highway 29 realignment, farrell creek ard-ml mitigation · 2020. 5. 14. · highway 29 realignment,...

TECHNICAL MEMO

Tetra Tech Canada Inc. 150, 1715 Dickson Avenue

Kelowna, BC V1Y 9G6 CANADA Tel 250.862.4832 Fax 250.862.2941

ISSUED FOR USE

To: Bill Eisbrenner, P.Eng.

Ven Tabenero, P.Eng.

Date: April 23, 2020

c: Alex Izett, P.Eng.

Don Gillespie, P.Eng.

Memo No.: 2020-001_FarrellCk

Revision 01

From: James Barr, P.Geo File: 704-V13103415-03

Subject: Preliminary ARD-ML Classification for Bedrock Material

at the Farrell Creek Bridge and Highway Realignment

Construction Area, Highway 29 Realignment – Rev 01

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As part of BC Hydro’s Site C Clean Energy Project, filling of the Site C Reservoir will require realignment of 32 km

of Highway 29 and the construction of five new bridge crossings. R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. (Binnie) have been

contracted as Coordinating Professional Engineers for the realignment of Highway 29 including these bridges. Tetra

Tech Canada Inc. (Tetra Tech) has been retained by BC Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) as part of the BC

Hydro Owners Engineer team for the delivery of the Highway 29 Realignment Project, and to provide services to

Binnie as part of the Farrell Creek Bridge design in respect to the management and mitigation of potential acid rock

drainage (ARD) and metal leaching (ML) from bedrock material.

The Farrell Creek Bridge project is located along the future Highway 29 alignment and is designed as a 6-span

bridge approximately 400 m long. The bridge design requires excavation of bedrock materials for construction of

the eastern bridge abutment, pile foundations (rock sockets) at both abutments and all piers, and some temporary

excavation for Pier 5 pile cap construction. Additionally, disturbance of bedrock is possible during the preparation

and construction of the Realigned Channel, and small volumes of bedrock may be exposed in several other

unplanned locations related to the road and drainage construction activities. Bedrock underlying the Farrell Creek

Bridge abutments is marine shale of the Shaftesbury Formation, part of the Fort St. John Group. Testing of

Shaftesbury Formation shales at several locations along the Highway 29 realignment has confirmed the bedrock

material has potential for ARD-ML.

Occurrence of ARD is a result of the oxidation of sulphide minerals when exposed to oxygen and water resulting in

acidification of run-off water. It is a naturally occurring process that can be exacerbated by rock disturbances, such

as excavation. The occurrence of ML is the release of elemental (e.g., metal) constituents into solution as leachate

from the rock mineral mass and can occur under acidic, neutral, or alkaline drainage conditions.

In accordance with the Site C Clean Energy Project Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

(BC Hydro, rev 6.1, December 12, 2019) Appendix E (rev. 5.2, July 26, 2016) and the Environmental Management

Plan Site C Clean Energy Project Highway 29 Realignment (rev. 11, March 3, 2020) the project has adopted

measures for management of potentially ARD-ML generating materials so that there is an insignificant change in

pH, total metals, and dissolved metals downstream of construction as a result of project construction activities.

This memo discusses the current site conditions at the proposed Farrell Creek Bridge, potential implications for

management of ARD-ML based on the currently proposed development plan for the site, provides options for

mitigating ARD-ML, and recommendations for management and monitoring activities. Engineering of geotechnical

HIGHWAY 29 REALIGNMENT, FARRELL CREEK ARD-ML MITIGATION

FILE: 704-V13103415-03 | APRIL 23, 2020 | ISSUED FOR USE

2

200423_V13103415-03_MEMO_Hwy29_Farrell Ck_ARDML_IFU - REV 01.docx

engineering for slope stability, hydraulic engineering, and erosion controls have been completed by others and is

not included in the scope of this document.

