A91260-3 Attachment 1 To IR No. 1.1.a - Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Part 1 of 2) - A6D2Y8

Westcoast Energy Inc., doing business as Spectra Energy Transmission Westcoast Response to NEB IR No.
1
Kobes 3 Pipe Replacement Project Attachment 1 to IR No. 1.1.a - Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Filed April 13, 2018
20 December 2017
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Westcoast - Kobes #3 LFERW

Replacement Project
T
AF
Submitted to:
John McQuade
Westcoast Energy Inc. carrying on business as Spectra Energy Transmission
(an Enbridge Company)
Bow Valley Building Tower 4, Suite 2300
250- 6th Ave, SW
Calgary, AB
T2P 3H7
R
D
REPORT
Report Number: 1788373

Distribution:
West Coast Inc. - 1 E-Copy
Calgary, AB
Golder Associates Ltd. - 1 E-Copy

Vancouver, BC
Page 1 of 88
Westcoast Energy Inc., doing business as Spectra Energy Transmission Westcoast Response to NEB IR No. 1
WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Terrain Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
3.2 Geophysical Investigation Summary......................................................................................................... 2
T
3.3 Geotechnical Investigation Scope of Work ............................................................................................... 2
3.3.1 Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locate .............................................................................................. 2
4.0
3.3.2
3.3.3 AF
Drilling Investigation ............................................................................................................................ 2
Hand Auger Investigation .................................................................................................................... 3
SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Encountered Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4

R
4.1.1 Organic Topsoil ................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.2 Glaciofluvial Sandy Silt........................................................................................................................ 4
4.1.3 Glaciolacustrine Silty Clay................................................................................................................... 4

D
4.1.4 Weathered Bedrock ............................................................................................................................ 4
4.2 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Geotechnical Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 5
5.1.1 Geotechnical Parameters.................................................................................................................... 5
5.1.2 Frost Penetration Depth ...................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Seismic Parameters.................................................................................................................................. 5
5.2.1 Seismic Design Values ....................................................................................................................... 5
5.2.2 Site Class ............................................................................................................................................ 6
5.3 Soil Aggressiveness to Concrete and Steel .............................................................................................. 6
5.3.1 Salinity Results ................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3.2 Assessment of Aggressiveness to Concrete and Steel ....................................................................... 6
5.4 Construction Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 7
5.4.1 Stripping Depth ................................................................................................................................... 7
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 I
Page 2 of 88
5.4.2 Temporary Excavations ...................................................................................................................... 7
5.4.3 Permanent Slopes............................................................................................................................... 7
5.5 Buried Pipeline Design (Bi-Linear Soil Springs) ........................................................................................ 8
5.6 Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Crossing .............................................................................................. 9
5.6.1 Inferred Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................... 10
5.6.2 Hydraulic Fracturing / Drilling Fluid Pressures .................................................................................. 10
5.6.3 Entry and Exit Points ......................................................................................................................... 11
T
5.6.4 Geotechnical Inspection and Testing ................................................................................................ 11
6.0 CLOSURE............................................................................................................................................................ 12
TABLES
AF
Table 1: Summary of Silty Clay at Kobes #3 ................................................................................................................... 4
Table 3: Selected Parameters from Detailed Salinity Analyses....................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Geotechnical Soil Parameters for Kobes #3 - Pipe Stress Analysis – Not To Be Used For Foundation
Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
R
Table 5: Linear Summary Table ...................................................................................................................................... 9
D
FIGURES
Figure 1: Key Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Important Information and Limitations of this Report
APPENDIX B
Record of Hand Auger Sheet Record of Borehole Sheet
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
APPENDIX D
Terrain Analysis
APPENDIX E
Geophysical Investigation
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 II
Page 3 of 88
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Westcoast Energy Inc. carrying on business as Spectra Energy
Transmission (Westcoast) to conduct a geotechnical investigation and to provide comments and recommendations
for Westcoast’s Kobes #3 LFERW Replacement Project (Kobes #3) which is a section of existing pipeline proposed
to be replaced by trenchless methods.
Golder’s scope of work is based on the Scope of Work outlined in Golder proposal dated 27 September, 2017
(Golder proposal No. P1788373). The work was authorized under service contract PO number 9550038893.
This report summarizes the methodology used and provides geotechnical comments and recommendations with
respect to soil stratigraphic conditions, engineering properties along the proposed route as input for design and
construction of the pipeline and facilities. Where comments are made on the general site conditions and
construction, they are provided to highlight aspects that could affect the design of the project. Those requiring
information on geotechnical aspects of the site beyond the scope of this report must make their own interpretation
T
of the subsurface information, particularly as it affects their proposed construction methods, costs, equipment
selection, scheduling and the like.
Use of this report is subject to conditions outlined in the “Important Information and Limitations of this Report”
AF
section which follows the main text and forms an integral part of this document.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Site is located approximately 81 km northwest of Fort St. John, BC and is 3.4 km north of the
Halfway River and 5.3 km south of the Cameron River. It is dissected by a tributary to Chief’s Cabin Creek, a
tributary of the Halfway River. The site location is shown on Figure 1.
R
The proposed pipeline will consist of approximately 885 m of 323.9 mm diameter pipeline. The pipeline will be
installed using trenchless techniques.
D
Based on the available terrain maps, glaciolacustrine (comprising silty clay) are observed on the eastern portion
of the Site and glaciofluvial (comprising sandy silt) deposits on the western portion of the Site.
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 Terrain Analysis Summary
Golder completed detailed terrain mapping and analysis along the proposed Kobes #3. The terrain analysis
incorporated data from publicly available surficial geology, bedrock geology and soils data for the Project area
followed by detailed terrain mapping at scales ranging from approximately 1:2,000 to 1:500 using stereo black and
white imagery captured in 1997. Data from three boreholes has also been incorporated into the mapping; two of
the boreholes have been established on either side of the tributary stream to Chief’s Cabin Creek.
A total of 23 terrain units have been delineated, ranging in size from 0.5 ha (small till ridge) to 41.3 ha, a large
upland area. The mean polygon size is 7.2 ha.
A detailed description of the methodology, the results of the study, and a list of the terrains units are presented in
Appendix D along with the terrain maps.
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 1
Page 4 of 88
3.2 Geophysical Investigation Summary

A geophysical investigation field program was commenced on November 7, and finished on November 9, 2017.
During the geophysical investigation, Golder has conducted:
 Electrical resistivity tomography and seismic refraction surveys between Stations 7+280 and 7+775 along
the existing right-of-way (ROW) to provide subsurface details such as soil stratigraphy, relative competency
of bedrock and discontinuities; and,
 A Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey between Stations 7+280, and Stations 7+775 and 8+075 to
provide Westcoast with a contiguous profile of organic soil depths for buoyancy control design along with a
limited number of discrete hand auger locations.
T
A detailed description of the methodology, the results and interpretation of the geophysical investigation are
presented in Appendix E.
3.3 AF
Geotechnical Investigation Scope of Work
The scope of work included advancing three boreholes and eight hand auger holes for the proposed trenchless
pipe installation. The geotechnical investigation commenced on 7 November, 2017, and was finished on
15November, 2017. All the approximate borehole locations were surveyed and selected by Westcoast
representative on site.
R
The scope of work as outlined in the above referenced proposal included the following:
 Review of existing information (e.g. geotechnical feasibility report, surficial geology, bedrock geology, soil
maps, and other pertinent geotechnical related data and reports);
D
 A site reconnaissance;
 A geotechnical drilling investigation to assess the near surface soil and groundwater conditions, and conduct
rock coring investigation if bedrock is encountered;
 Geotechnical laboratory index testing; and
 Preparation of this geotechnical report detailing the factual results of the investigation together with our
geotechnical comments and recommendations regarding the feasibility of the proposed pipeline replacement.
3.3.1 Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locate

In advance of commencing the geotechnical investigation, a site reconnaissance was conducted by Golder and
Westcoast representatives on November 6, 2017. Both Golder and Westcoast retained subcontractors to complete
a BC One Call and onsite sweeps. These were carried out in conjunction with our site reconnaissance.
3.3.2 Drilling Investigation

Three boreholes were drilled (designated AH17-01 to AH17-03); two on the west side of the creek, and one on the
east side of the creek as shown on Figure 2. Gregg’s Drilling and Testing Canada Ltd (Gregg) of Prince George,
BC were subcontracted to Golder to advance the boreholes using their owned and operated track mounted Fraste
MDXL drill rig capable of both solid and hollow stem auger drilling as well as rock coring methods.
20 December 2017
Page 5 of 88
The boreholes were advanced in soil using solid stem augers. In soil, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were
conducted at regular depth intervals at each borehole location (approximately every 1.5 meters). Then, upon
encountering weathered bedrock, HQ rock coring method was used to advance the borehole and additional
15 meters into bedrock. Upon completion, all boreholes were backfilled with a cement-bentonite grout mix in
accordance with the requirements of the BC Groundwater Protection Regulation.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at each borehole location, are presented in
the Record of Borehole Sheets in Appendix B.
Drilling operations were monitored and observed by a member of Golder’s geotechnical staff, who logged the
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at each borehole location and collected samples for visual
T
classification and laboratory testing. All soil and rock core samples were transported to Golder’s Geotechnical
Laboratory for further examination, classification and testing.
3.3.3 Hand Auger Investigation

