlying materials were also assessed. In addition, bearing capacity of foundation soils was assessed as well as susceptibility to seismic loading.

5.1 Dike and Underlying Materials

The dike fill materials generally consist of compact to dense mixtures of sand and gravel with a trace to some silt. The underlying soils are for the most part, characterized by compact mixtures of sand and gravel with variable minor amounts of silt and cobbles. Boreholes B3, B6, B7 and B9 contain middle zones of mixtures of sand and silt with density that ranged from very loose to compact. Clay soils generally underlay the overlying coarse grain soils. Clay soils were encountered at depths (from the existing top of the dike) ranging from depths of 4.6 m to 7.0 m. The clay soils often consisted of a firm layer overlying a soft layer. hard/dense soils are interpreted to underlie the clay soils; these soils were encountered at depths of 7.9 m to 16.8 m.

No soil conditions, in terms of strength, were encountered that would significantly impact dike design.

5.2 Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity

The ultimate bearing capacity using Terzaghi’s method was used to estimate soil bearing capacity for each of the cross-sections using DC-Bearing, a 2 dimension multi soil layer program. The bearing capacity was determined assuming a trapezoid footing with a 4 m wide top and 2.5H:1V side slopes. The top surface of the trapezoid was placed at the Flood Construction Level (FCL) elevation above the existing dike; the elevation was representative of the required fill height for the 200 year flow elevation (plus 0.6 m freeboard). The bottom elevation of the trapezoid, where it encountered the ground surface, was representative of the bottom of the footing. The calculated ultimate soil bear capacity was compared to the estimated pressure that the pseudo footing would impose. The results of the analysis is presented in Table 11:

Table 11 Estimated Soil Bearing Capacity Cross-section Pseudo Estimated Estimated Stress Factor Comments Footing Ultimate Soil at Bottom of of Width Bearing Pseudo Footing Safety (m) (kPa) (kPa) XS-1 11 216 25 8.6 No dike present XS-2 9.8 181 24 7.5 No dike present XS-3 9.9 153 64 2.4 XS-4 13.0 1066 43 24.8 XS-5 20.0 284 118 1.7 XS-6 6.0 311 9 34.5 XS-7 14.6 78 21 3.7 XS-8 5.8 122 13 9.4 XS-9 9.8 95 21 4.5 XS-10 16.9 82 16 5.1 XS-11 20 192 1.4 137 XS-12 12 85 6.6 12.8 Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 11

XS-13 na na na na FCL lower than ground surface

The analysis indicates the subgrade soils should adequately support a raised dike.

5.3 Seepage Assessment

Preliminary seepage analysis was completed using Rocscience’s Slide (2018) software on a typical dike section utilizing the aforementioned average permeability values presented earlier for the dike and foundation soils. The analysis utilized flood stage data from the 2013 flood event. The evaluation indicated the dike material and foundation soils are sufficiently permeable to allow the phreatic surface, within the dike (at and near the water side of the dike), to essentially track the changing surface level of the river (i.e., decreasing and increasing stage elevation). The analysis also indicated that ponding beyond the landside of the dike is probable but depends of the ground surface and head difference between the water and land side of the dike. Of interest, ponding occurred on the land side of the Annex dike during the 1995 flood event. However, one should be aware that regional groundwater that flows into the area from the east (mountain to river) will also elevate local groundwater levels.

The construction of a cutoff trench filled with impermeable soils (i.e., clay) would help mitigate under seepage beneath the dike. However, to be truly effective, the trench would have to be completed into the underlying clay layer. Construction of a cutoff trench may require dewatering during construction and would be challenging due to the depth of the clay layer from the underside of the dike (i.e., average 3.9 m). The cost of a cutoff trench would be significant. There would also be some risk regarding the effectiveness due to the local groundwater regime. Groundtech’s experience in the area indicates typical groundwater flows are perched in and above a lower clay layer. Regional groundwater flows are interpreted to be for the most part, in a mountain to river direction. Peak groundwater flows are supported by snowmelt and typically occur during the spring, similar to peak river flows. The timing of these peak river and groundwater flow events may not exactly coincide. In any event, elevated groundwater levels and surface ponding would be supported by both underseepage beneath the dike and throughseepage through the dike as well as groundwater flows toward the dike from opposite direction. As such, the effectiveness of a cutoff trench to limit ponding/flooding on the landward side of the dike could be compromised. As such, the cost/benefit of construction of a cutoff may not be less than satisfactory. Further detailed hydrogeological study should be undertaken to confirm the benefits of a cutoff trench. A cutoff trench could be added at a later time.

The use of lower permeability soils in the dike upgrade should be considered as a cost effective method to reduce throughseepage.

5.4 Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis

Slope stability analysis of the proposed dike upgrade was not part of the work scope. However, Groundtech completed some preliminary analysis on a typical cross-section to develop preliminary dike side slope recommendations. Rocscience’s Slide (2018) program was used to complete the analysis.

Typically, three conditions are evaluated for slope stability analysis for dike design:

1. End of construction using undrained conditions for impervious dike and foundation soils. Water and land sides are evaluated. The typical acceptance threshold Factor of Safety (FOS) values range from 1.2 to 1.3.

The existing dike and upper layers of the underlying soils are pervious, coarse grained, free draining

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 12

materials. The only impermeable soils are the clay soils that are located, on average, 3.9 m below the base of the existing dike. Preliminary analysis indicated the failure surfaces with the lowest factor occur within the dike itself. As such, assessment of end of construction may not be warranted.

2. Rapid Draw Down is a condition where prolonged seepage saturates a major part of the water side of the dike. For the rapid draw down condition to occur, the soils in the dike drain slower than the fall of the river surface. This condition applies to the water side of the dike. Typical acceptance threshold FOS values are 1.2 to 1.3.

Based on estimated permeabilities for the dike and foundation soils, these soils are considered free draining and will provide good drainage. The fall of the river stage is interpreted to be slow enough to allow the soils to drain and not develop elevated pore pressures and/or saturated soils above the stage elevation. All things considered, the probability of a rapid draw down condition occurring is low.

3. Steady State Seepage from full flood stage. The analysis assumes the duration of the full flood stage being long enough to fully saturate the dike. The condition may lead to the land side of the dike becoming unstable. The typical FOS acceptance value for this condition is 1.5.

Preliminary analysis indicates a side slope of 2.5H:1V should provide suitable stability if the head difference between the land side and river side of the dike is 3.5 m or less and the landside of the dike is at least 1 m higher than the river side of the dike. Detailed stability analysis on a section by section basis would be required to provide a final determination of recommended side slopes. Common side slopes for dikes are 3H:1V.

5.5 Liquefaction Assessment

Using Bray et al (2004) criteria, which utilizes Atterberg Limit data, the susceptibility of the underlying clay soils ranges from non-susceptible to susceptible.

Novo Tech’s software NovoLIQ was used to complete the liquefaction assessment. The stratigraphy and SPT data from B7 were used in the assessment as B7 presented representative, if not worst case, conditions. Earthquake data was acquired from the Earthquake Canada website for Fernie for the analysis. Key input parameter earthquake data included Peak Ground Acceration (0.107) and Magnitude (5.4). The analysis indicated the FOS against liquefaction ranged from 5.32 for the upper gravel layers to 1.04 for the lower clay zone. The probability of liquefaction ranged from 1.4 % for the upper gravels to 15.4 % for the lower clay layer. Given the FOS values and the relatively low probability of liquefaction, no mitigation works are recommended at this time.

5.6 Settlement Assessment

The two types of settlement that are typically assessed include immediate and consolidation settlement. It is assumed that immediate settlements would occur during construction as the loads from the fills occur. Consolidation settlement would occur over a longer duration as the underlying clay responds to the surface loading. Rocscience’s Settle 3D software was used to estimate settlement. Based on a review of FCL and cross-section data, the dike will be raised between 0.06 m and 1.07 m. Data for B4 was used in the assessment as this represents the worst case in terms of fill thickness and depth to the clay layer. The analysis indicates consolidation settlement could be in the order of 25 mm.

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 13

5.7 Follow-Up Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater measurements will be acquired from the piezometers twice a month for April through June of 2019. The data will be forwarded to NWH and COF.

6.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants and the City of Fernie.

This report is based on subsurface information obtained during the site investigation, which was conducted with accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. It should be noted that natural soil and groundwater conditions can be variable. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Groundtech should be contacted if subsurface conditions encountered during construction differ from those anticipated and/or interpreted from the site investigation.

Individual recommendations presented in this report should not be used out of context with the entire report. Interpretation of any part of this report should be made in consultation with Groundtech. Any use or reliance of this report by a third party is the responsibility of said party and Groundtech accepts no responsibility for any damages suffered by said party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.

If there are any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing information please call Douglas Clapp, P. Eng., at (250) 423-4829.

Respectfully submitted,

December 21, 2018

Douglas A. Clapp, P. Eng. DAC

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 14

7.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION

1. Dike Design and Construction Guide, Best Management Practises for British Columbia prepared by the Flood Hazard Management Section, Environmental Protections Division, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, dated July 3, 2003. 2. Seismic Design Guidelines for Dikes 2nd Edition, Ministry of Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Flood Safety Section, dated June 2014. 3. Geotechnical Site Review – Existing Dike Conditions, West Fernie Dike Improvement Phases 3- 4, West Bank of the Elk River, Regional District of the East Kootenay, prepared by McElhaney, dated May, 2013. 4. Geotechnical Site Investigation Project, West Fernie Dike Improvement Project – Phase 2 5. Fernie, BC, Groundtech Engineering Ltd. dated July, 2012. 6. Elk River Floodplain Map, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, dated March 2017. 7. Cross-section survey data acquired by Align Surveys for this project.

Groundtech Engineering Ltd. File: 18 m15redit2 15

APPENDIX I

Figures

Figure 1

Location Map

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15fg

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Figure 2

Site Map

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike Flood Mitigation Plan

Legend:

Borehole Locations:

Cross Section Locations:

Scale: 1:200

File: 18m15fg

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Figure 3

Site Map

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Legend:

Borehole Locations:

Cross Section Locations:

Test Pit Locations: TP1

Scale: 1:300

File: 18m15fg

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Figure 4

Site Map

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

\

Legend:

Borehole Locations:

Cross Section Locations:

Test Pit Locations: TP1

Scale: 1:300

File: 18m15fg

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Figure 5

Site Map

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Legend:

Borehole Locations:

Cross Section Locations:

Test Pit Locations: TP1

Scale: 1:300

File: 18m15fg

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

APPENDIX II

Photos

Photo 1

Borehole 1 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 2

Borehole 2 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 3

Borehole 3 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 4

Borehole 4 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 5

Borehole 5 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 6

Borehole 6 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 7

Borehole 7 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 8

Borehole 8 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

Photo 9

Borehole 12 Location

Project:

Geotechnical Site Investigation Fernie Dike City of Fernie Flood Mitigation Plan

Scale: NTS

File: 18m15ph

Groundtech Engineering Ltd.