2.0 DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

The site was not visited as part of the completion of the work. To complete this ARD-ML assessment, Tetra Tech

reviewed available public information and project documentation, including:

▪ Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (NHC) (2020). Site C Hydro Project, Highway No. 29 Realignment and

Associated Roads, Hydraulic Design Report, Farrell Creek Bridge, 100% Submission – Final Report,

Revision 1, January 29, 2020.

▪ R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. – Drawings: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Bridge

Project No. 37501-0000, Highway No. 29, Farrell Creek, 100% Detailed Design, Jan. 31, 2020 (issued as Draft

for Review).

▪ Wood, (2020). Geotechnical Data Report, Farrell Creek Segment, Highway 29, British Columbia, Project

#KX052807.31 issued to R.F. Binnie and Associates Ltd., by Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions,

January 13, 2020.

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

Farrell Creek is within an incised river valley and drains from the north into the Peace River at approximately 440 m

elevation. A broad floodplain bordering the river spans approximately 300 m below the planned bridge location with

elevation of approximately 445 m. The floodplain is comprised of fluvial soils variably of gravel and silt. The adjacent

valley walls rise to an elevation of approximately 473 m to the west, and 476 m to the east, and are covered with

vegetation on inclined slopes of overburden soils or colluvium; bedrock is exposed on steeper slopes.

Subsurface investigation completed by Wood in 2018 and 2019 determined that soils are gravel of approximately

2.3 m depth (TH18-FC-002) at the western abutment and are silt and sand of approximately 2.4 m depth

(TH18FC-015) at the eastern abutment. Borehole logs indicated residual soil and weathered bedrock were observed

with presence of iron staining and characterized as weak with a thickness of approximately 5.6 m below soils at the

western abutment, and of approximately 6.7 m below soils at the eastern abutment. The bedrock is predominantly

shale with local siltstone and minor sandstone interbeds, part of the Shaftesbury Formation, and has bedding

sub-horizontal to slightly east dipping.

Groundwater was not identified by Wood in borehole TH18-FC-002 (June 5, 2018) nor in borehole TH18-FC-015.

4.0 GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION

To assess the potential for ARD-ML generation from bedrock material a preliminary characterization test program

was conducted. Drilled core samples were collected in 2019 by Wood from representative intervals in proximity to

the proposed western and eastern bridge abutments and sent to SGS Canada Inc., located in Burnaby, BC, for

analyses.

For preliminary characterization of a material’s potential for ARD-ML, Tetra Tech refers to general guidelines

provided by the MEND Document 1.20.1 (Price 2009) and the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

(MoTI) Technical Circular T-04/13 (Sept 15, 2013) for preliminary characterization of ARD-ML potential of materials



3


intended for use as rip-rap. These tests typically use acid base accounting analyses (ABA) to classify materials as

potentially acid generating (PAG) or not potentially acid generating (NPAG), and use of shake flask extraction

analyses (SFE) to assess potential for ML.

4.1 Sample Locations

A total of five samples were collected in 2019 by Wood from drill cores recovered from geotechnical investigations

conducted in 2018 by Wood. Selection was based on availability, and to represent rock in proximity to the bridge

abutments at elevations to represent potential excavations.

Sample storage, collection and handling procedures were not reported by Wood; it was not verified whether the

samples experienced weathering or mineralogical degradation during storage following coring.

Several rock chip samples were collected across semi-continuous lengths of drill core and assembled into

composite samples to represent mineralogy of slightly weathered rock and deeper unweathered rock. A list of the

collected drill core samples is summarized in Table 1, and description of each sample is listed in Table 2.

Table 1: Farrell Creek, ARD-ML Characterization Samples

Hole ID Sample

ID

Collar Elev.

(m)

Sample Depth

(m)

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Top of Bedrock

Elevation (m) Location

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-1 471.71 4.3 – 17.1 2.3 469.41 Western Abutment


TH18-FC-003 ARDFC-3 442.31 2.7 – 10.7 1.3 441.01 Floodplain, Realigned Channel

TH18-FC-015 ARDFC-4 476.96 7.6 – 15.6 2.4 474.56 Eastern Abutment


Previous work conducted by Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., and SNC Lavalin Inc., on five soil samples collected from

Dry Creek, Halfway River, Cache Creek, Farrell Creek, and Lynx Creek, and as summarized in 2014 (Klohn and

SNC 2014) indicated that soils did not have potential for ARD and low potential for metal leaching. Initial SFE

analysis results showed potential for elevated concentrations of Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Li, P, Se, and V.