AF
A total of eight hand auger holes were advanced by Golder at pre-determined locations along the proposed pipeline
alignment. The results of the auger summary are presented in the Record of Borehole Sheets in Appendix B, and
the Geophysical Investigation in Appendix E Laboratory Testing.
Upon completion of the geotechnical investigation, soil samples and rock core samples were transported to
Golder’s geotechnical laboratory for further examination, classification and testing. The following laboratory tests
R
are in the process of being carried out as part of the laboratory test program:
 Natural water content determinations
 Particle size analyses (hydrometer analysis)

D
 Atterberg Limits
 Analytical tests for evaluation of soil corrosivity
 Uniaxial compressive strength tests on bedrock samples
The above tests are being carried out in accordance with their respective ASTM standards. At the time of preparing
this preliminary report, the only completed tests are the natural water content tests and analytical tests for soil
corrosivity and these are included in Appendix C. The complete laboratory test results will be included in the final
report.
4.0 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

The soil and rock descriptions provided in this report are based on accepted standard methods of classification
and identification routinely used in current geotechnical state of practice and are defined in the Method of Soil
Classification and Terms and Terminology and Classification System for Borehole Descriptions and Logs included
in Appendix B. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in each of the boreholes are
presented on the Record of Borehole Sheets shown in Appendix B. The stratigraphic boundaries shown on the
Record of Borehole Sheets are inferred from noncontinuous sampling, drilling observations, and the coring results.
These boundaries represent transitions between soil and rock types rather than exact planes of geological change.
20 December 2017
Page 6 of 88
The following section describes the stratigraphic units encountered along the proposed pipeline alignment.
4.1 Encountered Subsurface Conditions

4.1.1 Organic Topsoil
Organic topsoil was encountered at ground surface at all borehole and hand auger locations, with the exception
of hand auger location HA17-03 and HA17-04. For the purpose of this report, organic soil thickness is treated as
organic material between ground surface and the top of mineral soil. This report makes no distinction between
subsoil salvaged for land reclamation purposes and the underlying mineral soil.
The encountered topsoil generally consists of brown organic silt, ranging in thickness of up to 0.15 m.
T
4.1.2 Glaciofluvial Sandy Silt
Fine grained non-cohesive sandy silt was encountered at all borehole locations. The encountered sandy silt is
generally described as brown, loose, moist sandy silt with trace gravel ranging in thickness of up to 1.2 meters.
4.1.3
AF
The encountered sandy silt was partially frozen at borehole location AH17-03.
Glaciolacustrine Silty Clay

The predominant mineral soil that was encountered during the geotechnical investigation is lacustrine silty clay
with varying portions of sand and gravel. This silty clay was encountered at all borehole. Based on visual
observations, the silty clay are described as containing some sand, generally brown transitioning to grey at depth,
R
moist, medium plasticity. In general, the relative consistency of this silty clay is described as stiff to very stiff, with
measured SPT N-values ranging from 12 blows/300 mm of penetration to 28 blows/300 mm of penetration. Details
of the encountered silty clay are presented in Table 1.
D
Table 1: Summary of Silty Clay at Kobes #3

Borehole No. Depth Encountered (m) SPT N-Value
AH17-01 1.2 to 4.0 17 to 19
AH17-02 0.6 to 4.3 12 to 28
AH17-03 0.5 to 5.5 13 to 25
4.1.4 Weathered Bedrock

Underlying the silty clay deposits, bedrock comprising mudrocks was encountered at all borehole locations. For
confirmatory purposes, the solid stem auger drilling method continued for additional 3.0 to 3.7 meters into the
bedrock before switching to HQ rock coring methods. Uncorrected SPT blow counts, or N-values, ranged from 43
blows for 0.3 m penetration to 50 blows for 0.08 m penetration (refusal).
All borehole locations were terminated within the mudrocks at approximately 20 meters below existing ground
surface. The obtained rock cores were transported to our laboratory storage at the end of each shift.
Rock core testing results will be included in our final report.
20 December 2017
Page 7 of 88
4.2 Groundwater Conditions

Seepage was encountered during the geotechnical drilling investigation at borehole locations AH17-01 and
AH17-02 at depth approximately 6.1 meters below ground surface. This is interpreted as a perched water table
that developed at the fined grained silty clay – bedrock interface.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

5.1 Geotechnical Parameters
5.1.1 Geotechnical Parameters
T
Based on the results of the geotechnical drilling investigation, the general stratigraphy encountered at the Site is
as follows:



Topsoil; overlying;
Sandy Silt; overlying;
Silty Clay; and

AF
 Bedrock.
R
The underlying bedrock generally comprises weathered mudstone. Recommended ultimate shear strength for the
weathered mudstone is 1 MPa.
5.1.2 Frost Penetration Depth

D
Based on Environment Canada climate data the anticipated frost penetration depth is 2.2 m; consequently, it is
recommended that the pipeline be provided a minimum 2.2 m soil cover.
Frost penetration depths may vary based on soil type, snow cover, and temperatures.
5.2 Seismic Parameters

5.2.1 Seismic Design Values
The National Building Code of Canada 2015 (NBCC 2015) contains updated seismic analysis and design
methodology. Seismic hazard is defined by uniform hazard spectra (UHS) at spectral coordinates of 0.2 seconds,
0.5 seconds, 1.0 seconds and 2.0 seconds and a probability of exceedance of 2 percent in 50 years. Using the
seismic hazard classification calculator, the resulting values for the Kobes 3 Site are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Seismic Parameters Based on 2015 NBCC
Geological Survey of Canada: Seismic Hazard Design Values
Site
PGA Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) F(0.2) F(0.5) F(1.0) F(2.0)
Class
0.081 g 0.160 g 0.107 g 0.061 g 0.030 g C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
20 December 2017
Page 8 of 88
5.2.2 Site Class

The NBCC 2015 method uses a site classification system defined by the average soil/bedrock properties
(e.g., shear wave velocity, SPT resistance, undrained soil shear strength, etc.) in the upper 30 metres below the
ground surface. There are 6 site classes from A to F, decreasing in ground stiffness from A, hard rock, to E, soft
soil; with Site Class F used to denote problematic soils (e.g., sites underlain by thick peat deposits and/or
liquefiable soils). The site class is then used to obtain acceleration and velocity-based site coefficients Fa and Fv,
respectively, used to modify the UHS to account for the effects of site-specific soil conditions in design.
Based on the NBCC 2015 and a review of actual subsurface conditions encountered at the Site, a seismic site
response designation of Site Class C is recommended for the site. The Site Class C is based on the SPT ‘N’
values and undrained shear strength of the soils encountered in the boreholes. It should be noted that boreholes
T
were not drilled to depths of 30 m; however, it is expected that consideration in selecting the seismic site
classification will be primarily dominated by the stiff to very stiff silty clay to weathered bedrock encountered at the
site.
5.3
5.3.1
AF
Soil Aggressiveness to Concrete and Steel
Salinity Results
Detailed salinity analyses were conducted on three samples obtained during the geotechnical drilling investigation.
R
Selected results of the detailed salinity analyses are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Selected Parameters from Detailed Salinity Analyses
Parameter AH17-01 AH17-02 AH17-03
D
Sample Number 2 1 2
Depth (m) 1.52 to 1.98 0.61 to 0.91 1.52 to 1.98
pH (Calcium Chloride
7.4 6.2 5.2
extraction)
Soluble Sulphates
0.00159 0.00061 0.00139
(%)
Electrical Conductivity
0.31 0.14 0.24
(dS/m)
Electrical Resistivity
3200 7100 4150
(Ohm-cm)
5.3.2 Assessment of Aggressiveness to Concrete and Steel

The results presented in Table 3 show the soluble-sulphate content ranged from 0.00061 to 0.00159 percent,
indicate the tested soils are in general, not aggressive towards concrete.
In addition, the test results indicate that there is a moderate corrosion potential towards steel elements in contact
with the ground. Consideration may be given to increasing the thickness of steel elements in contact with the
ground to act as sacrificial steel, corrosion resistant coatings, or cathodic protection to minimize steel corrosion.
The test data should be reviewed by the steel manufacturer, supplier/installer and designer to provide suitable
recommendations for corrosion protection, if required.
20 December 2017
Page 9 of 88
5.4 Construction Considerations