APPENDIX III

Test Pit and Borehole Logs

Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B1

Client: NHC Date: August 7 2018 Location: Maiden Lake - Elevation = 1003.0 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00 Dark brown, loose, 1 Topsoil dry, silt, some sand, 0.46 6.1 trace gravel (fill) S1 12.20 K=1.6x10-3 1.00 Brown, compact, dry, S2 40 cm/sec sandy gravel, some Rock Effect ( RE) silt, trace cobbles S3 Some organics S4 22 (GM) 1.80 2.00 Dark brown, compact, moist, sandy gravel, RE Organics 2.44 S5 trace silt S6 Aug 30/18 2.74 m 3.00 Brown, compact, wet, 3.05 Oct 29/18 2.71 m sandy gravel, trace S7 17 silt 4 K=1.4 cm/sec 4.00 Dark brown, compact, S8 1.70 wet, sandy gravel, S9 trace silt 15 5.00 Brown, compact, wet, sandy gravel, trace silt (GW) 6.00 38 RE 6.71 7.00 Light grey, firm, clayey silt 6 27 7.62 End of Bore Hole 8.00

9.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic Drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B2

Client: NHC Date: August 7, 2018 Location: West of Canadian Tire - Elevation = 1003.3 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00 Light brown, dense, Refusal Crush, trail dry, sand and gravel, 46E surface trace silt (fill) S2 Rock Effect (RE) 0.76 1.00 Brown, compact, dry, S1 2.4 -3 sandy gravel, trace S3 9.0 S3 K=8.1x10 cm/sec silt (GP/GM) (fill) 1.52 S4 2.00 Brown, compact, sandy gravel, trace silt RE Organics 6.8 3.00 3.05 S6 6.8 Brown, compact, wet, 24 gravel, some sand, S7 trace cobbles 3.81 4.00 (interbedded with sand, trace silt) S5 6.8 Aug 30/18 4.14 m S9 Oct 27/18 4.10 m Brown, compact, wet, 4.57 6.8 gravel, sand, traces 46E S8 RE 5.00 of cobbles and silt Brown, compact, wet, S6-10 K=4.9x10-3 sand, some gravel, S10 cm/sec. Fines= 6.00 trace silt 6.8 10.6% 6.10 Grey, very stiff, wet, S11 23 clayey silt S12 6.55 Tor = 10 kPa 7.00 Grey, soft, wet, clayey silt (CL)

19.1 Shelby 25-27 8.00 S13 8.23 Tor = 2 kPa End of Bore Hole

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B3

Client: NHC Date: August 8, 2018 Location: 16th Street and 12th Ave - Elevation = 1001.8 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 Light brown, 0.00 28E compact, dry, sand RE and gravel, trace silt S1 0.76 1.00 (fill) S2 Refusal Light brown, S3 RE compact, dry, sand and gravel, some silt 2.00 (fill) 2.29 S4 33.8 Brown, stiff, moist, S5 Organics S6 33.8 clayey silt, trace 2.74 S7 33.8 3.00 gravel S8 33.8 Dark brown, firm, S9 11 moist, silt, some clay

4.00 Dark brown, compact, Oct 27/18 3.94 m moist, silty sand, Aug 30/18 3.96 m trace clay 30 4.57 S10 -2 Dark brown, compact, S11 5.1 5.7 K= 6.3 X10 5.00 moist, silty sand, cm/sec some clay Dark brown, compact, 6.00 wet, gravelly sand, trace silt S132 Refusal

7.00 Brown, compact, wet, gravel, some sand, S14 trace silt, trace cobble S15 S16 Refusal 8.00

8.38 End of Bore Hole

9.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B4

Client: NHC Date: August 8, 2018 Location: West end of 9th Street - Elevation = 999.76 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00 Dark brown, compact, dry, sandy gravel, S1 1.00 some silt (fill) S2 Refusal S3

1.52 S4 2.00

Dark brown, compact, S5 25E Rock Effect (RE) dry, gravel and sand, S6 trace silt 3.00 RE S9S7 25E

4.00 3.90 Aug 30/18 3.89 m Oct 27/18 3.93 m Brown, compact, wet, S10 gravel and sand, S11 5.00 trace silt, trace cobbles Refusal

6.00 26.7 Light grey, firm, wet, 6.10 S12 5 clayey silt

7.00 7.00 Light grey, soft, wet, 25 clayey silt (CL) S13 23.4 Tor 10 kPa S14 8.00 8.23 End of Bore Hole

9.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B5

Client: NHC Date: August 8, 2018 Location: 4th Street and 9th Ave - Elevation = 998.08 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00 Dark brown, dense, Refusal sand and gravel, S1 trace silt (fill) Refusal 0.76 1.00 S2 S3 6.9 1.8 K=0.04 cm/sec Dark brown, compact, S4 19 dry, sandy gravel, 2.00 5.1 trace silt (GP/GM) S5 8.9

Ss+6 K=0.01 cm/sec 3.00 Brown, compact, 3.05 20 Large organics 8.9 5.1 moist, sandy gravel, S6 trace silt, trace cobble 4.00 3.90 Aug 30/18 3.93 m Oct 27/18 3.99 m

Brown, compact, wet, S7 15 5.00 gravelly sand, trace silt, trace cobble S8

6.00 68 6.6 S9 RE RE 6.40 [email protected]=10kPa 25.4 S10 7.00 Light grey, soft, wet, clayey silt, trace [email protected]=13 kPa gravel (CL) 8.00

8.38 End of Bore Hole

9.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B6

Client: NHC Date: August 9, 2018 Location: Riverside - Elevation = 998.05 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 Light brown, 0.00 compact, dry, gravel S1 1.00 and sand, some silt S2 32 Rock Effect (fill) S3 Coal debris Dark brown, compact, 1.52 S4 19 2.00 moist, gravel and S5 sand, trace silt, trace S6 cobbles (fill) 2.74 13.6 3.00 Dark brown, very S7 2 loose, wet, silty sand, S8 Oct 27/18 3.92 m 4.00 trace clay Aug 30/18 4.08 m 4.42 Refusal Dark brown, compact, S9 5.00 wet, gravel and sand, trace silt 6.00 6.10 S10

Light grey, wet, soft, 27.5 7.00 clayey silt S11 Tor 15 kPa

S13 Shelby 8.00 7.90 Dark grey, stiff, moist, clayey silt, some 9.00 gravel, some sand (till PP @ 10 m Su= soil) S12 62kPa

10.00 9.90 End of Bore Hole

11.00

12.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B7

Client: NHC Date: August 9, 2018 Location: West Fernie- East of Hand Ave - Elevation = 997.69 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00 S1 Light brown, dry, 1.00 compact, sand and S2 44E gravel, some silt, RE S3 trace clay, trace RE cobble (fill) S4 20E 2.00

Dark brown, compact, 2.44 RE moist, sand and S5 3.00 S6 17 gravel, some silt Woody debris Brown, compact, moist, gravel, some 4.00 sand, trace silt, trace cobbles 4.27 S7 Aug 30/18 4.3 m Oct 27/18 4.4 m S8 3 5.00 Brown, very loose, wet, silty sand, trace clay S9 6.00 Brown, compact, wet, 6.10 S101 23 gravel and sand, Tor = 13 kPa trace silt 7.00 Tor = 10 kPa

Light grey, very soft, S12 21.4 wet, clayey silt (CL) S13 8.00

8.38 End of Bore Hole

9.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B8

Client: NHC Date: August 9, 2018 Location: West Fernie- SE Ekersley Ave - Elevation = 994.14 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 Light brown, 0.00 S1 28 1.00 compact, dry, gravel S2 and sand, trace silt, RE 1.52 S4 16 2.00 trace cobbles (fill) S3 S5 3.00 Dark brown, compact, wet, gravel and sand, 32E S6 RE 4.00 trace silt, trace S7 Aug 30/18 3.93 m cobbles 10 Oct 27/18 3.73 m 5.00 S8 5.18 6.00 S9 Tor = 12 kPa 1 S10 26.4 7.00 Tor = 13 kPa S11 27 Shelby - Tor = 13 S13 25.2 8.00 kPa

9.00

10.00 Light grey, soft, wet, 11.00 clayey silt (CL)

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00 Pushed spoon to 16.76 m to dense 16.00 soils S12 16.76 17.00 End of Bore Hole

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B9

Client: NHC Date: August 10, 2018 Location: James White Park - Elevation = 994.46 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00

1.00 Light brown, dense, S1 Refusal dry, gravelly sand, 2.5 K = 4x10-4 S2 65 16.2 2.00 some silt (fill) (GM) REcm/sec

6.8 3.00 20 Brown, moist, 3.05 S3S4 6.8 S5 4.00 compact, silty sand, some gravel 6.8 4.57 30 5.00 S6 Brown, wet, compact, Oct 27/18 dry sandy gravel, trace 6.00 Aug 30/18 dry cobble, trace silt Refusal -3 S3-6K = 1.6 x 10 7.00 7.01 25.8 cm/sec Grey, firm, wet, S7 Tor = 25 kPa 5 8.00 clayey silt

9.00

10.00

11.00 Grey, soft, wet, 12.00 clayey silt

13.00

14.00 Push Spoon to hard soils at 15.00 15.5m 15.50 16.00 End of Bore Hole

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: DAC Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B10

Client: NHC Date: August 10, 2018 Location: James White Park - Elevation = 992.85 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 0.00

1.00 Refusal Light brown/grey, dry, compact, sand and gravel, some silt (fill) 2.00 S1

3.00 3.05 Light brown/grey, Refusal compact, dry, gravelly sand, some silt 3.66 S2 4.00

Grey, compact, dry to 42 RE 5.00 wet, gravel and sand, trace silt S3

6.00 Oct 27/18 5.99 m Aug 30/18 6.12 m 6.10 8 S4 Tor = 35 kPa

7.00 Grey, firm, wet, Tor = 35 kPa clayey silt (CL) 25.8 Push spoon to S6 8.00 8.83 m to hard soil

8.83

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: DAC Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B11

Client: NHC Date: August 10, 2018 Location: James White Park - Elevation = 990.38 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 Light brown, 0.00 compact, dry, gravel 1.00 0.76 S1 22 and sand, some silt, 34 trace cobbles (fill) 1.52 13.8 2.7 2.00 S2 K=1.6 x 10-3 Light brown, cm/sec compact, dry, sandy 3.00 Refusal gravel, some silt, S4S3 RE trace cobbles (GM) 3.51 4.00 Aug 30/18 4.15 m (fill) Oct 27/18 4.2 m Grey, compact, wet, 4.57 11 5.00 27.1 sand and gravel, S5 Tor = 12 kPa some silt 6.00 5 Grey, compact, wet, Tor = 13 kPa gravel and sand, 7.00 trace silt, trace 23.4 S6 Tor = 13 kPa cobbles (CL) 3 8.00 Grey, firm, wet, clayey silt 9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00 Grey, soft, wet, clayey silt 13.00