Sampling and geochemical characterization of the soil horizon was not conducted as part of the current assessment.

Due to the high permeability of soils and prolonged exposure of the soils to atmospheric conditions, complete to

near complete degradation of sulphides is expected and low to negligible risk for net acid generation and metal

leaching from the soils can equally be expected.



4


4.2 Sample Descriptions

The bedrock was logged by Wood to be shale interbedded with siltstone and minor sandstone, weak, with bedding

planes typically horizontal, and grey to dark grey in colour. Description of in situ rock weathering characteristics in

the geotechnical logs is limited, and the degree of weathering is based on the presence of orange or brown iron

oxide deposits in fractures, rock strength, and intensity of visible fracturing. Sample descriptions are included in

Table 2.

Table 2: Lithology and Description of Bedrock at Farrell Creek

Hole

ID

Sample

ID

From

(m)

To

(m)

Sample Description

(Wood)

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-1 4.3 17.1 Fresh SHALE, interbedded with minor sandstone, very weak to medium strong, dark grey



TH18-FC-015 ARDFC-4 7.6 15.6 Slightly to moderately weathered SHALE interbedded with minor sandstone, very weak to weak, dark grey (7.6-9.1m); Fresh SHALE,

interbedded with minor sandstone, very weak to medium strong, dark grey (9.1-15.6 m)

TH19-FC-001 ARDFC-5 4.6 12.6 Fresh SHALE, massive, weak to medium strong, dark grey (4.6-7.7 m); Fresh SHALE, massive to interbedded with minor

siltstone and sandstone, weak to strong, dark grey (7.7-12.6 m)

4.3 Acid Base Accounting

The analytical results for the ABA analysis of five samples collected from Farrell Creek characterize all samples as

PAG with some small variation to the material mineralogical composition.

ABA analysis includes whole rock paste pH, total sulphur by LECO furnace with IR detection, sulphide sulphur

determined by Sobek 1:7 Nitric Acid and ICP finish, sulphate sulphur by 25% HCl Leach with ICP finish, total

inorganic carbon by LECO furnace with IR detection, neutralization potential (NP) by Modified Sobek method, and

fizz rating. Sulphide sulphur was used to calculate acid potential (AP); a value for maximum potential acidity (MPA)

calculated by total sulphur was not reported by SGS and was calculated by Tetra Tech using the reported total

sulphur concentration.

The Modified Sobek neutralization potential ratio (M.Sobek NPR) is the ratio of neutralization potential to the

maximum potential acidity (Sobek NP:MPA). Carbonate NP is calculated from carbonate carbon (CO2%) and used

to calculate a Carbonate NPR value (Carbonate NP:MPA).

The NPR value is used for material classification in accordance with the MEND Guidelines (Price 2009). The

guidelines state that a sample with an NPR value of less than one is classified as potentially acid generating (PAG)

and as non-acid generating (NAG) if the NPR is greater than two. Material characterized by an NPR of between

one and two is classified as “Uncertain” and may require additional information to determine the acid rock drainage

potential.



5


4.3.1 ABA Results

Paste pH measured from the samples ranged from 6.14 to 9.19 which indicates that the samples were slightly

net-acid producing, to not net acid producing at the time of sampling.

Total sulphur ranges between 1.06 and 1.40 %S and sulphide sulphur ranges between 0.90 to 1.21 %S in the five

samples. Sulphate sulphur measures to range between 0.03 to 0.09 %S in the samples. Maximum potential acidity

(MPA) ranges between 32.5 to 42.9 kg H2SO4/t equivalent.