5.4.1 Stripping Depth
The existing organic materials should be completely stripped over the entire footprint of proposed pipeline
alignment and proof-rolled. Based on the drilling investigation, surficial topsoil thicknesses or stripping depths are
anticipated to be up to 0.15 m below existing ground surface.
Native silty clay proposed for re-use as fill should be stockpiled separately from the organic topsoil, and should be
protected from freezing and/or wetting.
5.4.2 Temporary Excavations
T
All temporary and permanent excavations, including trenches, must be carried out in accordance with the British
Columbia Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OHSR). Specifically, Part 20 of the OHSR deals with
construction, excavation and demolition.
AF
Control of groundwater seepage (if encountered) is expected to be managed by pumping from properly
constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. Care should be taken to direct surface water away
from the open excavations. The easterly section of the site is expected to have higher ground water and will have
sections where it will remain near the ground surface through the year.
Based on the results of the investigation, it is anticipated that temporary excavation open cut slopes as steep as
R
1.5 Horizontal: 1 Vertical (1.5H: 1V) may be utilized when personnel or equipment are to enter. Flatter side slopes
will likely be required over the portion of side slopes where seepage enters the excavation or areas of deeper
sandy silt. Steeper temporary slopes may be feasible, subject to detailed inspection and confirmation by
experienced geotechnical personnel. Shallower side slopes may be required if the excavations indicate the
D
presence of fissures. Stockpiling or storage of excavated spoils, construction materials or heavy equipment shall
not be permitted within 2 m of the crest of excavation slopes to prevent overloading of the crest.
5.4.3 Permanent Slopes

Permanent slopes should be cut no steeper than 2H: 1V and similarly, permanent embankment slopes should be
no steeper than 2.5H: 1V, and road embankment fills for support of heavy traffic loads should be no steeper than
3H: 1V. These recommendations are provided on the assumption that fills are compacted to a minimum 98 percent
of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).
It is recommended that suitable re-vegetation or other erosion protection measures be installed as soon as
possible to minimize the risk of excessive softening or erosion of the exposed slopes.
Ditches should be provided with side slopes no steeper than 2.5H: 1V.
Within the weathered bedrock, permanent cut slopes should be no steeper than 1.25H: 1V. As the properties and
particularly the weathering state of the bedrock may vary across the site, it is recommended that a qualified
geotechnical engineer review the exposed rock should slopes steeper than 1.25H: 1V be required or considered.
20 December 2017
Page 10 of 88
5.5 Buried Pipeline Design (Bi-Linear Soil Springs)

This section provides general recommendations for pipeline design for typical overland sections which are to be
used in conjunction with the Guidelines for the Design of Buried Steel Pipe (American Lifelines Alliance, 2005).
It is assumed that the following design philosophy will be adopted for analyses of pipe stress using soil springs:
 When analyzing loading cases for changes in temperature and pressure, it is assumed that the loading rate
is considered sufficiently quick for cohesive soils such that the undrained shear strength is a suitable
parameter to estimate the resistance of the soil. In these cases the peak effective friction angle would be
zero. For other loading cases the use of undrained shear strength may not be considered suitable and should
be discussed with the geotechnical engineer.
T
 All granular soils should be modelled as frictional material using the peak effective friction angle with no
cohesion.

AF
If the pipe traverses through poorly drained areas it is recommended that a submerged unit weight be used.
Otherwise it is recommended that the bulk unit weight be used.
If modelling identifies areas of high stress or displacement the stress engineer and the geotechnical engineer
should discuss the details of those bends to ensure that the geotechnical soil parameters being used are
considered suitable.

R
The geotechnical soil parameters are provided as a range of values so that the stress analyses could
investigate what would be the worst case (i.e. lower friction angle may not necessarily be the ‘worst’ case).
It is the responsibility of the stress engineers to satisfy themselves that the geotechnical soil parameters used
from the table below produce a reasonable worst case.
D
 Engineering judgment is required when using these geotechnical parameters and continued discussion
between the stress engineer and the geotechnical engineer is highly recommended.
The geotechnical soil parameters for use with bi-linear soil springs are provided in Table 4. These soil parameters
should be used in conjunction with Table 5 which contains the start and stop of each of the terrain units by kilometer
post. The parameters provide in Table 4 are for pipe stress calculation purposes only and should not be used for
foundation design.
20 December 2017
Page 11 of 88
Table 4: Geotechnical Soil Parameters for Kobes #3 - Pipe Stress Analysis – Not To Be Used For
Foundation Design
UNDISTURBED SOIL / Trench Bottom
Peak
Undrained
Bulk Unit Submerged Effective Effective
Shear
Landform Soil Type Weight Unit Weight Friction Cohesion
Strength
[kN/m³] [kN/m³] Angle [kPa]
[kPa]
[º]
Glaciofluvial Deposit Sandy Silt 18 to 19 8 to 9 0 28 to 32 0
Glaciolacustrine Deposit Soft to Very Stiff Silty Clay 18 to 20 8 to 10 100 to 260 26 to 28 0 to 5
Organics Peat 10 to 12 0 to 2 0 to 5 20 to 35 0
T
DISTURBED SOIL / Fresh Trench Backfill
Fluvial/Glaciofluvial
Loose Gravel/Silty Sand 17 to 18 7 to 8 0 26 to 30 0
Deposit
Glaciolacustrine Deposit
Organics
AF
Soft to Stiff Silty Clay
Peat
Table 5 below presents a linear summary for the Kobes #3 Site.

18 to 19
10 to 12
8 to 9
0 to 2
20 to 60
0 to 5
25 to 27
20 to 35
0
0
Table 5: Linear Summary Table

R
Route From_KP To_KP GolderLabelFull Length
Kobes #3 7+192 7+475 szFGvb[zcLGt]~m-w,1-3~I 283.19
Kobes #3 7+475 7+554 LGj-V~m-i,3-9~II 78.10
D
Kobes #3 7+554 7+680 szLGv[zcMj]~w,10-18~II 126.26

Kobes #3 7+680 7+753 LGvb[Mpj]~w,2-5~I 73.24
Kobes #3 7+753 7+842 LGvb[Mj]~m-i,3-6~I 88.92
Kobes #3 7+842 7+906 LGvb[Mpj]~w,2-5~I 64.12
Kobes #3 7+906 7+966 LGvb[Mj]-L~i,2-4~I 59.78
Kobes #3 7+966 7+998 LGvb[Mpj]~w,2-5~I 32.11
Kobes #3 7+998 8+024 LGvb[Mj]-L~i//p,2-5~I 25.93
Kobes #3 8+024 8+160 LGvb[Mpj]~w,2-5~I 136.06
5.6 Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Crossing

This section of the report provides engineering discussion and recommendations for the geotechnical design
aspects of the proposed Horizontal Direction Drill (HDD) crossing. The information in this portion of the report is
provided for planning and design purposes for the guidance of the design engineers. Where comments are made
on construction, they are provided only in order to highlight aspects of construction which could affect the design
of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the
investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own
interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, equipment
capabilities, costs, sequencing and the like.
20 December 2017
Page 12 of 88
5.6.1 Inferred Subsurface Conditions

In general, the subsoil conditions are considered suitable for HDD installation methods although there will be
challenges to be overcome through proper equipment selection and fluid pressures.
The stiff to very stiff clays at this site will generally be readily penetrated during directional drilling; however, are
susceptible to hydraulic fracturing with increased fluid pressures.
The presence of medium plastic clays can be problematic. Medium plastic clays have a tendency to swell when
exposed to moisture (i.e. drill fluid) which could cause problems during the bore reaming or installing the pipe.
Swelling or expanding clays are not represented in the logs and the assessment of plasticity is still underway
(awaiting Atterberg test results); however, the HDD contractor should be aware of the possibility for expanding
T
and swelling clays.
Bedrock was encountered at all augerhole locations at elevations ranging from approximately 699 to 704 meters
AF
above sea level (approximately 4.0 to 5.5 meters below ground surface). Based on field observation only, the
bedrock consisted of weathered mudrocks. Based on field observation, the drilling fluid had almost 100% return
rate during coring. The laboratory testing results for the bedrock are currently underway and will be reported in the
final version.
5.6.2 Hydraulic Fracturing / Drilling Fluid Pressures