14.00 Push spoon to 15.24 m to hard 15.00 soil 15.24 End of Bore Hole 16.00

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B12

Client: NHC Date: August 7, 2018 Location: Stanford Inn - Elevation = 992.13 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 Brown, firm, dry, silt, 0.00 some clay, trace Topsoil sand,trace gravel (fill) 0.76 S1S3 Filter cloth 1.00 22 Grey, compact, dry, S2 Fill sandy gravel, trace 1.52 silt (fill) S4S5 Refusal 2.00 Brown, compact, 2.4 moist, gravelly sand, 8.1 S6S7 46E K=2.25x10-2 some silt, some clay cm/secRE 3.00 (fill) 3.05 RE Brown, compact, S8 80E moist, gravel and 4.00 sand, trace silt S9 Aug 30/18 4.34 m Brown, compact, dry, 25.6 Oct 27/18 4.42 m cobbly gravel, some 4.57 1 S101 5.00 sand, trace silt Tor = 10 kPa

Light grey, soft, 6.00 moist, clayey silt (CL) Tor = 15 kPa S12

7.00 6.86 Light grey, soft, wet, S13 clayey silt, Tor = 10 kPa 7.47 S14 interbedded with S15 gravelly sand Based on B11, the 8.00 bottom of the clay Light grey, soft, wet, layer is estimated clayey silt, trace S16 at 15.2 m depth cobbles 9.00 26 Light grey, soft, wet, clayey silt (CL) S17 9.75 10.00 End of Bore Hole

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: IF Sheet: 1 of 1 Project No: 18m15

Project: Fernie Dike Bore Hole: B13

Client: NHC Date: August 10, 2018 Location: Near Right of Way- Maiden Lake - Elevation = 1003.0 m Engineer: DAC

Uncorrected % Fines Moisture Description SPT < 0.075 mm Content Remarks Blowcounts 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 pth (m) pth mber mbol (USCS) mbol pe Blows/.3m ev./Depth (m) ev./Depth ezometer

De Sy El Nu Ty 20 40 60 Pi

Ground Surface 0.00 Asphalt 0.00 62 1.00 Light brown, grey, RE dense,dry, gravel and S2 2.00 sand, trace silt (fill) Brown, wet, dense, 2.29 S3 Oct 27/18 2.90 m 3.00 gravel and sand, 52 Aug 30/18 2.91 m some silt, trace RE 4.00 cobbles 3.96 S1 Brown, wet, compact, 11 5.00 sand, trace silt 5.00 S4 6.00 Grey, compact, wet, 5.79 S5 RE gravel, trace sand, 50 7.00 trace silt Tor = 12 kPa Grey, dense, wet, 4 8.00 gravelly sand, trace silt 9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00 Grey, soft, wet, 13.00 clayey silt

14.00

15.00 Push spoon to 16.76 m and 16.00 dense soils

16.76 17.00 End of Bore Hole

Excavated By: Earth Drilling Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Equipment: Sonic drill PO Box 688 Datum: Fernie, BC, V0B 1M0 Logged By: DAC Sheet: 1 of 1 McElhanney TEST HOLE LOG McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. 01 Suite 200,42 - 8th Ave S P1-I (250) 489 3013 TEST PIT No Cranbrook BC, V1C 2K3 FAX (250) 489 4522

McElhonney # 2441-00187-0 TEST LOCATION: N 495043 115.07123 w DATE: MARCH 26, 2013 PROJECT: WESTFERNIEDIKE - PHASE3-4 ELEVATION DATUM: FROMTOPOFDIKE

REGION: WESTFERNIE,B.C. INVESTIGATION METHOD: HITACHI 200LC EXCAVATOR (MERCIER)

DEPTH SOIL SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST FIELD TEST DATA (m) PROFILE SAMPLES

0.00 0 SANDY GRAVEL (PIT RUN)

Trace to some fines, dark brown, compact to dense, damp. .0. . Occasional cobbles observed.

0 Older sandy gravel fill from 0.5m - 2.6m Small organics / topsoil from 0.5m - 0.8m Brown, compact, damp. .... Organic layer observed on backsiope approximately 0.5m below surface. SA #1 © DCP © 1.3-1.5m o .- --.-• 0.5m - - CBR = 20 ... ..-... 1.5m -• ci. o Permeameter © 1.3-1.6m - K(fs) = 500 cm/day

•0• c. •-0

.0

0 -

Is - .0 v. 2.60 - FINE MEDIUM SAND SA #2 © -: .- Some fines. 2.8m - .---: 3.Om 3.00 •-:..______. -: •. MEDIUM - FINE SAND Cwt © DCP © 3-3.3m 3.1m Some silt, medium brown, compact, CBR - 5 ...... wet to moist. SA #3 © Permeameter © 3-3.3m Groundwater table © 3.1m. 3.2m - K(fs) 180 cm/day 3.50 -. FINE SAND AND SILT

Troce Clay, brown / blue, moist, stiff, -. non—plastic. SA #4 © 4.Om .11 .

4.20 McElhanney TEST HOLE LOG McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. TEST PIT No 02 At Suite 200 42 - 9th Ave S PH (250) 489 3013 Cranbrook' BC, '/lC 2K3 FAX (250) 489 4522

McElhanney # 2441-00187-0 TEST LOCATION: N 49.5043 115.0691* W DATE: MARCH 26, 2013 PROJECT: WESTFERNIEDIKE - PHASE3-4 ELEVATION DATUM: FROM TOP OF DIKE

REGION: WEST FERNIE, B.C. INVESTIGATION METHOD: HITACHI 200LC EXCAVATOR (MERCIER)

DEPTH SOIL SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST FIELD TEST DATA (m) PROFILE SAMPLES

0.00 •., SANDY GRAVEL FILL 0 . a ' Trace fines, medium brown, compact, damp. 0, • o. °• ' Sub—angular to sub—rounded gravels.

• ::i•• 'c Cobbles to 0.35m diameter. SA #1 © a 9 • 0.5m — DCP © 0.9-1.1m 1. Om -- CBR = 20

• a

0 • 0 -.

• 0' ______SA#2© :. 1.60 - _ :. 1.6m FINE SAND AND SILT FILL DCP © 1.6-1.9m • •: Trace Clay, iight brown, compact, damp. -=- CBR = 6

Permeameter © 2.2-2.5m 0 [:. K(fs) = 40 cm/day SA #3 © 2.2m

DCP © 2.2-2.7m • — CBR 3.6 2.70 y.y • ORGANICS • _• •1. Roots, rootlets, topsoil and sand. 3.00 GRAVEL Some sand, trace to some fines, grey, compact 0 o O to dense, wet. . Groundwater table © 3.1m. 3 SA#4© 9 . 0.. Trace occasional small organics. 3.2m Jo Cobbles observed to 0.25m diameter. 'Go

9' P. 0 o 4.00 McElhanney TEST HOLE LOG McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. Suite 200,42- 8th Ave S PH (250) 489 3013 TEST PIT No: 03 Cranbrook BC, V1C 2K3 FAX (250) 489 4522

McElhanney # 2441-00187-0 TEST LOCATION: N 494983 11507065' W DATE: MARCH 26, 2013

PROJECT: WESTFERNIEDIKE - PHASE3-4 ELEVATION DATUM: FROMTOPOFDIKE

REGION: WESTFERNIE,B.C. INVESTIGATION METHOD: HITACHI 200LC EXCAVATOR (MERCIER)

DEPTH SOIL SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST FIELD TEST DATA (m) PROFILE SAMPLES

0.00 SANDY GRAVEL FILL

tj 9 Trace to some fines, compact to dense, brown, • damp to moist. P •.c SA /1 © .. .. Gravel is sub—rounded to sub—angular. o . m .0. DCP © 0.5m Occasional cobble to maximum 0.3m diameter. - Refusal :

..•

'o , 0

1.60 . .. . ORGANIC DEBRIS ( .) ) Logs, roots, organic sand and fines, topsoil. 1.90 •._• ... MEDIUM TO FINE SAND : Trace to some fines, brown, compact, damp. 2.10 :..Q•.6 SANDY GRAVEL SA #2 © 0 •°• Trace fines, light grey / brown, damp, compact. 2.3m DCP © 2.5-2.7m ;d 0 Fluvial deposition, layering evident throughout. — CBR = 10 Cobbles evident © 2.8m. Permeameter test . . inconclusive, as soil is rapidly draining cv C. -- K(fs) estimated © 2 10,000 cm/day

SA #3 © 3.5m :,... Groundwater table © 3.6m 3.60

APPENDIX IV

Lab Test Reports

ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18474 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B1 S13 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 27.0% 27 17 10

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18481 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B4 S14 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 23.4% 26 16 10

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18485 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B5 S10 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 25.4% 25 15 10

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18488 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B7 S12 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 21.4% 29 19 10

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18491 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B8 S13 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 25.2% 26 17 9

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18494 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B9 S7 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 25.8% 31 19 12

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18496 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B11 S5 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 27.1% 28 18 10

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18499 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B12 S11 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 25.6% 26 18 8

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18500 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B12 S17 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 26.0% 29 19 10

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18512 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 21, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B2 S13 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Dry Preparation (air-dried)

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 19.1% 28 15 13

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18512 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 21, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: - Sample Date: - Sample ID: B10 S6 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Method: Wet Preparation

Soil Classification (USCS) Moisture Content Liquid Limit % Plastic Limit % Plasticity Index

CL 25.8% 30 19 11

60

50

CH

40

30

CL

20 Plasticity Plasticity Index (%)

MH

10

CL-ML ML 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (%)

Comments:

Tested in accordance with ASTM D4318-10 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18472 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, some silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B1 S1 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 69.2 p 19.0 59.9 a 60 12.5 53.3 s 50 9.5 47.5 s i 4.75 38.2 n 40 2.00 29.7 g 1.18 26.1 30 0.600 22.1 20 0.425 20.1 0.300 18.2 10 0.150 15.0 0.075 12.2 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 61.8 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 26.0 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 12.2 %

Moisture Content: 6.1 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18473 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, trace silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B1 S8 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 86.7 p 19.0 55.8 a 60 12.5 39.9 s 50 9.5 33.1 s i 4.75 22.3 n 40 2.00 14.0 g 1.18 10.3 30 0.600 6.2 20 0.425 4.5 0.300 3.4 10 0.150 2.3 0.075 1.7 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 77.7 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 20.6 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 1.7 %

Moisture Content: 4.0 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18475 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, trace silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B2 S3 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 81.2 p 19.0 58.7 a 60 12.5 48.9 s 50 9.5 44.8 s i 4.75 34.6 n 40 2.00 27.1 g 1.18 24.0 30 0.600 20.2 20 0.425 18.3 0.300 16.0 10 0.150 12.7 0.075 9.0 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 65.4 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 25.6 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 9.0 %