Total inorganic carbon (TIC) ranges between 0.07 to 0.23 %C; this value represents carbon from carbonate, and

excludes organic carbon and graphite, which may have occurred in the sample.

The M.Sobek NP value ranges between 6.6 to 11.3 kgCaCO3/tonne. The Carbonate NP ranges between 5.8 to

19.2 kgCaCO3/tonne. Both the M.Sobek NPR (0.2-0.3) and Carbonate NPR (0.2-0.6) values result in the

classification of all samples as PAG. It is recommended that all materials containing bedrock in this area are

managed as PAG material.

Summary of the ABA analyses are shown in Table 3. A copy of the full ABA analytical results is attached.

Table 3: Acid Base Accounting Summary

Sample ID

Acid

Potential

(AP)

Maximum

Potential

Acidity (MPA)

Carbonate

NP

Modified

Sobek NP

Carbonate

NPR

Modified Sobek

NPR

(kg CaCO3/

tonne eq.)

(kg CaCO3/

tonne eq.)

(kg CaCO3/

tonne eq.)

(kg CaCO3/

tonne eq.) NP/MPA Class NP/MPA Class

ARDFC-1 35.94 41.7 9.17 7.90 0.2 PAG 0.2 PAG

ARDFC-2 37.81 42.9 11.67 8.60 0.3 PAG 0.2 PAG

ARDFC-3 31.88 34.3 13.33 11.30 0.4 PAG 0.3 PAG

ARDFC-4 31.56 32.5 19.17 8.90 0.6 PAG 0.3 PAG

ARDFC-5 28.13 32.5 5.83 6.60 0.2 PAG 0.2 PAG

4.4 Trace Element Concentration

Trace element results were compared against typical elemental values as reported in Appendix 1 (Price, 1997) -

"Distribution of the elements in the Earth's crust for "Sedimentary Rocks - Shales". No trace element measures a

concentration more than an order of magnitude greater than the average crustal abundance for this rock type.

The representative samples from Farrell Creek do not show considerably different trace element geochemistry.

A copy of the trace element analytical results is attached.



6


4.5 Shake Flask Element Analysis

Concentrations of dissolved aluminum, arsenic, nickel, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc were measured in at least

one of the five sample leachates at concentrations exceeding the most stringent of either the BCAWQG or CCME

freshwater aquatic life reference guideline values. One of the five samples measure a pH higher than 9.0, which is

above the acceptable BCAWQG and CCME guideline range (pH 6.5 – 9.0).

Review of the laboratory results indicate that none of the samples returned soluble elemental concentrations from

shake flask extraction which measured an order of magnitude or greater than the acceptable CCME and BCAWQG

guideline values. Table 4 provides a summary of concentrations greater than the reference guideline values.

Table 4: Summary of Farrell Creek Shake Flask Extraction Analytical Results

Leachable

Metals (mg/L)

CCME - AL

(Freshwater)1

BCAWQG-AL

(Freshwater)2

TH18-FC-

002

ARDFC-1

TH18-FC-

002

ARDFC-2

TH18-FC-

003

ARDFC-3

TH18-FC-

015

ARDFC-4

TH19-FC-

001

ARDFC-5

pH 6.5-9 6.5-9 7.25 7.16 9.69 8.89 8.78

Aluminum (Al) 0.13 0.13 0.004 0.005 0.831 0.326 0.330

Arsenic (As) 0.005 0.005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0288 0.0198 0.0224

Nickel (Ni) 0.025-0.154 - 0.112 0.168 0.0009 0.0003 0.0006

Phosphorus (P) 0.004-0.0105 NG < 0.003 < 0.003 0.064 0.070 0.045

Selenium (Se) 0.001 0.002 0.0225 0.0199 0.0322 0.0186 0.0263

Zinc (Zn) 0.03 0.033-0.2654 0.029 0.065 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002

Screening completed on BCAWQG-FST and CCME guideline values. 1 BC Ministry of Environment, Water Protection & Sustainability Branch (2019). British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines (BCAWQG): Aquatic Life, Wildlife & Agriculture Summary Report. 36 pp. 2 CCME - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (2018). 3 Guideline is pH dependant. 4 Guideline is hardness dependant. NG - No Guideline. Shaded Light Grey: Exceeds BCAWQG-FST and/or CCME guideline value. BOLD and shaded dark grey: Exceeds BCAWQG-FST and/or CCME guideline value by more than one magnitude.