The potential for hydraulic fracturing (fracout) to occur during directional drilling is influenced by several factors,
R
including the depth of cover below ground surface, the ground conditions (including fractured or high permeability
materials), the hydrostatic head acting in the drill hole and the dynamic drilling fluid pressures that occur during
the drilling process. The HDD contractor and/or designer should complete a hydraulic fracture analysis before
D
finalizing the drill path. This evaluation should incorporate the specific equipment, materials, drill path geometry
and drill plan that will be used. Deeper burial depths, shorter bore lengths or a combination of these modifications
may be considered to reduce frac-out potential.
To minimize frac-outs, a clean, engineered HDD bore should be constructed in accordance with good industry
practice. This includes monitoring of variables including, but not limited to, drilling fluid pressures, fluid and solids
return rates and advance rates. Advancing the pilot bore drill bit with insufficient drilling fluid flow rates or unsuitable
properties, for example, may lead to insufficient cuttings removal and increased downhole drilling fluid pressures.
Selection and monitoring of these parameters, including design of the drilling fluid (with additives if needed), is the
responsibility of the HDD contractor. It is recommended that the HDD contractor utilize downhole measurement
devices to monitor drilling fluid pressures during pilot drilling. It is understood that the details of the HDD crossing
plan such as work space requirements, pipe layout, pilot bore tracking details, pipe stress analysis, frac analysis,
and excavations are being completed by others, and therefore are not discussed in this report.
The drilling fluid pressures that will develop within the drill hole must not be allowed to exceed the static confining
stresses in soil encountered below the river. Once initiated, hydraulic fractures occurring in soil will lead to fluid
loss and may continue to spread vertically causing fluid movement towards the surface (frac-out). Therefore, the
mud pressure in the drill hole should be carefully monitored and controlled while drilling.
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 10
Page 13 of 88
Drilling fluid and cutting return to the rig should be monitored as well as visually inspecting the condition of the
ground surface for fluid release. In addition, a drilling fluid management plan assessing the properties of the drilling
mud should be implemented to control loss of drilling fluid into higher permeable zones. A properly designed drill
plan that minimizes excessive drilling pressure and stationary circulation within high permeable zones is also
recommended to prevent scoured zones with an increased borehole annulus. The potential for formation of mud
rings, poor cutting clearance and difficulty pulling the pipe should be monitored during the drilling process to ensure
a clean, well-engineered bore is maintained. If reduced cutting returns or pressure spikes are recorded at the rig
occur, then drilling should be stopped and mitigative measures considered and incorporated.
Environmental monitoring of the crossing location should be carried out during construction. In addition,
contingency plans for drilling fluid containment should be implemented in the event of unexpected fluid release to
T
the ground surface or water body. Maintaining the minimum recommended depths of cover below the crossing
should reduce the possibility of fluid release by confining the drill path within more consolidated materials due to
the confining stress of the overlying soil.
5.6.3 AF
Entry and Exit Points
It is anticipated that the HDD entry and exit points will be at the existing ground surface. It is anticipated that
shallow excavations will be constructed at the HDD entry and exit points to assist with drilling fluid management.
Temporary excavations will be required following completion of the HDD installation to connect the pipe with the
adjacent trenched sections of pipeline.
R
Temporary excavations at this site (assumed to be less than 4 m below ground surface) are anticipated to be
advanced within the stiff to very stiff silty clay.
If the location of the entry or exit points is within close proximity to existing facilities, care will be required to ensure
D
that adequate support is provided for all existing utilities and portions of roadways which are located in the zone
of influence of the excavation, as defined by a line drawn from the base of the excavation upward at an inclination
of 1H: 1V. If required, properly designed temporary support systems could be used to limit the extent of the
excavations and reduce potential impacts on adjacent roadways or services.
5.6.4 Geotechnical Inspection and Testing

A program of geotechnical inspection and monitoring should be implemented during construction of the crossing,
as discussed above, to ensure that the intent of the design recommendations provided is being met and that the
various project criteria are being achieved; and this should be reviewed prior to the start of construction.
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 11
Page 14 of 88
6.0 CLOSURE
As design progresses based on the recommendations provided in this report, it is recommended that there be
ongoing interaction between Golder and the engineering designers to confirm that the geotechnical
recommendations and assumptions contained in this report are maintained and used as intended.
We trust that the information presented in this report meets your present requirements. Please contact the
undersigned if there are any questions or concerns.
Yours truly,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
T
Andy Wang, EIT
Geotechnical Engineer
AF Mark Nixon, MSc, PEng (AB)
Associate, Geotechnical Engineer
AW/JP/MN/le
R
Jo-anne Perrett, Peng
Associate, Geotechnical Engineering Group Leader
D
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/19096g/deliverables/3.0 issued/1788373-003-r-reva/1788373-003-r -reva-westcoast kobes #3 lferw replacement project 20dec_17.docx
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 12
Page 15 of 88
Fort Nelson
Site
Stewart
Fort St John
Prince Rupert
Prince George
Kamloops
Nelson 94A/12
94A /12
Vancouver
KEY PLAN
Not to Scale Victoria
T
AF ~ 23 km TO
WONOWON
PROJECT
LOCATION
R
Path: \\golder.gds\gal\Fort St John\CAD-GIS\Westcoast Kobes\99_PROJECTS\1788373_Geotech\02_PRODUCTION\1788373_1000\DWG\ | File Name: 1788373_1000_01 - Key Plan.dwg
A D
R HALFWAY RO
D
UPPE
IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI A
DRAFT 0 1,000 2,000
1:50,000 METRES
LEGEND REFERENCE
BASE MAPPING FROM CANMATRIX 1: 50000 NTS - 94A/12
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION CANVEC DATA OBTAINED FROM GEOGRATIS, CENTRE FOR TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
(NRCAN, ESS) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CANADA.
DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10
CLIENT PROJECT
WESTCOAST KOBES #3 LFERW REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PEACE RIVER, BC
25 mm
CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2017-12-13 TITLE
PREPARED RTJ
KEY PLAN
DESIGN AW
REVIEW MN
PROJECT No. PHASE Rev. FIGURE
APPROVED - 1788373 1000 A 1
0
Page 16 of 88
Last Edited By: ryjames Date: 2017-12-18 Time:1:43:17 PM | Printed By: RYJames Date: 2017-12-18 Time:1:43:52 PM
Path: \\golder.gds\gal\Fort St John\CAD-GIS\Westcoast Kobes\99_PROJECTS\1788373_Geotech\02_PRODUCTION\1788373_1000\DWG\ | File Name: 1788373_1000_02 - Site Plan.dwg
565500 565750 566000 566250
T
6265750
6265750
AF
HA17-05 HA17-06 HA17-07 HA17-08
HA17-04
HA17-03
AH17-03
AH17-02
IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI A
AH17-01
R
HA17-01 HA17-02
D
6265500
6265500
0 100 200
DRAFT 1:4,000 METRES

© 2017
Image ©
Image 2017 DigitalGlobe
DigitalGlobe
565500 565750 565000 566250

LEGEND CLIENT PROJECT
AUGERHOLE LOCATION WESTCOAST KOBES #3 LFERW REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PEACE RIVER, BC
25 mm
HAND AUGER LOCATION
CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2017-12-18 TITLE

REFERENCE(S) AUGERHOLE AND HAND AUGER LOCATION PLAN
BACKGROUND IMAGE SUPPLIED BY AND SOURCED UNDER LICENSE FROM DESIGNED AW
GOOGLE EARTH PRO. ON DECEMBER 4, 2017 IMAGE DATE: JULY 11, 2014
PREPARED RTJ
IMAGE GEOREFERENCED BY GOLDER AND INTENDED FOR INDICATIVE
PURPOSES ONLY REVIEWED -
PROJECT NO. PHASE REV. FIGURE
DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10
APPROVED - 1788373 1000 A 2
0
Page 17 of 88
T
APPENDIX A
AF
Important Information and Limitations of this Report
R
D
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 15
Page 18 of 88
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS

OF THIS REPORT
Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the
engineering and science professions currently practising under similar conditions in the
jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical
constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.
Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design
objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data,
interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this
report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any change of site
conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen
months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder can not be
responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review
and, if necessary, revise the report.
T
The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole
AF
benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof
without Golder’s express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a
specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of the client, Golder
may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved
User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any
other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder.
R
The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media
prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the
copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to
D
make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the
use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend,
sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party
without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that
electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and
incompatibility and therefore the Client can not rely upon the electronic media versions
of Golder’s report or other work products.
The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to
the instructions given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the
Client, and to any other reports prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific
site described in the report. In order to properly understand the suggestions,
recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the
whole of the report. Golder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report
without reference to the entire report.
Golder Associates
Page 19 of 88

OF THIS REPORT (cont’d)
Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this
report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific
project. The extent and detail of investigations, including the number of test holes,
necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs
would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors
bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as
their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface
conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed construction
techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.
Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils,

rocks, and geologic units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in
the practice of geotechnical engineering and related disciplines. Classification and
identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves judgment, and
T
boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional
rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of
the descriptions.
AF
Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify
subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing
program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental,
geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets
R
to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In
addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be
present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The professional services
D
retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface
conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the
report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface
contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from
the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of
reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.
Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are
the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless
otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report.
Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be
affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil,
rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic,
excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on
adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or
frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during
construction.
Golder Associates
Page 20 of 88