Moisture Content: 2.4 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18476 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEl, some silt/clay, trace cobble Sample Date: - Sample ID: B2 S6, S7, S8, S9, S10 combined Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 100.0 80 % 75.0 95.7 70 37.5 71.3 p 19.0 56.7 a 60 12.5 51.1 s 50 9.5 47.4 s i 4.75 38.9 n 40 2.00 31.7 g 1.18 28.7 30 0.600 25.2 20 0.425 23.1 0.300 20.4 10 0.150 14.8 0.075 10.6 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm 4.3 % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 56.8 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 28.3 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 10.6 %

Moisture Content: 6.8 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18477 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy SILT/CLAY Sample Date: - Sample ID: B3 S5, S6, S7, S8 combined Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 #N/A 70 37.5 #N/A p 19.0 #N/A a 60 12.5 100.0 s 50 9.5 100.0 s i 4.75 99.9 n 40 2.00 99.6 g 1.18 99.1 30 0.600 97.8 20 0.425 96.9 0.300 95.4 10 0.150 83.6 0.075 69.0 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 0.1 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 30.9 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 69.0 %

Moisture Content: 33.8 %

Comments: Sample contained significant organic matter

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18478 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: GRAVEL, some sand, trace silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B3 S11 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 66.6 p 19.0 43.9 a 60 12.5 34.0 s 50 9.5 30.4 s i 4.75 24.5 n 40 2.00 21.1 g 1.18 19.5 30 0.600 16.7 20 0.425 14.3 0.300 11.4 10 0.150 7.1 0.075 5.1 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm 0.0 % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 75.5 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 19.4 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 5.1 %

Moisture Content: 5.7 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18482 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, trace silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B5 S3 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 68.0 p 19.0 54.6 a 60 12.5 47.0 s 50 9.5 40.9 s i 4.75 29.7 n 40 2.00 22.2 g 1.18 18.9 30 0.600 15.0 20 0.425 13.3 0.300 11.5 10 0.150 9.5 0.075 6.9 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 70.3 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 22.9 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 6.9 %

Moisture Content: 1.8 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18483 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, trace silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B5 S5, S6 combined Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 88.0 p 19.0 69.4 a 60 12.5 53.8 s 50 9.5 47.9 s i 4.75 36.0 n 40 2.00 27.4 g 1.18 23.6 30 0.600 19.1 20 0.425 16.9 0.300 14.7 10 0.150 11.3 0.075 8.9 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 64.0 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 27.2 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 8.9 %

Moisture Content: 5.1 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18492 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: GRAVEL and SAND, some silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B9 S2 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 #N/A 80 % 75.0 100.0 70 37.5 88.6 p 19.0 74.1 a 60 12.5 67.2 s 50 9.5 63.1 s i 4.75 51.8 n 40 2.00 40.9 g 1.18 35.8 30 0.600 29.7 20 0.425 27.4 0.300 24.7 10 0.150 20.9 0.075 16.2 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm 0.0 % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 48.2 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 35.5 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 16.2 %

Moisture Content: 2.5 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18493 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, some cobble, some silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B9 S3, S4, S5, S6 combined Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 100.0 80 % 75.0 87.0 70 37.5 73.3 p 19.0 56.3 a 60 12.5 47.1 s 50 9.5 43.5 s i 4.75 35.4 n 40 2.00 28.6 g 1.18 25.6 30 0.600 22.6 20 0.425 21.3 0.300 19.9 10 0.150 16.1 0.075 12.5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm 13.0 % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 51.5 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 22.9 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 12.5 %

Moisture Content: 6.8 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18495 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Sandy GRAVEL, some silt/clay, trace cobble Sample Date: - Sample ID: B11 S2 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 100.0 80 % 75.0 93.3 70 37.5 84.7 p 19.0 68.1 a 60 12.5 62.7 s 50 9.5 57.6 s i 4.75 46.4 n 40 2.00 37.1 g 1.18 32.8 30 0.600 27.5 20 0.425 24.7 0.300 22.3 10 0.150 18.7 0.075 13.8 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm 6.7 % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 46.9 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 32.6 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 13.8 %

Moisture Content: 2.7 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18498 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Description: Cobbly GRAVEL, some sand, trace silt/clay Sample Date: - Sample ID: B12 S7 Sample Time: - Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sampled By: Client

Specification: NA

% PASSING VS PARTICLE SIZE Sieve Analysis 100 ------Specification limits Specification Sieve Size (mm) % Passing 90 limits

100.0 100.0 80 % 75.0 65.9 70 37.5 45.5 p 19.0 34.6 a 60 12.5 28.7 s 50 9.5 27.0 s i 4.75 21.6 n 40 2.00 17.8 g 1.18 16.3 30 0.600 14.7 20 0.425 13.6 0.300 12.4 10 0.150 10.0 0.075 8.1 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 Particle Size (mm) Summary Cobble : >75mm 34.1 % Gravel : < 75mm and > 4.75mm 44.4 % Sand : < 4.75mm and > 0.075mm 13.5 % Silt/Clay : < 0.075mm 8.1 %

Moisture Content: 2.4 %

Comments: -

Tested in accordance with ASTM C136 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates /C117 Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. MOISTURE CONTENT REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18472 to S18491 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sample Date: - Sample Time: - Sampled By: Client

Lab ID Sample ID Sample Description % Moisture Comments

S18472 B1 S1 6.1% Gradation S18473 B1 S8 4.0% Gradation S18474 B1 S13 27.0% Limits S18475 B2 S3 2.4% Gradation S18476 B2 S6-S10 6.8% Gradation S18477 B3 S5-S8 33.8% Gradation S18478 B3 S11 5.7% Gradation S18479 B4 S12 26.7% S18480 B4 S13 25.0% S18481 B4 S14 23.4% Limits S18482 B5 S3 1.8% Gradation S18483 B5 S5-S6 5.1% Gradation S18484 B5 S9 6.6% S18485 B5 S10 25.4% Limits S18486 B6 S10 13.6% S18487 B6 S11 27.5% S18488 B7 S12 21.4% Limits S18489 B8 S10 26.4% S18490 B8 S11 27.0% S18491 B8 S13 25.2% Limits #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Tested in accordance with ASTM D2216 Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. MOISTURE CONTENT REPORT

Project No: 18.0005.AR Lab ID: S18492 to S18500 Project: Groundtech General Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project: Fernie Dike

Attn: Doug Clapp Date Received: August 17, 2018 CC: -

Sample Source: Geotechnical Investigation Sample Date: - Sample Time: - Sampled By: Client

Lab ID Sample ID Sample Description % Moisture Comments

S18492 B9 S2 2.5% Gradation S18493 B9 S3-S6 6.8% Gradation S18494 B9 S7 25.8% Limits S18495 B11 S2 2.7% Gradation S18496 B11 S5 27.1% Limits S18497 B11 S6 23.4% S18498 B12 S7 2.4% Gradation S18499 B12 S11 25.6% Limits S18500 B12 S17 26.0% Limits #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Tested in accordance with ASTM D2216 Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

Report Date: August 24, 2018 Reviewed By: Bryan Morrison, BSc. PRAIRIES AND NORTH LABORATORIES

ATTN: Douglas A. Clapp, P.Eng. (AB, BC) Received: 27-Aug-18 Senior Geotechnical Engineer/ Principal Report Date: 09-Sep-18 Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Version: Final

Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Report

Client: Groundtech Engineering Ltd. Client Project Title: Fernie Dike Assessment - 18 M15 Fernie Dike Golder Billing: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842

Matthew Becker Geotechnical Laboratory Manager Calgary Geotechnical Laboratory Golder Associates Ltd.

Our liability is limited to the cost of the test requested. The test results only relate to the sample as received. No liability in whole or in part is assumed for the collection, handling or transport of the sample, application or interpretation of the test data or results.

Golder Associates Ltd., Bay 8, 820 28th Street NE, Calgary Alberta, Canada T2K 6K1 Tel. (403) 248-6386 Fax. (403) 248-6387 ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

3 Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Initial Water Content: 25.6 % Initial Wet Density: 2026 kg/m 3 Borehole No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Initial Height: 18.87 mm Inital Dry Density: 1613 kg/m Sample No.: 1 Initial Mass: 147.10 g Initial Void Ratio: 0.643 Depth: - Sample Diameter: 70.00 mm Initial Saturation: 105.5% Lab No.: C842-01 Specific Gravity: (assumed) 2.65 Height of Solids: 11.484 mm Final Water Content: 20.6 % Final Void Ratio: (from height) 0.476 2 Final Height: (Measured) 16.95 mm Area: 0.00385 m Loading Cap: 1.4 kPa Final Mass: 141.04 g Initial Dry Mass: 117.12 g

Load Hsample Stone Hcorrected Stress Void Strain Incremental Cumulative Stress Point No. (mm) Correction (mm) (kPa) Ratio (%) Work (kJ/m3) Work (kJ/m3) (kPa) 0 18.83 0.00 18.83 1.4 0.639 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 1 18.53 0.02 18.55 5.8 0.615 1.7 0.1 0.1 5.8 2 18.34 0.05 18.39 13.8 0.601 2.5 0.1 0.1 13.8 3 18.17 0.08 18.25 26.2 0.589 3.3 0.2 0.3 26.2 4 17.98 0.11 18.10 50.1 0.576 4.1 0.3 0.6 50.1 5 17.69 0.15 17.85 102.3 0.554 5.4 1.1 1.7 102.3 6 17.39 0.19 17.58 197.9 0.531 6.8 2.2 3.9 197.9 7 16.97 0.23 17.21 405.0 0.498 8.8 6.4 10.3 405.0 8 16.58 0.28 16.86 803.3 0.468 10.6 12.2 22.5 803.3 9 16.06 0.36 16.42 1604.4 0.430 13.0 31.6 54.0 1604.4 10 16.26 0.27 16.53 405.0 0.439 12.4 11 16.47 0.23 16.69 102.3 0.454 11.5 12 16.69 0.18 16.87 26.2 0.469 10.6 13 16.94 0.12 17.07 5.8 0.486 9.5

Soil Description: (ML) CLAYEY SILT; light grey; cohesive, w>PL, soft ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: -

Void Ratio vs. Log Pressure

0.85

0.75

0.65

0.55 Void Ratio, e Ratio, Void

0.45

0.35

0.25 0 1 10 100 1000 10000

Log Pressure (kPa) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

18.85

18.80

18.75

18.70

18.65 Total Stress: 5.8 kPa Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 18.60

18.55

18.50 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Square Root Time (√min)

18.55

18.50

18.45

Total Stress: 13.8 kPa 18.40 Sample Height (mm) Height Sample

18.35

18.30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Square Root Time (√min) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

18.36

18.34

18.32

18.30

18.28

18.26 Total Stress: 26.2 kPa 18.24

18.22 Sample Height (mm) Height Sample

18.20

18.18

18.16

18.14 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Square Root Time (√min)

18.20

18.15

18.10

Total Stress: 50.1 kPa

18.05 Sample Height (mm) Height Sample

18.00

17.95 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Square Root Time (√min) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

18.00

17.95

17.90

17.85

17.80 Total Stress: 102.3 kPa Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 17.75

17.70

17.65 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Square Root Time (√min)