A copy of the shake flask extraction analytical results is attached.

4.6 Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction

All five samples were analyzed by quantitative x-ray diffraction (XRD) by Rietveld Refinement at SGS Minerals in

Burnaby, BC (Project Number/LIMS No. 14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19). The minerals identified in variable wt. % are

quartz, albite, microcline, chlorite, pyrite, calcite, diopside, dolomite, ankerite, kaolinite, anatase, muscovite,

fluorapatite, montmorillonite, and illite.

The mass percent mineral composition for each sample is listed in Table 5, and a list of the minerals with their

corresponding chemical formulas are listed in Table 6.



7


Table 5: Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction Results

(extracted from SGS, 2020)

Zero values indicate that the mineral was included in the refinement, but the calculated concentration is below a measurable value.

Dashes indicate that the mineral was not identified by the analyst and not included in the refinement calculation for the sample.

The weight percent quantities indicated have been normalized to a sum of 100%. The quantity of amorphous material has not been

determined.

Table 6: Chemical Formulas of Minerals/Compounds Identified

Mineral/Compound Formula

Quartz SiO2

Albite NaAlSi3O8

Microcline KAlSi3O8

Chlorite (Fe,(Mg,Mn)5,Al)(Si3Al)O10(OH)8

Pyrite FeS2

Calcite CaCO3

Diopside CaMgSi2O6

Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2

Ankerite CaFe(CO3)2

Kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4

Anatase TiO2

Muscovite KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2

Biotite K(Mg,Fe)3(AlSi3O10)(OH)2

Fluorapatite Ca5(PO4)3F

Montmorillonite (Na,Ca)0.3(Al,Mg)2Si2O10(OH)2·10H2O

Illite (K,H3O)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10[(OH)2,(H2O)]



8


Potential contaminants in non-sulphide minerals include Al and Fe from silicates (MEND, 2009; pg. 5-2).

The presence of pyrite as a primary sulphide mineral is interpreted to account for the acid generating potential in

the samples. Presence of calcite is interpreted to account for the neutralization potential; other carbonates such as

dolomite and ankerite may not be contributing significantly to the neutralizing potential of the material.

A copy of the XRD analytical results are attached.

5.0 PAG MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION

A draft copy of the 100% Detailed Design drawings (Issued for Review, “Design Drawings”, Jan. 31, 2020) by Binnie

for the Farrell Creek Bridge crossing were reviewed. Planned excavation and/or exposure of bedrock in the design

is limited to a portion of the eastern abutment to allow clearance for the bridge girders, pile foundations (rock

sockets) at both abutments and all piers, and some temporary excavation for Pier 5 pile cap construction. The work

required to prepare and construct the Farrell Creek Realigned Channel may also require exposure and excavation

of bedrock. Review of geotechnical borehole logs was completed for holes near the eastern abutment, underlying

the proposed Realigned Channel, and along the highway alignment to verify the expected bedrock depth and to

assess potential ARD-ML mitigation strategies.

Areas of bedrock exposure identified on the Design require mitigation and management of ARD-ML materials during

the handling and storage of excavated materials, slope treatment of exposed bedrock slopes, and for unplanned

bedrock exposures along access roads and ditches.

Consistent with the Site C Clean Energy Project Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (BC Hydro

2015) considerations for primary mitigation were guided by:

▪ Reducing the exposure time of PAG material to ambient environmental conditions (air and oxygenated waters)

following excavation;

▪ Encapsulating, when possible, PAG material with low permeability cover materials to minimize infiltration and

generation of leachate;

▪ Storage of excavated PAG materials within the reservoir footprint, and below the final minimum operating

reservoir elevation (460 m) to minimize availability of oxygen to reduce rate of weathering and ARD-ML

generating reactions (additional site specific maximum PAG fill elevation requirements may exist); and

▪ Providing cover treatments or protection from mechanical weathering and rapid deterioration of bedrock

surfaces.