OF THIS REPORT (cont’d)
Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90
days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store
uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client’s expense. In the event that actual
contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all
contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for
proper disposal.
Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the
time of submission of Golder’s report. Golder should be retained to review the final
design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are
consistent with the intent of Golder’s report.
During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely

observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface
T
conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the
preparation of Golder’s report and to confirm and document that construction activities
AF
do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in
Golder’s report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are
necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the
requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not
followed, Golder’s responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information
encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or
R
measurement during the preparation of the Report.
Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ
D
significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of
subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder
be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the
recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions
requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with
sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly.
Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent

installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering
can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage
unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the
system.
Golder Associates
Page 21 of 88
T
APPENDIX B
AF
Record of Hand Auger Sheet
Record of Borehole Sheet
R
D
20 December 2017
Report No. 1788373 16
Page 22 of 88
PROJECT No.: 1788373 / 1000 RECORD OF HAND AUGER: HA17-01 SHEET 1 OF 1
CLIENT: Westcoast DATUM: NAD 83
PROJECT: Kobes #3 LFERW Replacement Project DRILLING DATE: November 7-9, 2017
LOCATION: Peace River, BC
N: ~6265611 E: ~565418
Note: Northing and Easting Coordinates have been determined by
GPS in the field and are approximate only.
DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, PIEZOMETER,
DRILLING METHOD
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES

RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m k, cm/s
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. Q- WATER CONTENT PERCENT INSTALLATION
DESCRIPTION W
DEPTH Cu, kPa rem V. U- Wp Wl
(m) Pocket Pen - NP - Non-Plastic
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
ORGANICS. 0.00
0.05
(ML) CLAYEY SILT; brown; stiff.
- frozen up to 0.2m depth
180
Hand Augering
Auger
150
1.32
T
End of Hand Auger.
AF
2
R
D
3
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:BC_BOREHOLE (AUTO) RYJames 15/12/17
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: GACS

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: AW
1 : 25 CHECKED: RJ DRAFT
Page 23 of 88
N: ~6265613 E: ~565453
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
ORGANICS. 0.00
(CL) SILTY CLAY, contains organics 0.15

up to 0.4m; grey-brown; stiff.
Hand Augering
Auger
135
135
1.24
End of Hand Auger.
T
AF
2
R
D
3

Page 24 of 88
N: ~6265703 E: ~566055
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
(ML) CLAYEY SILT; light brown; stiff. 0.00
(CL) SILTY CLAY; dark brown to grey; 0.76

very stiff.
Hand Augering
1 180
Auger
T
- sand lense and pebble at 1.4m
depth
AF
2
260
2.08
End of Hand Auger.
R
D
3

Page 25 of 88
N: ~6265711 E: ~566109
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
(ML) CLAYEY SILT; stiff. 0.00
Hand Augering
Auger
(CL) SILTY CLAY; grey; stiff. 0.76
1.09
End of Hand Auger.
T
AF
2
R
D
3

Page 26 of 88
N: ~6265719 E: ~566154
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
ORGANICS. 0.00
(CL) SILTY CLAY; brown; stiff. 0.10

Hand Augering
- sand lens from 0.55 to 0.61m depth

Auger
240
1.27
End of Hand Auger.
T
AF
2
R
D
3

Page 27 of 88
N: ~6265723 E: ~566201
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
ORGANICS. 0.02
(ML) CLAYEY SILT; brown; stiff.
(CL) SILTY CLAY; brown; stiff. 0.30

Hand Augering
Auger
150
1.22
End of Hand Auger.
T
AF
2
R
D
3

Page 28 of 88
N: ~6265721 E: ~566245
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
ORGANICS. 0.00
(ML) CLAYEY SILT; brown; stiff. 0.10

Hand Augering
Auger
(CL) SILTY CLAY; brown; very stiff. 0.74
160
1
- sand lense at 1.0m depth.
1.07
End of Hand Auger.
T
AF
2
R
D
3

Page 29 of 88
N: ~6265721 E: ~566292
DRILLING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
-6 -5 -4 -3
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80 10 10 10 10
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
DESCRIPTION W
20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40
0
Ground Surface
ORGANICS. 0.00
(CL) SILTY CLAY; brown; cohesive, 0.10

very stiff.
170
Hand Augering
Auger
T
210
1.68
End of Hand Auger.
AF
2
R
D
3

Page 30 of 88
PROJECT No.: 1788373 / 1000 RECORD OF AUGERHOLE: AH17-01 SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT: Kobes #3 LFERW Replacement Project DRILLING DATE: November 7, 2017
N: ~6265623 E: ~565552
GPS in the field and are approximate only. INCLINATION: -90°
WATER CONTENT PERCENT GRADATION % PIEZOMETER,
ORGANIC CONTENT %
DRILLING METHOD
PLASTICITY INDEX %
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES CLAY PARTICLE SIZE <= 0.002
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
Wp Wl
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
NP - Non-Plastic
BLOWS/0.3m
10 20 30 40
GRAVEL
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
FINES
SAND
CLAY
ELEV.
TYPE
SILT
DESCRIPTION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. Q- INSTALLATION
DEPTH Cu, kPa rem V. U-
(m) Pocket Pen -
20 40 60 80
0
Ground Surface
TOPSOIL.
0.08
(ML) SANDY SILT, trace gravel;
brown; w~=PL, firm to stiff.
1 AS
(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, trace 1.22

gravel; brown to grey; w~=PL, very
stiff.
2 SS 28 19
T
3
3 SS 67 17
Track Mounted Auger Drill
Solid Stem Auger
AF
4 Inferred BEDROCK. 3.96
4 AS
5 SS 78 57
5
R
D
6 SS 89 68
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:BC_BOREHOLE_GRADATION (AUTO) RYJames 15/12/17
7.62
Bedrock Encountered. Refer to
Record of Drillhole log for
8
continuation of rock description.
10

Page 31 of 88
N: ~6265650 E: ~565685
ORGANIC CONTENT %
DRILLING METHOD
PLASTICITY INDEX %
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
Wp Wl
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
NP - Non-Plastic
BLOWS/0.3m
10 20 30 40
GRAVEL
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
FINES
SAND
CLAY
ELEV.
TYPE
SILT
(m) Pocket Pen -
20 40 60 80
0
Ground Surface
TOPSOIL. 0.05
(ML) SANDY SILT, trace gravel;
brown; wet, loose.
(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand, trace 0.61

1 AS
gravel; brown; w~=PL, stiff to very stiff.
1
2 SS 22 12
Solid Stem Auger
T
3
3 SS 67 28
AF
4
Inferred BEDROCK. 4.27
4 SS 88 >90
5
R
HQ Coring
5 SS 50 >50
6 SS 0 >50
7.24
Bedrock Encountered. Refer to
10

Page 32 of 88
N: ~6265662 E: ~565788
ORGANIC CONTENT %
DRILLING METHOD
PLASTICITY INDEX %
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
LAB. TESTING
DRILLING RIG
ADDITIONAL
Wp Wl
OR
STRATA PLOT
RECOVERY %
METRES
NP - Non-Plastic
BLOWS/0.3m
10 20 30 40
GRAVEL
THERMISTOR
NUMBER
FINES
SAND
CLAY
ELEV.
TYPE
SILT
(m) Pocket Pen -
20 40 60 80
0
Ground Surface
TOPSOIL. 0.05
(ML) SANDY SILT, trace grave;
brown; partially frozen.
(CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand; brown 0.46
to grey; w~=PL, stiff to very stiff.
1 AS
2 SS 22 13
2
Solid Stem Auger
T
3
3 SS 33 14
AF
4 - oxidized below 3.96m depth
4 SS 44 25
5
R
Inferred BEDROCK. 5.49

D
5 SS 44 43
7
HQ Coring
6 SS 40 >50
7 SS 0 >50
8.81
9 Bedrock Encountered. Refer to
10

Page 33 of 88
PROJECT No.: 1788373 / 1000 RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: AH17-01 SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT: Kobes #3 LFERW Replacement Project DRILLING DATE:
N: ~6265623 E: ~565552
Shear
PIEZOMETER,
Fault / Breccia / Gouge

DRILLING METHOD
Zone
Refer to "Lithological and Geotechnical Soil and Rock
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
DRILLING RIG
Description Terminology" for accompanying legend and notes. OR
STRATA PLOT
METRES
RUN No.
Core
Lost
DESCRIPTION THERMISTOR
ELEV. INDICES RECOVERY DISCONTINUITY DATA
INSTALLATION
FRACTURE
ROCK WEATHERING
PER 0.3
INDEX
DIP w.r.t.
DEPTH DIP
Broken
TOTAL RQD
W2
W3
W4
STRENGTH DIRECT. CORE TYPE AND SURFACE
Core
CORE % % (beta) AXIS
(m) (alpha) DESCRIPTION
ALTERATION
180
270
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
90
30
60
90
2
3
0
Cont'd from Record of Augerhole.
Fresh, very fine to medium grained, 7.62
light grey, extremely weak (R0 to S5) 8
SANDSTONE; inferred slough.
8
Moderately weathered, thinly 8.07
laminated, dark brown-grey, weak (R2)
MUDROCKS; thinly laminated with
very fine grained sandstone; very weak
(R1) diametral strength.
9
9
10
10
11
T JN,SM,PL
AF
JN,SM,PL
11 JN,SM,PL
JN,SM,PL
12 JN,SM,PL
HQ-3 Coring
13
12
D
JN,SM,PL
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID: Output Form:BC_DRILLHOLE (GEOTECH W/ BETA ANGLE) RYJames 15/12/17
14
- healed, re-opened joints at