17.75

17.70

17.65

17.60

17.55 Total Stress: 197.9 kPa 17.50 Sample Height (mm) Height Sample

17.45

17.40

17.35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Square Root Time (√min) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

17.45

17.40

17.35

17.30

17.25

17.20 Total Stress: 405.0 kPa 17.15 Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 17.10

17.05

17.00

16.95 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Square Root Time (√min)

17.00

16.95

16.90

16.85

16.80

16.75 Total Stress: 803.3 kPa

Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 16.70

16.65

16.60

16.55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Square Root Time (√min) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

16.70

16.60

16.50

16.40

16.30 Total Stress: 1604.4 kPa Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 16.20

16.10

16.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Square Root Time (√min)

16.28

16.26

16.24

16.22

16.20

16.18 Total Stress: 405.0 kPa 16.16 Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 16.14

16.12

16.10

16.08 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Square Root Time (√min) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

16.50

16.45

16.40

16.35 Total Stress: 102.3 kPa

Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 16.30

16.25

16.20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Square Root Time (√min)

16.75

16.70

16.65

16.60 Total Stress: 26.2 kPa

Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 16.55

16.50

16.45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Square Root Time (√min) ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: - SAMPLE HEIGHT vs. SQUARE ROOT TIME

17.00

16.95

16.90

16.85

16.80 Total Stress: 5.8 kPa Sample Height (mm) Height Sample 16.75

16.70

16.65 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Square Root Time (√min)

ONE -DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES OF SOILS USING INCREMENTAL LOADING (ASTM D2435_D2435M-11)

Project No.: 1894867.25.0 Lab No.: C842-01 BH No.: Fernie Dike Assessment Sample No.: 1 Depth: -

Work Energy Method

25

20 ) 3

15

10 Cumulative Work Energy (kJ/m Energy Work Cumulative

5

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Vertical Effective Stress (kPa)

APPENDIX V

Dike Cross-Sections

5 100 19th Street Maiden Lake

W 1000 995

Material Name Color

Loose silt some gravel

Dense sandy gravel some silt

990 Compact sand and gravel

Firm clayey silt 985 980

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:175 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs1.slim Grocery store

9th Avenue side W 1000

995 Material Name Color

Compact sand and gravel trace silt

So clayey silt

Compact sand 990 Dense sand and gravel trace silt

Compact sand and gravel some silt 985 980

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:165 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs2.slim 5

100 Empty lot Centerline of dike

River side

W 1000

Material Name Color 995

Compact sand and gravel trace silt

So clayey silt

Dense sand and gravel trace silt

Very sff clayey silt

990 riprap 985 0 5 10 15 20 25 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:135 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs3.slim River side Annex W 1000 997.5 995 992.5 Material Name Color

Compact sand and gravel trace silt 990 Firm clayey silt

So clayey silt

Sff clayey silt 987.5 Compact sand and gravel some silt

Compact silty sand 985 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:115 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs4.slim 1005 Material Name Color

Compact sand and gravel

Firm clayey silt

So clayey silt Center line of dike Annex side

1000 Compact sand and gravel some silt

Sff ll

Duck pond/river side

W 995 990 985

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:140 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs5.slim 1000 Center of dike

Annex side W

River side 995

Material Name Color

990 Compact sand and gravel trace of silt

So clayey silt

Dense sand and gravel trace silt

Riprap

Sff ll 985

-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:125 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs6.slim Material Name Color

Dense sandy gravel some silt 1005 So clayey silt

Dense sand and gravel trace silt

Loose silt sand

Riprap 1000 Sff ll

West Fernie side W

995 River side 990 985

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:160 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs7.slim Center of dike

West Fernie side River side 995 990 985

Material Name Color 980 Compact sand and gravel

So clayey silt

Compact sand and gravel some silt 975 Loose silt sand

Riprap

Sff ll 970

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:195 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs8.slim Center of dike

River side West Fernie 995

W 990 985 980

Material Name Color

975 So clayey silt

Compact sand and gravel some silt

Sff ll 970

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:192 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs9.slim Center line 995

Mountview side River side

W 990

Material Name Color 985

Dense sandy gravel some silt

Compact sand and gravel trace silt

Firm clayey silt

So clayey silt 980 Sff ll

Compact silty sand

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:150 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs10.slim Material Name Color

Compact sand and gravel 995 Center line Firm clayey silt

Compact sand and gravel some silt

Sff ll

Park/river side Mountview side W 990 985 980

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:130 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs11.slim 995 Center line of dike

Mountview side

River side 990 985

Material Name Color 980

Compact sand and gravel

Firm clayey silt

So clayey silt 975 Compact sand and gravel some silt

Sff ll 970

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:185 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs12.slim 995 Ski hill side 990

River side 985 980 Material Name Color

Compact sand and gravel trace silt

Firm clayey silt

975 So clayey silt

Compact sand and gravel some silt

Sff ll 970

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Project SLIDE - An Interactive Slope Stability Program

Analysis Description

Drawn By Scale 1:180 Company Date File Name SLIDE 8.018 11/5/2018, 4:51:14 PM xs13.slim

REFERENCE 5 Maiden Lake Dike Improvement Best Management Practices Version 1

Maiden Lake Dike Improvement Project

Best management Practices

Version 1

April 2019

Prepared for Prepared by McElhanney Ltd. Lotic Environmental Ltd. Unit 1, 125 Industrial Road 3 2193 Mazur Road Sparwood BC Cranbrook, BC V0B 2G1 V1C 6V9

Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Suggested Citation McPherson, S. 2019. Maiden Lake Dike Improvement Project – Best Management Practices. Prepared by Lotic Environmental Ltd. for McElhanney Ltd. 17 pp. + appendices

I trust this document satisfactorily meets the requirements to provide a Best Management Practices document. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any inquiries regarding this document.

Sincerely,

Sherri McPherson (BSc, RPBio) Senior Aquatic Biologist 250.464.4564 [email protected]

Cover Photo: Downstream view of the current dike along the Elk River bank, to receive improved erosion and flood protection (April 1, 2018)

Version 1 ii Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Contact list

Company Name/Role Email Phone City of Fernie – Project Owner Zabrina Pendon, Director of [email protected] O 250.423.2230 Operational Services

McElhanney - Project Manager

Kevin Mohr, Civil/Municipal Project 250 425 0158 [email protected] O Engineer C 250 425 5434

Lotic Environmental Ltd. - Environmental Quality Assurance

Sherri McPherson [email protected] C 250.464.4564

Mike Robinson [email protected] C 250.421.7802

Version 1 iii Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Table of Contents Contact list...... iii 1. Background ...... 1 Project Location ...... 1 Design summary ...... 2 Land ownership ...... 3 2. Environmental values ...... 3 Fish and fish habitat sensitivities...... 3 Terrestrial habitat sensitivities ...... 4 Approach to minimize aquatic/riparian impacts ...... 5 Environmental regulatory requirements ...... 5 3. Location specific mitigation measures...... 6 Earth dike with riprap along Elk River side channel ...... 7 Earth dike with path along Maiden Lake ...... 8 Lock-block wall along 19th Street and culvert work in this wetland area ...... 9 Earth dike with path along 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive ...... 11 4. General mitigation measures ...... 12 Machinery ...... 12 Spill prevention and preparedness ...... 12 Wildlife ...... 13 Erosion and sediment control...... 13 Turbidity monitoring ...... 14 Air quality ...... 14 Waste management ...... 14 Environmental emergency response procedures ...... 14 Site reclamation ...... 15 5. Responsibilities ...... 15 Contractor ...... 15 Environmental Monitor ...... 16 Quality Assurance Environmental Monitor ...... 17 6. References ...... 17

List of Figures Figure 1. Maiden Lake Project extent, showing dike upgrade (red) and culvert work (yellow arrow), and design areas referenced in this document (“A - D”) Photo: Google Earth 2016...... 2 Figure 2. Legal boundaries along the Maiden Lake Dike Project (yellow line indicates Project)...... 3 Figure 3. Stream network (blue lines) associated with the Project (red line) (BC MoE 2019)...... 4 Figure 4. Downstream (top) and upstream (bottom) views of bank along Elk River side channel for earth dike and riprap upgrade (shaded area), April 1, 2019...... 7 Figure 5. Upstream view of Maiden Lake dike upgrade (shaded area), April 2019...... 8 Figure 6. Downstream view of creek leading to Maiden Lake, to receive culvert extension (arrow) and lock block placement (shaded; left photo), and upstream view of culvert replacement area (right photo)...... 9 Figure 7. Ditch along 6th Avenue (left), and wetland at the corner of 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive (right), to be filled in by the earth dike...... 11

List of Tables Table 1. Project footprint, by habitat type ...... 5 Table 2. Environmental regulatory requirements...... 5 Table 3. Summary of turbidity guidelines (BC MoE 2001)...... 14

Appendices Appendix A. Spill Incident Report Form ...... 18

Version 1 iv Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

1. Background

The following Maiden Lake Dike Improvement Project (the Project) background was obtained from the City of Fernie Request for Proposal for the project (2018):

The City of Fernie is a community of approximately 5,500 residents located on Highway No. 3 in the Elk Valley in southeastern British Columbia. The community has largely been developed adjacent to the Elk River, and associated tributaries. A system of dikes has been established to protect the commercial and residential properties from the identified flood hazard. The dike section that is the focus of this project is the Maiden Lake Dike (also known as GPS ID 61, or the Northlands Dike). The northwest portion of the Maiden Lake Dike was constructed in 1983 to provide protection to 1:200-year flood levels as determined at that time, plus a freeboard allowance (as per the Ministry of Environment 1975 floodplain mapping for the Elk River). In 2002, the northwest section of this dike was reconstructed and the dike was extended to the southeast to meet updated flood levels.

The Elk River Flood Mitigation Plan, which was initiated following the 2013 flood event, identified this Project as the highest priority in Fernie (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants [NHC]) 2019). The flood protection for the Maiden Lake Dike was determined to be low or non-existent, potentially allowing high Elk River water levels to enter the City and flood the surrounding area (NHC 2019). In 2017, the City of Fernie applied for National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) funding to further raise and extend the dike. This funding was approved, and the Project is planned to be completed in 2019.

The City of Fernie awarded McElhanney the engineering design and construction management services contract to complete the Project. Lotic Environmental Ltd. (Lotic Environmental) has been retained by McElhanney to complete the Best Management Practices (BMP) document and to provide environmental quality assurance (environmental QA) services for the Project. The BMP provides an overview of environmental values and general mitigation measures to be followed to protect the environment during construction. The Prime Contractor who will be awarded the construction contract, will be responsible for producing an environmental management plan (EMP), which complements this document by providing project specific environmental protection details. The Prime Contractor will also be responsible for providing an environmental monitor (EM) during construction, who will provide onsite monitoring, to ensure the environment is not negatively impacted.

The BMP was prepared using: 1. A desktop review of existing information, which included provincial fisheries data base, and assessment reports. 2. Construction drawings (McElhanney 2019). 3. A site visit conducted on April 1, 2019.

