Attachment 5 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited Suite 600 – 4445 Lougheed Highway, Burnaby, BC Canada V5C 0E4 Tel +1 (604) 294-3811 Fax +1 (604) 294-4664 www.amec.com Geotechnical Response to Photographic Evidence Regarding Proposed Liquid Petroleum Pipelines from Nimbus Mountain to the Kitimat River Estuary Submitted by Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch Proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines Submitted to: NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINES INC. Calgary, Alberta Submitted by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a Division of AMEC Americas Limited Burnaby, BC July 17, 2012 AMEC File: EG0926008 2100 100 Document Control No.: 1167-RE-20120716 7054206_2|CALDOCS Attachment 5 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Northern Gateway Pipelines Geotechnical Response to Photographic Evidence of Douglas Channel Watch Proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines July 17, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSES ........................................................................................ 2 3.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE ....................................................................................... 63 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 64 AMEC File: EG0926008 2100 100 G:\PROJECTS\Other Offices\EG-Edmonton\EG09260 - Enbridge Gateway\2100 - Hearings\Douglas Channel Watch\Geotechnical Response to Douglas Channel Watch (photo evidence of M Minchin)_17July12_FINAl.doc Page i /![5h/ Attachment 5 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence IMPORTANT NOTICE This report was prepared exclusively for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, a wholly owned subsidiary of AMEC Americas Limited. The quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is intended to be used by Northern Gateway Pipeline and related consultants only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with AMEC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk. 7054206_2|CALDOCS Attachment 5 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Northern Gateway Pipelines Geotechnical Response to Photographic Evidence of Douglas Channel Watch Proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines July 17, 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides a geotechnical engineering response to photographic evidence submitted to the Joint Review Panel by Murray Minchin of Douglas Channel Watch. The evidence was submitted in written format in early January 2012 (the actual submission is not dated). The response is contained on the following pages. The submitted evidence is reproduced on the left side of the table in the following pages and the responses are on the right side. The submitted evidence is only included where a response is made. The responses to geotechnical issues were prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure (AMEC) while the input to certain issues such as spill response and previous oil spills were prepared by others as identified in the responses. Note that AMEC Environment & Infrastructure changed its name from AMEC Earth & Environmental in the fall of 2011. Several previous geotechnical reports are cited repeatedly in the following discussion. These reports are: AMEC (2011) Preliminary Hazard Assessment of Glaciomarine Clay, Kitimat Valley, submitted to Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, 21 November 2011, File No. EG0926008. This report is referred to as the “Glaciomarine Clay Report” and provides a review of all presently available information on glaciomarine clay in the Kitimat Valley. AMEC (2010) Overall Geotechnical Report on the Pipeline Route Rev. R for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, BC, prepared by AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure for Northern Gateway Pipelines. This report is referred to as the “Overall Geotechnical Report” and provides an overall preliminary summary of geotechnical issues, input and recommendations. AMEC (2012) Report on Quantitative Geohazard Assessment, Proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines, Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc by AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure. Referred to as the Geotechnical Hazard Report. Geotechnical Hazards are summarized in the Overall Geotechnical Report and are broken down with more detail in the Geotechnical Hazard Report. https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=814617&objAction=browse Atkinson, G.M. 2009. Preliminary Seismic Evaluation of Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project. Report prepared for AMEC Earth & Environmental. Dietzfelbinger, C. (2009). Location and properties of avalanche paths that affect the proposed northern gateway pipeline alignment through the Coast Mountains. Prepared by Bear Enterprises Ltd for AMEC Earth & Environmental, August 2009. Referred to as the Avalanche Report. AMEC File: EG0926008 2100 100 G:\PROJECTS\Other Offices\EG-Edmonton\EG09260 - Enbridge Gateway\2100 - Hearings\Douglas Channel Watch\Geotechnical Response to Douglas Channel Watch (photo evidence of M Minchin)_17July12_FINAl.doc Page 1 7054206_2|CALDOCS Attachment 5 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Northern Gateway Pipelines Geotechnical Response to Photographic Evidence of Douglas Channel Watch Proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines July 17, 2012 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSES As indicated above, the geotechnical responses and other responses are provided in tabular format to the points made in the photographic evidence submitted. In some cases, where there is repetition, reference is made to the points under which the evidence was first discussed. The same numbering scheme is used on both sides of the table and as much as possible, the responses on the right are spaced to be in close proximity to the points made in the original evidence. The fact that there is not a response provided to a particular statement does not indicate acceptance of the statement by Northern Gateway or its consultants. The responses in this report are necessarily brief and there is a great deal of additional information provided on the issues discussed in the various filed documents. AMEC File: EG0926008 2100 100 G:\PROJECTS\Other Offices\EG-Edmonton\EG09260 - Enbridge Gateway\2100 - Hearings\Douglas Channel Watch\Geotechnical Response to Douglas Channel Watch (photo evidence of M Minchin)_17July12_FINAl.doc Page 2 7054206_2|CALDOCS Attachment 5 to Northern Gateway Reply Evidence Northern Gateway Pipelines Geotechnical Response to Photographic Evidence of Douglas Channel Watch Proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines July 17, 2012 Evidence from Douglas Channel Watch Response INTRODUCTION COMMENTS ON INTRODUCTION i.1) The geologic hazards in the Hoult Creek and upper i.1) The geologic and geotechnical hazards in Hoult Kitimat River Valleys, the earthflows in the main Kitimat Creek and the upper Kitimat River valley have been Valley, and the extreme weather events experienced on identified. With appropriate planning, design and the western side of the Coast Mountains on British construction, the hazards can be mitigated. Columbia's north coast may be the Achille's heel of Preliminary details are contained in the Overall Northern Gateway Pipeline Limited Partnership's Geotechnical Report and additional information is proposal to move liquid petroleum products between contained in the Geotechnical Hazard Report. Further Alberta's Tar Sands, and tidewater at Kitimat, BC. investigations and engineering are expected during the detailed design phase of the project. The pipeline route avoids areas of known earthflows in the Kitimat Valley. The heavier precipitation, double peaks of the stream flows and other similar weather and stream flow conditions are recognized and are included in the overall planning and design for the project. i.2) The majority of liquid petroleum pipelines in North i.2) While the majority of liquid pipelines are located America are to be found east of the Rocky Mountains in a east of the Coast Range by virtue of the source and relatively benign, rolling landscape. market locations, the Kinder Morgan (former TransMountain) oil pipeline has been successfully constructed and operated across difficult terrain including valleys in the Alberta Plains, the Rocky Mountains, and through the Coast Mountains including along the Coquihalla River Valley for over 50 years. i.3) The Hoult Creek and upper Kitimat River Valleys are i.3) The presence of geohazards including debris over 4,700 feet deep, very narrow, and are subject to flows, peak flow characteristics, rock fall and long lived and extremely moist weather systems coming avalanches in the Hoult Creek and upper Kitimat off the Pacific Ocean. These heavy rains and snowfalls, Valleys are recognized and have been discussed in in concert with the precipitous terrain and young age of the various cited geotechnical reports. The hazards the Coast Mountains result in major flooding events, can be suitably planned for and mitigated in the winter flash floods, rockfall, debris slides, and design and operation of the pipelines. It should be avalanches. noted that the impact