11.10 m, 11.40 m, 13.75 m and
15.40 m depth. JN,SM,PL
13
15 JN,IR,Ro
JN,IR,Ro
- discontinuous joints at 11.10 m,
11.40 m, 15.03 m and 15.40 m depth.
16
14
17
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:
1 : 50 CHECKED: DRAFT
Page 34 of 88
N: ~6265623 E: ~565552
Shear
PIEZOMETER,

DRILLING METHOD
Zone
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
DRILLING RIG
STRATA PLOT
METRES
RUN No.
Core
Lost
INSTALLATION
FRACTURE
ROCK WEATHERING
PER 0.3
INDEX
DIP w.r.t.
DEPTH DIP
Broken
TOTAL RQD
W2
W3
W4
Core
ALTERATION
180
270
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
90
30
60
90
2
3
0
Moderately weathered, thinly
MUDROCKS; thinly laminated with 15
18
very fine grained sandstone; very weak
(R1) diametral strength. (continued)
HQ-3 Coring
19
JN,SM,PL
16
20
End of Drillhole. 20.17
T
- abundant fracturing along
laminations, probably due to
stress relief and desiccation.
- core partially swells when
21
wetted.
- very dark brown layers
AF
indicate organic content.
22
R
23
D
24
25
26
27

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:
Page 35 of 88
N: ~6265650 E: ~565685
Shear
PIEZOMETER,

DRILLING METHOD
Zone
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
DRILLING RIG
STRATA PLOT
METRES
RUN No.
Core
Lost
INSTALLATION
FRACTURE
ROCK WEATHERING
PER 0.3
INDEX
DIP w.r.t.
DEPTH DIP
Broken
TOTAL RQD
W2
W3
W4
Core
ALTERATION
180
270
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
90
30
60
90
2
3
0
Moderately weathered, thinly 7.24
arenaceous MUDROCKS; thinly 7.50
laminated with very fine grained 7
sandstone; very weak (R1) diametral
strength.
8
JN,ST,Ro 8.08
JN,ST,VR
13.64 m and 13.65 m depth.
8
9
9.04
9.60
9.68
10
T
JN,IR,Ro
9
AF
11
JN,IR,Ro
10
12
HQ-3 Coring
13
D
11
- healed joint at 13.64 m and JN,PL,SM

JN,PL,Ro
14.74 m depth, re-opened.
14
- healed joint network, various dips JN,PL,SM

from 14.65 m to 14.90 m depth.
12
15
16
13
17
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:
Page 36 of 88
N: ~6265650 E: ~565685
Shear
PIEZOMETER,

DRILLING METHOD
Zone
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
DRILLING RIG
STRATA PLOT
METRES
RUN No.
Core
Lost
INSTALLATION
FRACTURE
ROCK WEATHERING
PER 0.3
INDEX
DIP w.r.t.
DEPTH DIP
Broken
TOTAL RQD
W2
W3
W4
Core
ALTERATION
180
270
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
90
30
60
90
2
3
0
arenaceous MUDROCKS; thinly
laminated with very fine grained
strength. (continued)
18 14
HQ-3 Coring
19
JN,PL,Ro
15
20
T
- healed joint, 10° to core axis at
20.10 m depth. 20.24
End of Drillhole.
stress relief and desiccation.
AF
21 wetted.
22
R
23
D
24
25
26
27

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:
Page 37 of 88
N: ~6265662 E: ~565788
Shear
PIEZOMETER,

DRILLING METHOD
Zone
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
DRILLING RIG
STRATA PLOT
METRES
RUN No.
Core
Lost
INSTALLATION
FRACTURE
ROCK WEATHERING
PER 0.3
INDEX
DIP w.r.t.
DEPTH DIP
Broken
TOTAL RQD
W2
W3
W4
Core
ALTERATION
180
270
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
90
30
60
90
2
3
0
Fresh, very fine to medium grained, 8.81
9 light grey, extremely weak (R0) 8.90
SANDSTONE; inferred slough.
8
laminated, dark brown-grey, weak (R2) JN,ST,VR
JN,ST,VR
strength.
10
JN,ST,VR
9
JN,ST,VR
11
T
9.83 m, 10.30 m, 10.56 m and
12.38 m depth.
10
12
AF
JN,PL,SM
- healed, re-opened joint at 12.38 m,
15.47 m and 15.65 m depth.
13
11
HQ-3 Coring
14
D
12
15
JN,IR,SM
JN,PL,SM
16
JN,PL,SM
13
17
18 14
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:
Page 38 of 88
N: ~6265662 E: ~565788
Shear
PIEZOMETER,

DRILLING METHOD
Zone
DEPTH SCALE
STANDPIPE
DRILLING RIG
STRATA PLOT
METRES
RUN No.
Core
Lost
INSTALLATION
FRACTURE
ROCK WEATHERING
PER 0.3
INDEX
DIP w.r.t.
DEPTH DIP
Broken
TOTAL RQD
W2
W3
W4
Core
ALTERATION
180
270
R5
R4
R3
R2
R1
80
60
40
20
80
60
40
20
90
30
60
90
2
3
0
19 laminated, dark brown-grey, weak (R2)

HQ-3 Coring
strength. (continued) 15 JN,PL,SM

- discoloured, brown layer ~2 cm at
18.86 m depth.
20
JN,PL,SM
End of Drillhole. 20.32

tension relief and desiccation
21 (after core recovery).
wetted.
T
22
AF
23
R
24
D
25
26
27
28

DEPTH SCALE LOGGED:
Page 39 of 88
METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Organic 𝑫𝑫𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
Soil Gradation (𝑫𝑫𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 )𝟐𝟐 Organic USCS Group
or Type of Soil 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 = Group Name
Inorganic
Group or Plasticity 𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 𝒙𝒙𝑫𝑫𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 Content Symbol
Gravels Poorly
<4 ≤1 or ≥3 GP GRAVEL
larger than 4.75 mm)

with Graded
(>50% by mass of
coarse fraction is
≤12%
(˃50% by mass is larger than 0.075 mm)
GRAVELS
fines Well Graded ≥4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL

(Organic Content ≤30% by mass)
(by mass)
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
Gravels Below A SILTY

with n/a GM
Line GRAVEL
>12%
INORGANIC
fines Above A CLAYEY

n/a GC
(by mass) Line GRAVEL
≤30%
Sands Poorly
≤1 or ≥3
smaller than 4.75 mm)
with <6 SP SAND

Graded
(≥50% by mass of
coarse fraction is
≤12%
fines Well Graded ≥6 1 to 3 SW SAND
SANDS
(by mass)
Sands Below A
with n/a SM SILTY SAND
Line
>12%
fines Above A CLAYEY
n/a SC
(by mass) Line SAND
Field Indicators
Organic
Soil Laboratory Toughness Organic USCS Group Primary
or Type of Soil Dry Shine Thread
Group Tests Dilatancy (of 3 mm Content Symbol Name
Inorganic Strength Test Diameter
thread)
N/A (can’t
T
(Non-Plastic or PI and LL plot
Rapid None None >6 mm roll 3 mm <5% ML SILT

thread)
Liquid Limit
(≥50% by mass is smaller than 0.075 mm)
None to 3mm to
Slow Dull None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT
Chart below)
below A-Line
on Plasticity
Low 6 mm
(Organic Content ≤30% by mass)
<50
SILTS
Slow to Low to Dull to 3mm to 5% to ORGANIC

AF
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Low OL
very slow medium slight 6 mm 30% SILT
INORGANIC
Slow to Low to 3mm to Low to