Project Location The Project is located at the north end of Fernie (Figure 1, UTM 11U 640584.08 E, 5486748.67 N). The dike starts immediately upstream of the Hwy 3 Leo T. Nimsick Bridge, and extends upstream along Elk River side channel habitat, and along the west side of Maiden Lake. The dike continues to the end of 19th Street, where it turns to extend south along 16th Avenue, and then at Fairway Drive it runs east for a short distance and concludes.

Version 1 1 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

N

A

B

C

D

Figure 1. Maiden Lake Project extent, showing dike upgrade (red) and culvert work (yellow arrow), and design areas referenced in this document (“A - D”) Photo: Google Earth 2016.

Design summary The Project involves varying types of dike upgrade depending on location, as well as culvert work as summarized below. Further details are provided in Section 3 - Location specific mitigation measures.

1. Dike upgrade: The existing dike will be raised to the flood construction level (approximately 1 m) and extended for a total length of 745 m. The flood protection design is dependent on location: a. The bank along the Elk River side channel area is subject to scour and requires an earth dike with riprap (“A” on Figure 1, approx. 180 m). b. Along Maiden Lake, an earth dike with a path will be installed (“B” on Figure 1, approx. 310 m). c. Along the watercourse/wetland east of Maiden Lake, lock-block flood protection will be installed in order to minimize the footprint (“C” on Figure 1, approx. 85 m). d. Along 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive (“D” on Figure 1, approx. 180 m), an Earth Dike with path (2.5:1 side slope) will be installed between the road and the golf course. 2. Culvert extension: At the west end of the lock block wall (in area “C” on Figure 1), the outlet of the existing 900 mm diameter culvert crossing under 19th street will be extended. 3. Culvert replacement: The existing 450 mm diameter culvert beneath 6th Avenue (in area “C” on Figure 1) will be removed and replaced with a 700 mm CSP culvert.

Version 1 2 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Land ownership The Project touches on the following three properties, with consent received from all landowners for working on their property (Figure 2): ■ Parcel identifier (PID) 025-420-534-534, Plan # NEP71247, REM Lot 1. Private lot owned by Schickedanz West. ■ Plan # NEP91181 (green space in the figure below) – Park land owned by the City of Fernie. ■ PID 010-359-371, Plan # NEP1374, REM Lot 2. Private lot owned by Rayonier Advanced Materials. The land is currently a golf course.

Figure 2. Legal boundaries along the Maiden Lake Dike Project (yellow line indicates Project) Source: ParcelMap BC, 2019.

The dike will be constructed within the public road right of way down 6th Ave. The portion along Fairway drive encroaches on private property, and the City of Fernie will be getting a 7.5m Right of Way for the length of the section on the private land/golf course in order to maintain the dike.

2. Environmental values Fish and fish habitat sensitivities The Project is situated in the Elk River watershed valley bottom (elevation of 1006 m above sea level). It is fed by a small unnamed tributary originating a short distance upslope (Figure 3: 349-248100-25000 is 1.21 km long; BC MoE 2019). The lower project area, downstream of Maiden Lake, also receives some Elk River off channel flow. As a result of the very low gradient much of the habitat is ponded, other than at the downstream end near the confluence with the Elk River. For the purposes of this Project we are calling the area alongside the Elk River, the Elk River side channel area.

Version 1 3 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Potential fish species present in the Elk River and tributaries proximal to the Project are (BC MoE 2019): ■ Westslope Cutthroat Trout (WCT, Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi), ■ Bull Trout (BT, Salvelinus confluentus interior lineage). ■ Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), ■ Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), ■ Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus), and ■ Eastern Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), a non-native species.

Figure 3. Stream network (blue lines) associated with the Project (red line) (BC MoE 2019).

BT (interior lineage) and WCT are species of Special Concern in BC and under COSEWIC (BC CDC 2019). Additionally, WCT are a species of Special Concern throughout their range in British Columbia under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA; BC CDC 2019). The Elk River and its tributaries have been designated as Classified Waters by the BC Government in response to high fishing pressure, and in order to maintain the high quality of angling experience. As a result of this designation, the river has special licencing provisions and angler targets.

Other than in the Elk River side channel area, there are no accounts of fish use in the Project (i.e., Maiden Lake, tributary leading to Maiden Lake [BC MoE 2019]). Given the low gradient habitat present, the Project is most likely to be used as juvenile rearing habitat for the species listed above. Further details on fish habitat value are provided in Section 3 - Location specific mitigation measures.

Terrestrial habitat sensitivities The Project footprint falls in an area with minimal riparian habitat values. This is because it is in a municipal area that has been previously disturbed by infrastructure, including the existing dike and roads. However, there are some established trees and shrubs that will be required to be removed. Further details on these terrestrial values, by location within the Project area, are provided in Section 3 - Location specific mitigation measures.

The Project lies within a mapped habitat for the American Badger, which is listed as endangered both federally and provincially (BC MoE 2019). The mapped area for this species is broad, spanning the East Kootenay Trench. Relevant habitat details for this Project, are as follows (Water Land and Air Protection [BC WLAP 2002]):

Version 1 4 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Females raise their young in dens from late winter through spring. A maternal den is evidenced by a large mound of soil at the entrance, with droppings and shed hair. From late June to August, juvenile Badgers begin to disperse in search of suitable home ranges of their own, which may take them up to 100 km from their birth area and involve crossing rivers, highways and farmland. This is the period of highest mortality for Badgers.

There were no other mapped sensitive species or ecosystems present in the Project area (BC MoE 2019).

Approach to minimize aquatic/riparian impacts In order to protect commercial land in the Northlands area of Fernie, there will be some instream and riparian habitat disturbance (Table 1).

Table 1. Project footprint, by habitat type

Habitat type Project location Footprint area (m2) Elk River side channel Previously undisturbed erosion protection toe, and 720 instream area. 18th Street lock block wall. Deciduous trees lining road along 6th Avenue, Riparian and/or wetland habitat 1,660 and wetland along Fairway Drive. Previously disturbed (by Existing dike and erosion existing dike and associated protection, lock block wall, 6,045 infrastructure) culverts. Total footprint 8,425

There are considered to be no residual impacts on terrestrial or aquatic life anticipated as a result of this project. This is based on two main points: 1) the area is largely modified by anthropogenic activities; and, 2) much of the work is outside of the high water mark.

Environmental regulatory requirements The applicable environmental regulatory requirements to be adhered to are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Environmental regulatory requirements. Legislation Environmental conditions and/or mitigation measures Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for administering the Act. Under Section 35 of the Act, no one may carry out any work or undertaking that results in serious harm to fish (i.e., death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat). The Act defines other requirements to protect fish and fish habitat including safe passage (Section Federal Fisheries Act 20), and the prohibition of the introduction of deleterious substances (Section 36). The details of this Project have been submitted to DFO for Review. The DFO response will be included in the final planning/implementation stages and EMP for the Project.

Version 1 5 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Legislation Environmental conditions and/or mitigation measures Section 11 of the BC Water Sustainability Act requires that changes in and about a stream receive a Notification or Approval from the comptroller, a water manager or an engineer. An application has been submitted for a Water Sustainability Act Approval. The BC MoE response will be included in the final planning/implementation stages and EMP for the Project. ■ Based on the Project elevation of 1006 masl and fish species present, the window for instream works at this location is July 16 – August 31. BC Water Sustainability ■ It is recommended that instream work be completed within this window. Act Work up the slope out of the water may proceed outside of this window, if required. ■ Permission would be required to work outside of this window. As is typically outlined in the Project’s Water Sustainability Act Approval, this request goes to Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (FLNRORD) Habitat Officer, and is to include mitigation measures ensuring sensitive fish life-stages will not be harmed by the Project. No disturbance to nests or nesting birds will occur during breeding and nesting periods as a result of the Project (generally early April to late August). Canadian Migratory Birds Convention Act and its ■ A full nesting survey will be required prior to grubbing or clearing regulations within the Project area. If a nest is found, suitable mitigation measures to ensure its protection will be required, until such time that the birds fledge. Section 34 of the Act prohibits possessing, taking or destroying (i) a bird or its egg, (ii) the nest of an eagle, peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, osprey, heron or burrowing owl, or (iii) the nest of a bird not mentioned in (ii), when the nest is occupied by a bird or its egg unless authorized under permit. Vegetation BC Wildlife Act clearing is to be done only when the nests are not occupied. To comply with Section 34(iii) of the Act, clearing that must be done during the nesting season must be preceded by nest surveys to confirm that active nests will not be affected. BC Wildlife Act – A fish salvage is anticipated. The EM will obtain a Fish Collection Permit. Application to collect fish This permit will authorize the capture and/or collection of fish specimens for for scientific purposes scientific and other non-recreational purposes.

3. Location specific mitigation measures

Design approach details that are relevant to the environmental review, specific environmental values of potential concern, and associated environmental mitigation measures are provided below for each activity/location.

*Note - all activities will involve first preparing the site by stripping and stockpiling organic topsoil and pathway gravel and removing vegetation. Because of this, general wildlife mitigation measures are to be completed at the outset as outlined in Section 4.3 (nesting survey etc.). During the site inspection on April 1, 2019, there was no evidence of permanent nests in the Project area that would be protected under the BC Wildlife Act (i.e., large stick nest of an eagle, peregrine falcon, gyrfalcon, osprey, or heron).

Version 1 6 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Earth dike with riprap along Elk River side channel Design The bank along the Elk River side channel is subject to scour and requires an earth dike with rip rap (approx. 180 m). The current rip rap armouring the front face of the dike is deemed to be constructed of poor quality shale stone rock, and is exhibiting signs of weathering and degradation and will thus be removed (Figure 4). Depending on location, the rip rap will be replaced with either 250 kg class (1.2 m thickness) or 100 kg class rock (0.7 m thickness).

This activity will involve first preparing the site by stripping and stockpiling organic topsoil and pathway gravel and removing vegetation. The riprap footprint will be largely unchanged, however, the rock toe currently only extends approximately 0.5 m into the channel and this will be increased to be 2 m. The riprap will not be keyed in. The front and back of the dike will be sloped to 2:1. The dike will be built up with a base of course compacted rock to the flood elevation, with a top width of 4.0 m. Topsoil will be spread on the back slope, to a 150 mm thickness, and hydroseed will be applied.

Figure 4. Downstream (top) and upstream (bottom) views of bank along Elk River side channel for earth dike and riprap upgrade (shaded area), April 1, 2019.

Environmental values/sensitivities The Elk River side channel area is expected to provide the highest value fish habitat for the Project. This is because it is likely wetted with suitable water quality conditions (temperature and dissolved oxygen) year- round. This area also has spawning potential, given the gravel substrate and flow present. However, typically the fish species present do not spawn in the Mainstem Elk River, so spawning is considered

Version 1 7 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

unlikely. Although there are some pockets of immature deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses, the area is largely devoid of vegetation. The vegetation that is present will need to be removed in order to complete the Project. Trees are not permitted on dikes as per the BC Dike Maintenance Act.