Slight <5% MH CLAYEY SILT
Liquid Limit very slow medium 6 mm medium
≥50 Medium Dull to 1 mm to Medium to 5% to ORGANIC
None OH
to high slight 3 mm high 30% SILT
Liquid Limit Low to Slight Low to
None ~ 3 mm CL SILTY CLAY
above A-Line on
Plasticity Chart
(PI and LL plot
<30 medium to shiny medium 0%

to
CLAYS
below)
Liquid Limit Medium Slight 1 mm to Medium 30%

None CI SILTY CLAY
30 to 50 to high to shiny 3 mm
(see
R
Liquid Limit Note 2)
None High Shiny <1 mm High CH CLAY
≥50
30%
Peat and mineral soil SILTY PEAT,
Content >30%
to
ORGANIC
mixtures SANDY PEAT

by mass)
(Organic
HIGHLY
75%
SOILS
Predominantly peat, PT
D
75%
may contain some
to PEAT
mineral soil, fibrous or
100%
amorphous peat
Dual Symbol — A dual symbol is two symbols separated by
a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC and CL-ML.
For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when
the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify
transitional material between “clean” and “dirty” sand or
gravel.
For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the
liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area
of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left).
Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols

separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML.
A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil
has been identified as having properties that are on the
transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline
symbol may be used to indicate a range of similar soil types
within a stratum.
Note 1 – Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with
slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are
named SILT.
Note 2 – For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor “trace organics” for soils with
between 5% and 30% organic content include the prefix “organic” before the Primary name.
February 2017 1
Page 40 of 88
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF

BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS
PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS SAMPLES
Particle AS Auger sample
Soil Inches
Size Millimetres
Constituent (US Std. Sieve Size) BS Block sample
Description
Not CS Chunk sample
BOULDERS >300 >12
Applicable Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube
DO or DP
Not sampler – note size
COBBLES 75 to 300 3 to 12
Applicable DS Denison type sample
Coarse 19 to 75 0.75 to 3 FS Foil sample
GRAVEL
Fine 4.75 to 19 (4) to 0.75
GS Grab Sample
2.00 to 4.75
Coarse (10) to (4) RC Rock core
0.425 to 2.00
SAND Medium (40) to (10)
0.075 to SC Soil core
Fine (200) to (40)
0.425 SS Split spoon sampler – note size
Classified by
SILT/CLAY <0.075 < (200) ST Slotted tube
plasticity
TO Thin-walled, open – note size
MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS TP Thin-walled, piston – note size
Percentage WS Wash sample
Modifier
by Mass
Use 'and' to combine major constituents SOIL TESTS
>35
(i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY) w water content
Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, PL , wp plastic limit
> 12 to 35
CLAYEY" as applicable
LL , wL liquid limit
> 5 to 12 some
C consolidation (oedometer) test
T
≤5 trace CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text)
CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1
PENETRATION RESISTANCE consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with
Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: CIU
porewater pressure measurement1
AF
The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs)
required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm
(12 in.). DS direct shear test
GS specific gravity
Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
M sieve analysis for particle size
An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of
10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis
resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded MPC Modified Proctor compaction test
electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals.
SPC Standard Proctor compaction test
Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd: OC organic content test
R
The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates
uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a
UC unconfined compression test
distance of 300 mm (12 in.).
PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test
PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test)
WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer
γ unit weight
D
WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod

1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown
as CAD, CAU.
NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS COHESIVE SOILS
Compactness2 Consistency
Term SPT ‘N’ (blows/0.3m)1 Undrained Shear SPT ‘N’1,2
Term
Very Loose 0-4 Strength (kPa) (blows/0.3m)
Loose 4 to 10 Very Soft <12 0 to 2
Compact 10 to 30 Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4
Dense 30 to 50 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8
Very Dense >50 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15
1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30
effects.
2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT ‘N’ ranges from Terzaghi
Hard >200 >30
1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure
and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average N60 values.
effects; approximate only.
2. SPT ‘N’ values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to
consistency; for sensitive clays (e.g., Champlain Sea clays), the N-value
approximation for consistency terms does NOT apply. Rely on direct
measurement of undrained shear strength or other manual observations.
Field Moisture Condition Water Content
Term Description Term Description
Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic
Dry Soil flows freely through fingers. w < PL
Limit.
Soils are darker than in the dry condition and Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic
Moist w ~ PL
may feel cool. Limit.
As moist, but with free water forming on hands Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic
Wet w > PL
when handled. Limit.
February 2017 2
Page 41 of 88
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows:
I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued)

w water content
π 3.1416 wl or LL liquid limit
ln x natural logarithm of x wp or PL plastic limit
log10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 lp or PI plasticity index = (wl – wp)
g acceleration due to gravity ws shrinkage limit
t time IL liquidity index = (w – wp) / Ip
IC consistency index = (wl – w) / Ip
emax void ratio in loosest state
emin void ratio in densest state
ID density index = (emax – e) / (emax - emin)
II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density)
γ shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties

∆ change in, e.g. in stress: ∆ σ h hydraulic head or potential
ε linear strain q rate of flow
εv volumetric strain v velocity of flow
η
T
coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient
υ Poisson’s ratio k hydraulic conductivity
σ total stress (coefficient of permeability)
σ′ effective stress (σ′ = σ - u) j seepage force per unit volume
σ′vo
σ1, σ2, σ3
AF
initial effective overburden stress
principal stress (major, intermediate,
minor) (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional)
Cc compression index
σoct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range)
= (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 Cr recompression index
τ shear stress (over-consolidated range)
u porewater pressure Cs swelling index
R
E modulus of deformation Cα secondary compression index
G shear modulus of deformation mv coefficient of volume change
K bulk modulus of compressibility cv coefficient of consolidation (vertical
direction)
ch coefficient of consolidation (horizontal
D
direction)
Tv time factor (vertical direction)
III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation
σ′p pre-consolidation stress
(a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ′p / σ′vo
ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)*
ρd(γd) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength
ρw(γw) density (unit weight) of water τp, τr peak and residual shear strength
ρs(γs) density (unit weight) of solid particles φ′ effective angle of internal friction
γ′ unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction
(γ′ = γ - γw) µ coefficient of friction = tan δ
DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid c′ effective cohesion
particles (DR = ρs / ρw) (formerly Gs) c u, s u undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis)
e void ratio p mean total stress (σ1 + σ3)/2
n porosity p′ mean effective stress (σ′1 + σ′3)/2
S degree of saturation q (σ1 - σ3)/2 or (σ′1 - σ′3)/2
qu compressive strength (σ1 - σ3)
St sensitivity
* Density symbol is ρ. Unit weight symbol is γ Notes: 1 τ = c′ + σ′ tan φ′

where γ = ρg (i.e. mass density multiplied by 2 shear strength = (compressive strength)/2
acceleration due to gravity)
February 2017 3
Page 42 of 88
Terminology and Classification System for Borehole Descriptions and Logs
LITHOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF ROCK

SEQUENCE OF TERMS FOR ROCK DESCRIPTION:
A complete rock description includes the following:
A) Weathered State E) Strength
B) Structure F) Rock Type
C) Colour G) Additional remarks and modifiers
D) Grain or Crystal Size
Example:
“Slightly weathered, thin to medium bedded, grey, fine grained, weak (R2) arenaceous SANDSTONE; with biotite
partings”.
DESCRIPTION OF WEATHERED/ALTERED STATE (A)
T
(modified after: Brown, 1981, “Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring: ISRM Suggested Methods”,
International Society for Rock Mechanics)
AF
Discoloration Fracture Surface
Term Symbol Description
Extent Condition Character
No visible sign of rock material Closed or
Unweathered W1/A1 None Unchanged
weathering. Discolored
Discoloration indicates weathering of
Slightly <20% of fracture Discolored,
rock material on discontinuity Partial
Weathered or W2/A2 spacing on both may contain
R
surfaces. Less than 5% of rock mass discoloration
Altered sides of fracture thin filling
altered.
Less than 50% of the rock material is
Partial to complete
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
Moderately >20% of fracture Discolored, discoloration, not
a soil, or altered. Fresh or discolored
D
Weathered or W3/A3 spacing on both may contain friable except

rock is present either as a
Altered sides of fracture thick filling poorly cemented
discontinuous framework or as
rocks
corestones.
More than 50% of the rock material is
decomposed and/or disintegrated to
Highly Filled with Friable and
a soil or is altered. Fresh or
Weathered or W4/A4 Throughout alteration possibly pitted
discolored rock is present either as a
Altered minerals
discontinuous framework or as
corestones.
Resembles soil, or
100% of rock material is decomposed
all original
Completely and/or disintegrated to soil or 100% Filled with
minerals have
Weathered or W5/A5 of minerals have been replaced with Throughout alteration
been replaced
Altered alteration minerals. The original minerals
with alteration
mass structure is still largely intact.
minerals
All rock material is converted to soil.
Residual Soil
The mass structure and material
(applies to
W6 fabric are destroyed. There is a large Throughout N/A Resembles soil
weathering
change in volume, but the soil has
only)
not been significantly transported.
Project No. 1788373 – Kobes #3 LFERW Replacement Project
December 15 2017 1/5

Page 43 of 88
DESCRIPTION OF (REPETETIVE) STRUCTURE (B)

Mean Spacing Term
<6 mm Thinly Laminated
6 mm to 20 mm Thickly Laminated
20 mm to 60 mm Very Thinly Bedded
60 mm to 200 mm Thinly Bedded
200 mm to 600 mm Medium Bedded
600 mm to 2 m Thickly Bedded
DESCRIPTION OF COLOUR (C)

LIGHT WHITE
DARK GREY
T
BLACK
BROWN
AF
OLIVE
GREEN
BLUE
RED
ORANGE
R
YELLOW
When the rock is composed of more than one colour, the colours have been listed beginning with the most prominent.
D
DESCRIPTION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK GRAIN SIZE (D)

Grain Size Description
2 mm to 256 mm CONGLOMERATE and BRECCIA (Rudaceous)

1 mm to 2 mm very coarse SANDSTONE
500 microns to 1 mm coarse SANDSTONE
250 to 500 microns medium SANDSTONE
125 to 250 microns fine SANDSTONE
63 to 125 microns very fine SANDSTONE
4 to 63 microns SILTSTONE & MUDSTONE
MUDROCKS
< 4 microns CLAYSTONE
(After Wentworth, C. K., 1922: A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. The Journal of Geology, Vol. 30,
No. 5, pp. 377-392)

Page 44 of 88
DESCRIPTION OF ROCK STRENGTH (E)

Approx. Range of Uniaxial
Grade Description Field Identification Compressive Strength
(MPa)
G Granular Soil Cohesionless, friable, granular soil, sand. 0
S1 Very Soft Clay Easily penetrated several centimetres by fist. <0.025
S2 Soft Clay Easily penetrated several centimetres by thumb. 0.025 – 0.05

Can be penetrated several centimetres with thumb
0.05 – 0.1 (<1.0 on Pocket
S3 Firm Clay with moderate effort. Crumbles under light
Penetrometer)
pressure from a nail.
Readily indented by thumb, but penetrated only
0.10 – 0.25 (1.0 to 2.5 on
S4 Stiff Clay with great effort. Crumbles under moderate
Pocket Penetrometer)
pressure from a nail.
S5 Very Stiff Clay Readily indented by thumbnail 0.25 - 0.50
T
S6 Hard Clay Indented with difficulty by thumbnail. >0.50
0.25 – 1.0
AF
R0 Extremely weak Indented by thumbnail. (>2.5 on Pocket
Penetrometer)
1.0 - 5.0
Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological (Maximum reading
R1 Very weak
hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife. exceeded for Pocket
Penetrometer)
Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty,
R
R2 Weak shallow indentations made by firm blow with point 5.0 – 25
of geological hammer.
Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife,
R3 Medium strong specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of 25 – 50
D
geological hammer.
Specimen requires more than one blow of
R4 Strong 50 – 100
geological hammer to fracture it.
Specimen requires many blows of geological
R5 Very strong 100 – 250
hammer to fracture it.
Specimen can only be chipped with geological
R6 Extremely strong >250
hammer.
(Reference: Brown, 1981, “Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring: ISRM Suggested Methods”, International Society
for Rock Mechanics)
NOTE: Materials having a uniaxial compressive strength of less than about 0.5 MPa and cohesionless materials should be
classified using soil classification systems. (1 MPa = 145 psi)

Page 45 of 88
ROCK TYPE (F)

Argillaceous Rocks: Clastic sedimentary rocks (i.e. Sandstone) containing silt- or clay-sized particles
that are less than 0.0625 mm.
Arenaceous Rocks: Clastic sedimentary rocks (i.e., Mudrocks) containing sand sized particles that are
between 0.0625 mm and 2.0 mm.
Calcareous Rocks: Contains calcium carbonate (calcite).
Carbonaceous Rocks: Consists of or containing carbon or its compounds
Rudaceous Rocks: Clastic sedimentary rocks that contains approximately more than 25 % clasts
between 2 - 256 mm, generally infilled with a matrix of finer grained sediment, that are either “clast-
supported” (clasts are in contact) and “matrix-supported” (clasts are separated by matrix). The terms
breccia or conglomerate are used for:
Breccia: Broken, angular to sub-angular clasts of rock.
T
Conglomerate: Sub-rounded to rounded clasts.
AF
ADDITIONAL REMARKS AND MODIFIERS (G)
Discontinuity or discrete feature spacing
Term Spacing
Extremely Close <20 mm

R
Very Close 20 mm - 60 mm
Close 60 mm - 0.2 m
Moderate 0.2 m - 0.6 m

D
Wide 0.6 m - 2 m
Very Wide 2m-6m
Extremely Wide >6m

(Reference: Brown, 1981, “Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring: ISRM Suggested Methods”, International Society
for Rock Mechanics)

Page 46 of 88
ABBREVIATIONS FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF DISCONTINUITIES:

Type:
Contact CON Open Contact CONO
Joint JN Bedding (plane joint) BP
Vein VN Broken Core BC
Shear SH
Shape: Roughness:
PL: Planar K: Slickensided
C: Curved PO: Polished
U: Undulating SM: Smooth
ST: Stepped Ro: Rough
I: Irregular VR: Very Rough
T
Infilling / Coating Type:
Bt: Biotite Ca: Calcite Ch: Chlorite Cl: Clay
- : Clean Fe: Iron Oxide Oth: Other M: Silt
AF
Description of Discontinuities:
Feature Type: Geological description of prominent and distinct discontinuities within the rock, indicating
whether the discontinuity is a joint, bedding (plane joint), shear, or vein.
Shape: Planarity (or shape) of the discontinuity surface at the scale of the cored rock.
R
Roughness: Small scale roughness or “feel” of the discontinuity surface at the scale of the cored rock.
Infill Type: Mineral or soil composition of the stain (ST), alteration (SA), discontinuous or complete
coating (DC/CC) or infilling (IN).
D
OTHER ROCK LOG DEFINITIONS

Total Core Recovery (TCR): Records the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the core barrel, and
expressed as a percentage of the total length drilled.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD): The total cumulative length of sound core recovered in lengths greater than
10 cm, as measured along the centreline axis of the core, and expressed as a percentage per defined interval
e.g. the core length recovered in a core barrel. The 10 cm index length is independent of core size, and is
applicable to BQ, NQ, HQ, PQ, 4-inch, and 6-inch core sizes.
Alpha Angle: The maximum angle of dip measured between the discontinuity plane and the core axis
(0° = parallel to core axis; 90° = perpendicular to core axis)

Page 47 of 88

A91260-3 Attachment 1 To IR No. 1.1.a - Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Part 1 of 2) - A6D2Y8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A91260-3 Attachment 1 To IR No. 1.1.a - Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Part 1 of 2) - A6D2Y8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A91260-3 Attachment 1 To IR No. 1.1.a - Draft Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Part 1 of 2) - A6D2Y8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Westcoast Energy Inc., doing business as Spectra Energy Transmission Westcoast Response to NEB IR No.

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Westcoast - Kobes #3 LFERW

Report Number: 1788373

Golder Associates Ltd. - 1 E-Copy

WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Terrain Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

3.2 Geophysical Investigation Summary......................................................................................................... 2

3.3.1 Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locate .............................................................................................. 2

Hand Auger Investigation .................................................................................................................... 3

SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Encountered Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4

4.1.2 Glaciofluvial Sandy Silt........................................................................................................................ 4

4.1.3 Glaciolacustrine Silty Clay................................................................................................................... 4

4.1.4 Weathered Bedrock ............................................................................................................................ 4

4.2 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................................... 5

5.1 Geotechnical Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 5

5.1.1 Geotechnical Parameters.................................................................................................................... 5

5.1.2 Frost Penetration Depth ...................................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Seismic Parameters.................................................................................................................................. 5

5.2.1 Seismic Design Values ....................................................................................................................... 5

5.2.2 Site Class ............................................................................................................................................ 6

5.3 Soil Aggressiveness to Concrete and Steel .............................................................................................. 6

5.3.1 Salinity Results ................................................................................................................................... 6

5.3.2 Assessment of Aggressiveness to Concrete and Steel ....................................................................... 6

5.4 Construction Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 7

5.4.1 Stripping Depth ................................................................................................................................... 7

WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

5.4.2 Temporary Excavations ...................................................................................................................... 7

5.4.3 Permanent Slopes............................................................................................................................... 7

5.5 Buried Pipeline Design (Bi-Linear Soil Springs) ........................................................................................ 8

5.6 Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Crossing .............................................................................................. 9

5.6.1 Inferred Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................... 10

5.6.2 Hydraulic Fracturing / Drilling Fluid Pressures .................................................................................. 10

5.6.3 Entry and Exit Points ......................................................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Selected Parameters from Detailed Salinity Analyses....................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.2 Geophysical Investigation Summary

 Geotechnical laboratory index testing; and

3.3.1 Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locate

3.3.2 Drilling Investigation

WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.3.3 Hand Auger Investigation

 Natural water content determinations

 Particle size analyses (hydrometer analysis)

 Analytical tests for evaluation of soil corrosivity

 Uniaxial compressive strength tests on bedrock samples

4.0 SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

WESTCOAST KOBES #3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

4.1 Encountered Subsurface Conditions