Mitigation measures 1. All General Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 4 will be adhered to. 2. A Fish Protection Plan will be prepared, which identifies the mitigation measures to ensure fish are not harmed during work in the wetted channel (i.e., riprap toe installation). The Fish Protection Plan is to include, but not be limited to the following: a. Ensure all riprap is free of silt, debris or other deleterious substances. b. In advance of removing or placing rock in the stream, the EM will isolate the area with nets, and use electrofishing techniques to remove all fish from the working area. c. Install works in a slow and controlled manner. The EM will monitor turbidity continually during instream work and ensure the BC guidelines for the protection of aquatic life are met (Section 5.6). d. Following rock placement at the toe of the left bank, it is expected that the instream habitat will readily reform along the margin of the current gravel bar. However, to help the channel regain its original width the surface elevation of the adjacent gravel bar is to be lowered, to just above the water level, for a 3 m wide section alongside the channel. The EM will be onsite to monitor this activity.

Earth dike with path along Maiden Lake Design An earth dike with a path will be installed to upgrade the existing dike along Maiden Lake (approx. 310 m long; Figure 5). The front and back slopes will vary depending on the location (2.5:1 or 3:1). The dike will be built up with a base of course compacted rock to the flood elevation, with a top width of 4 m. Topsoil will be spread on the both slopes, to a 150 mm thickness, and hydroseed will be applied.

Figure 5. Upstream view of Maiden Lake dike upgrade (shaded area), April 2019.

Environmental values/sensitivities Maiden Lake is a man-made lake that is not mapped on the BC Habitat Wizard. The lake is expected to provide fish habitat, as it is connected, at least during high water to the Elk River. However, water quality conditions may deteriorate during the summer and/or winter months, potentially limiting its capacity to provide high value habitat. The dike upgrade work along Maiden Lake is expected to be constructed with

Version 1 8 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

minimal habitat disturbance, since there is very limited riparian vegetation present, and since works will be set back from the wetted channel. The one item of note was the presence of knapweed along the west end of the lake.

Mitigation measures 1. All general mitigation measures outlined in Section 4 will be adhered to. 2. Due to the presence of knapweed, it is recommended that: a. All surface soils be removed from the site and properly disposed offsite. b. Fresh topsoil is to be brought in c. A plant ecologist is to be consulted, to prescribe the best seed mix for this site. The seed mix is to be robust to assure effective growth, and prevent establishment of invasive species introduction and erosion.

Lock-block wall along 19th Street and culvert work in this wetland area Design Three activities are planned along the creek east of Maiden Lake (Figure 5): 1. Lock-block flood protection - A lock block wall is planned along the creek (approx. 85 m long) instead of an earth dike, in order to minimize the footprint. Depending on location, a 2 or 3 block high wall will be installed. Lock block joints will be grouted. 2. Culvert extension -At the west end of the lock block wall, the outlet of the existing 900 mm diameter culvert crossing under 19th street will be extended. The existing concrete end structure will be salvaged and a new culvert outlet will be installed. The bedding and pipe zone material will be bulk dike fill compacted to 98%. 3. Culvert replacement - The existing 450 mm diameter culvert beneath 6th Avenue will be removed and replaced with a 700 mm CSP culvert. The culvert has been resized to accommodate storm water flows. The pipe bedding will be clean drain rock with riprap end treatments. The culvert will be set lower than the existing stream bed, at a very flat grade (flow will be <0.5 m/s) to improve fish passage.

Figure 6. Downstream view of creek leading to Maiden Lake, to receive culvert extension (arrow) and lock block placement (shaded; left photo), and upstream view of culvert replacement area (right photo), April 2019.

Version 1 9 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Environmental values/sensitivities The unnamed tributary at the corner of end of 19th Street and 6th Avenue is expected to provide fish habitat due to its connectivity with the Elk River. The water quality conditions may deteriorate during the summer and winter months in this low gradient area. The dike upgrade work along Maiden Lake and the lock block placement at the top end of 19th street is expected to all be constructed with minimal habitat disturbance, as there is limited riparian vegetation present, and works will be outside of the wetted channel.

Both the culvert extension on 19th Street and the culvert replacement beneath 6th Avenue will be in the wetted channel, and will require mitigation measures to ensure fish are not harmed during construction.

Mitigation measures 1. All general mitigation measures outlined in Section 4 will be adhered to. 2. Working with uncured concrete - Concrete grout, cement, or mortar leachate is alkaline and highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Prevent deposition of these substances into any waterbody, by complying with the following procedures: a. Ensure that there is no contact of concrete with any watercourse through spillage, hosing off surfaces, rain events, or cleaning of tools. b. Apply effective mechanisms to keep the grout in place at the joints, so it does not slump into the stream while it is drying. c. If there is potential for a spill of five or more litres into the watercourse at one time (for example if a form breaks, or if a concrete truck pour is required), then equipment and supplies will be onsite to neutralize pH levels should a spill occur (e.g., a carbon dioxide tank with regulator, hose and gas diffuser). Contractor staff will be trained in its use, to provide support to the EM in such an event. d. Do not discharge wash water into a watercourse or drainage ditch. If required, concrete wash water may be disposed in an upland, contained location (e.g., rock pit or grassy area), at least 30 m away from the high water mark. The area must be pre-approved by the EM. Clean and reseed any disturbed areas as appropriate. e. Remove excess concrete from the site. 3. In advance of completing the culvert extension and culvert replacement, isolate the sites to mitigate sedimentation and harm to fish. Isolation procedures are to be detailed in the Fish Protection Plan, with a recommended approach as follows: a. The EM will set up exclusion nets, and will use appropriate techniques (electrofishing, fish traps, netting), to capture and remove all fish and other aquatic organisms (amphibians or reptiles) from the working area. b. Build a coffer dam (i.e., using sandbags/bulk bags and plastic sheeting, or an earthen plug) to direct flow away from the construction area. c. If there is flow, temporarily divert clean water from the upstream side of the culverts, through a pipe around the working area until construction in the wetted channel is complete. d. Install a sump and pump system within the working area, to catch seepage/turbid water that is generated, to keep downstream waters clean. Direct turbid water into a vegetated area, where it will natural filter before reaching the watercourse again. e. The EM will monitor turbidity, to ensure provincial guidelines are met (Section 4.5).

Version 1 10 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Earth dike with path along 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive Design Along 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive (approx. 180 m), an Earth Dike with a path (2.5:1 side slope) will be installed between the road and the golf course (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Ditch along 6th Avenue (left), and wetland at the corner of 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive (right), to be filled in by the earth dike.

Environmental values/sensitivities The area between the road and the golf course along 6th Avenue and Fairway Drive was a ditch catching seasonal overland drainage along the edge of the golf course. There is no defined channel. This area is expected to dry up completely in the summer, and to thus not provide fish habitat. The deciduous trees lining the road will need to be removed along 6th Avenue. There also is an isolated wetland along Fairway Drive that will be filled in. This is a relatively small pocket that has been previously cut-off from the larger wetland located on the west side of 6th Avenue. It is not expected to provide high value wildlife habitat given its size, and because it is impacted by winter road maintenance (salting) activities.

Mitigation measures There are no specific mitigation measures to be adhered to for this aspect of the Project. However: 1. Follow all other applicable general mitigation measures outlined in Section 4. 2. At the outset of the project and periodically during construction, conduct surveys and to ensure wildlife are not harmed (see Section 4.3 Wildlife). 3. If the ditch is wetted, conduct a survey to ensure fish are not present. If fish are captured, then notify the Project Manager, as a new construction approach (lock-block wall) or an approval from DFO to destroy habitat would likely be required.

Version 1 11 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

4. General mitigation measures

The mitigation measures outlined below, will be enforced to protect aquatic and terrestrial values, including reducing the potential for foreign substances to be introduced to the environment.

Machinery 1. Machinery will be required to work adjacent to the active channel during this Project. Because of this, machinery is recommended to use environmentally sensitive hydraulic fluids, which are free of heavy metals, non-toxic, and biodegradable. Note that readily biodegradable products (e.g., Cat® Bio HYDOTM Advanced, Panolin) are preferred as they have a biodegradation of more than 60 percent within 28 days. Inherently biodegradable products (e.g., Petro Canada EnvironMV, Chevron Clarity) would be accepted, although these biodegrade more slowly (20 to 59 percent in 28 days). 2. Before arriving onsite, clean machinery of oil, grease and other contaminants, and inspect machinery for leaks or worn hoses, fittings, etc. 3. Power wash machinery prior to arriving onsite, to clean machinery of soil and vegetation debris in order to prevent the spread of invasive species.

Spill prevention and preparedness Adhere to the following terms to reduce the risk and the impact of spills: 1. Establish the laydown area(s) that is at least 30 m from the high water mark of any waterbody including drainage ditch. The laydown area will be where equipment, supplies and fuel are stored; as well as where machinery are fuelled, parked overnight and repaired. 2. Do not store fuels and/or other petroleum or combustible products in any large quantity on site. Only store small fuel containers, such as approved safety containers or double walled Tidy Tanks, properly mounted in the back of a pickup onsite for any extended period of time. Label all containers with appropriate Transportation of Dangerous Goods, WHMIS, and safety markings. 3. Ensure that personnel transferring fluids and fueling equipment understand the environmental risks of the area, are equipped with adequate spill prevention and response measures, have appropriate training, and are following acceptable practices. 4. Locate emergency spill response kits in areas where oil/fuel filled equipment will be working and provide additional spill response materials in sufficient quantities on site to catch drips, minor leaks and spills. 5. Have absorbent booms included in the spill kit. 6. Ensure the crew is trained in the proper spill clean-up procedures and the contents within the kit. 7. Restock spill kits immediately if supplies are used. 8. Place oil absorbent sheets and/or containers under vehicles and equipment parked in high risk areas (i.e., within 30 m of a watercourse) for longer than 2 hours or immediately under any vehicle or equipment that is leaking regardless of its location. 9. Equip gas-powered pumps and generators with a suitably sized drip tray, if operated within 30 m of the high water mark of a waterbody including a ditch, 10. Park fuel vehicles only in designated areas, with brakes applied and wheels locked. 11. Ensure the operator is in attendance during all fuel transfers.

Version 1 12 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Wildlife 1. Prior to clearing or grubbing, the EM will conduct a nesting bird survey. If any nesting birds or a permanent nest protected under the BC Wildlife Act are identified in the Project area, the EM will develop suitable mitigation measures to protect these from disruption (e.g., suitably sized buffer until fledging; and, if there is a permanent nest requiring protection, re-design or obtain permit). 2. The EM is to conduct a survey for denning badgers in the Project footprint. If present, the EM will develop suitable mitigation measures to protect the den from disruption (e.g., buffer until the young leave the den). 3. The EM is to conduct a survey for amphibians and reptiles in the working area at the outset of the Project and regularly during site visits. If seen, the EM is to safely transfer the animals to similar habitat away from the construction area. 4. If wildlife are moving through the area during construction, provide them space to pass.

Erosion and sediment control Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the site that minimizes risk of sedimentation to the waterbody during all phases of the Project. Maintain erosion and sediment control measures until all disturbed ground has been permanently stabilized. This plan is to include but not be limited to: 1. Prior to any construction, flag the limits of clearing required to facilitate construction. When planning for clearing: a. Keep the footprint for vegetation removal as small as possible to reduce the amount of soil that may erode during rainfall events. b. Minimize removal of established trees and shrubs – consider only pruning vegetation, and/or laying down geo-fabric for temporary access areas, to minimize disturbance. c. Do not disturb an area until it is necessary to proceed with construction. 2. Collect and retain topsoil from any areas where vegetation removal is required. Stockpile the topsoil on level ground, where it will not have the potential to erode into the river. Use the topsoil during final site reclamation. 3. In areas where there are exposed soils with the potential to erode into the river, install suitable erosion control measures. This may include covering exposed soils with geofabric, poly, straw, or another suitable system to fine sediments from eroding. 4. Where erosion control may not be fully effective in limiting sedimentation, properly install sediment control structures such as sediment fencing, diversion ditches/berms, and/or settling basins, to prevent sediment entry to the watercourse. Ensure these structures remain functioning throughout the Project, should precipitation events occur. When sediment fencing is employed, ensure effectiveness by: a. Trenching the bottom of the fence 15-20 cm below the soil surface, so the fence is not undercut by runoff; b. Backfilling and compacting the trench; and, c. Conducting regular inspections and maintenance. 5. Halt work during adverse weather conditions. 6. Notify the Project Manager and EM if there are potential stability issues not addressed through the design, which may require additional resources to address.

Version 1 13 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Turbidity monitoring The EM will monitor water quality to document instream sediment generated as a result of the Project. Turbidity levels in the watercourse downstream of the Project are not to exceed acceptable levels for the protection of freshwater aquatic life, defined by the British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines (BC MoE 2001; Table 3). Other water quality parameters will be monitored if there is the potential for changes resulting from the Project.

Table 3. Summary of turbidity guidelines (BC MoE 2001). Condition Acceptable increases turbidity levels (NTU) Clear flow ■ Maximum increase of 8 NTU from background levels for a short-term period exposure (24-h period). ■ Maximum average increase of 2 NTU from background levels for a longer term exposure (30-d period). High flow or ■ Maximum increase of 5 NTU from background levels at any one time, when period of background levels are between 8 and 50 NTU. naturally turbid ■ Maximum increase is to be less than 10% at any one time, when waters background is >50 NTU.

Air quality Maintain air quality by turning off vehicles when not in active use (minimize idling). It is recognized that there are periods of time when running a vehicle is necessary, such as when auxiliary equipment is in use, or under extreme hot or cold outdoor temperatures to keep the operator safe and comfortable. During periods of inactivity and while stopped within a queue formed under the direction of a traffic control person or device, idling shall be minimized and not exceed the following: 1. Motor vehicle and light diesel trucks – 1 minute 2. Heavy duty diesel vehicles – 5 minutes

Waste management Hazardous and non-hazardous materials will be handled and disposed of appropriately. General measures to manage wastes are as follows: 1. Categorize and separate all waste materials appropriately. 2. Transport all other materials to an acceptable offsite facility prior to project completion. 3. Remove all personal waste (e.g., food and beverage debris) daily to minimize the potential for wildlife encounters in the Project Area.

Environmental emergency response procedures A contaminant spill to the land or water is a potential incident that may impact the environment associated with this Project. This could occur from a release of fuels, oils, or lubricants associated with heavy machinery. Implement spill response procedures immediately following any accidental spill or release of a deleterious substance. The spill response procedure is: 1. Prior to the spill, the Contractor will ensure their staff are properly trained in use of the spill containment and clean-up. 2. If safe to do so, stop the leak or move the source of the leak away from any water course if within 30 m.

Version 1 14 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

3. Notify the Site Manager. 4. Use emergency spill response kits, and/or other materials necessary to clean-up the spill immediately, so as not to result in further release or dispersal of deleterious substances. 5. Isolate the hazardous wastes cleaned-up from the environment. 6. Remove all hazardous waste materials from the site, to an appropriate facility, as soon as possible in accordance with all applicable standards and regulations. 7. Appropriately document details of the spill (Appendix A). 8. Report as required to the appropriate authorities: a. Notify the EM of spills of any size. b. The Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) is to be contacted (1-800-663-3456) if Reportable Levels as identified in the Waste Management Act are exceeded. Reportable levels for products likely to be onsite are: ■ Flammable liquids, including fuel, motor oil and paints is 100 L; ■ Toxic substances, such as grout is 5 L or 5 kg.

Site reclamation The site will be stabilized upon completion. Details are to be provided in a Reclamation Plan, which is to include but not be limited to: 1. Remove all construction equipment, supplies, and waste materials from the site upon project completion. 2. Leave the site in a stable condition with no erosion concerns (see Section 4.4). 3. Where areas have been disturbed as a result of the Project: a. Redistribute stockpiled topsoil, b. Grass seed exposed soil areas. The seed mix is to be appropriate for the environmental conditions of the area, to promote immediate growth/soil stabilization and minimize the establishment of invasive species. A native species mix is to be planned for. A plant ecologist will be consulted to prescribe the required seed blend.

5. Responsibilities Contractor The Prime Contractor will be responsible for maintaining the environmental controls and addressing any environmental issues or questions, as follows: 1. In association with the EM, ensure all project personnel review and understand the BMP and EMP. These documents are to be presented full during the pre-construction/site orientation meeting(s), and in part, focusing on relevant items during the daily site meetings. 2. Ensure all crew are adequately trained and equipped to deal with potential environmental incidents related to their work. 3. Conduct daily tailboard meetings to ensure that environmental risks have been identified and adequately addressed. 4. Inform the EM of the project schedule, so that the EM can be onsite to observe the environmentally sensitive aspects of the project. 5. When the EM is not onsite, upon request, submit daily photos to the EM depicting project progress. 6. Bring any changes to the work plan to the attention of the EM, so that the BMP and EMP can be updated.

Version 1 15 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

7. Bring concerns with regard to preparedness for environmental incidents to the attention of the EM, prior to starting work. 8. Ensure any environmental incidents are brought to the immediate attention of the EM.

Environmental Monitor The Environmental Monitor will be responsible to: 1. Provide the following details in an EMP: a. Project schedule b. Requirements stemming from the DFO Project Review and BC Water Sustainability Act Section 11 Approval c. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan d. Fish Protection Plan e. Site Reclamation Plan 2. Present details of the BMP and EMP to project personnel. 3. Obtain a BC Wildlife Act permit to collect fish for scientific purposes, prior to construction. 4. Monitor on-site activities during construction to ensure the BMP and EMP are adhered to, with no environmental harm. Provide additional advice as needed. 5. Confirm with the Prime Contractor when critical activities are being completed that have the potential to impact the environment, and plan to be onsite to monitor these activities. Examples of activities requiring onsite monitoring are: a. Project initiation – e.g., to conduct nesting/wildlife surveys, review laydown area, erosion and sedimentation concerns. b. Works in the wetted channel – to isolate and conduct fish salvage, ensure turbidity meets the BC guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. c. Reclamation - to ensure the site is stable with no erosion or sedimentation concerns. d. At a minimum, conduct bi-weekly monitoring spot checks – e.g., to ensure erosion and sediment protection measures and spill prevention measures are effective. 6. Complete daily monitoring forms for each day on-site, outlining: a. Time onsite; b. Prime contractor site supervisor; c. Environmental monitor name/contact; d. Summary of construction activities, environmental issues, mitigation measures and planned corrective measures to address deficiencies that arose; e. Summary of incident reports; and f. Representative site photographs. 7. Submit monitoring reports every two weeks (bi-weekly) in electronic format to the McElhanney Project Manager and the Lotic Environmental QA monitor. 8. Ensure the EMP is complete and up-to-date. 9. In the event of an environmental incident, work with the Site Supervisor to ensure the incident is appropriately halted, cleaned, and reported. 10. Provide deficiencies identified during monitoring to the Prime Contractor immediately, so they are addressed as soon as possible. The EM will have the authority to order the shutdown of the operation if environmental protection is compromised.

Version 1 16 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Quality Assurance Environmental Monitor Lotic Environmental will provide a quality assurance environmental monitor to the project during construction. Responsibilities for this person will include: 1. Attending the pre-work meeting and presenting BMP details. 2. Reviewing the EMP and EM reports prepared by the EM. 3. Conducting an onsite reviews to inspect construction activities occurring during sensitive periods to confirm the BMP and EMP are adhered to. 4. Documentation of the outcome of all office and field reviews. All reports will be provided to the City of Fernie, the McElhanney Project Manager, and the Prime Contractor.

6. References

BC Conservation Data Centre (BC CDC). 2019. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

BC MoE. 2019. Habitat Wizard mapping tool. Available: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals- ecosystems/ecosystems/habitatwizard

BC MoE. 2009. Kootenay (Region 4) Periods of Least Risk for Instream Works by Fish Species. Available: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-licensing- rights/working-around-water/regional-terms-conditions-timing-windows

BC MoE. 2008. Kootenay-Boundary Water Sustainability Regulation Notification Terms and Conditions. Available: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/working-around- water/terms_conditions_koot_bdy_may2018.pdf

BC MoE. 2001. Ambient water quality guidelines (criteria) for turbidity, suspended sediment and benthic sediments. Overview Report. Available: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land- water/water/water-quality/water-quality-guidelines/approved-water-quality-guidelines

BC Water Land and Air Protection (BC WLAP). 2002. Badgers - Wildlife in BC at Risk Summary document. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/badger.pdf.

City of Fernie. 2018. Engineering Services for Maiden Lake Dike Improvements - request for proposal.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd (NHC). 2019. City of Fernie flood mitigation plan – draft report. Consultant report, prepared for the City of Fernie.

Version 1 17 Maiden Lake Dike improvement project –BMP

Appendix A. Spill Incident Report Form

Date of Incident: Time of Incident:

Name of Company or Person Causing Spill: Contact Number:

Type of substance Spilled: Quantity Spilled:

Location of Spill and Description of Surrounding Area:

Source of Spill (e.g., equipment, storage container):

Cause of spill or contributing factors (choose all that apply) Equipment Failure Training Deficiencies Operator Error Weather Conditions Faulty Process Design Other______

Effect of Spill (choose all that apply): Entered the watercourse Entered the riparian zone Maintained in Upland area (on road) Other______

Surface Area Affected (meters squared):

Immediate Actions Taken (choose all that apply): Stop the Source Containment Use of spill kit Other______

Environmental Agencies Contacted:

Name of Environmental Representatives Onsite:

Further Action Contemplated/Required:

Report Completed by: Date:

18

REFERENCE 6 MCELHANNEY Maiden Lake Fernie BC

REFERENCE 7 The Utility Locators Maiden Lake Dike Fernie BC