Exposure time of the excavated material should be limited whereby accumulated volumes of more than 50 m3 must

be disposed of at the permanent disposal site immediately upon excavation, and accumulated volumes less than

50 m3 must be disposed of within five days of its excavation.

Special Provisions were provided to Binnie describing PAG slope treatments, disposal placement sequence,

grading and drainage requirements, and specifications for interim covers to help mitigate potential adverse

geochemical effects on the receiving environment due to run-off from bedrock exposed by construction activities or

from designated PAG disposal sites.



9


Small volumes of PAG material are planned for excavation from the Pier foundation preparation works (i.e., rock

socket piles) at both abutments and all piers, and some temporary excavation for Pier 5 pile cap construction. The

volume from each of these excavations has been estimated to be less than 50 m3 and is accommodated in the

Special Provisions provided to Binnie, requiring disposal within five days of its excavation.

5.1.1 Primary Considerations for Bulk Bedrock Material Disposal

Bedrock material at Farrell Ck is considered PAG and is unsuitable Type D material for construction in the Site C

Clean Energy Project. Storage of excavated PAG material is recommended in designated facilities designed to

prevent onset of ARD-ML conditions by containment and isolation. An area has been identified by Binnie to

accommodate PAG material on the floodplain west of Farrell Creek near the southwestern slopes of granular borrow

Area 12A. The capacity of the facility is shown as approximately 4,000 m3 to accommodate the planned bedrock

excavation from the eastern abutment, with additional capacity should excavation of bedrock material is required

along the Realigned Channel.

Design considerations for this facility include:

▪ Location for placement of the bedrock waste material against the existing slope.

▪ Construction of a low permeability foundation and slope cover comprised of soils, to be at minimum of 300 mm

compacted thickness and containing a minimum of 30% fines (i.e., material passing the 75 µm screen).

▪ Construction of a perimeter berm to prevent surface water from entering the storage facility.

▪ Construction of a perimeter ditch internal to the berm to collect run-off from the facility, and to promote drainage

away from the pile.

▪ Construction of a permanent cover over the PAG material with a minimum of 1.0 m compacted soil containing

a minimum of 30% fines (i.e., material passing the 75 µm screen), with outer slope not to exceed 3.5:1.

▪ The excavated bedrock contained within the disposal facility may not be left exposed to the atmosphere or to

precipitation for more than five days without either a low-density polyethylene membrane with design life of at

least two years, an interim soil cover of at least 300 mm thickness, or an additional lift of excavated non-acid

generating bedrock of at least 1.0 m thickness.

▪ The facility is to be submerged under the operating reservoir elevation and must be above the 10-year return

flooding event elevation of 443.2 m and the crest of the cover material must be below a maximum elevation of

456 m elevation; placement of gravel and/or cobble may be required on upper surfaces to enhance fish habitat.

5.1.2 Slope Treatment for Exposed Bedrock Under Eastern Bridge Abutment

An excavation is required at the eastern bridge abutment to accommodate the necessary clearance the bridge

girders. This excavation will include removal of soil and approximately 2,000 m³ of bedrock and will result in

exposure of less than 0.5 ha of bedrock which requires ARD-ML mitigation.

The bedrock exposed within the cut is above the operational reservoir elevation. A portion will be covered with a

minimum thickness of 1 m of Bridge End Fill material. The remaining cut consists of 2:1 cut slopes, a sub-horizontal

cut with grade of 5%, and two ditches which require mitigation as a permanently exposed bedrock cut. Here, an

impermeable cover system incorporating a buried low-density polyethylene geomembrane of minimum 30 mil

thickness and protected with appropriate bedding materials is recommended. The geomembrane should be keyed

a minimum of 0.50 m above the bedrock-soil contact and be carried across the surface of bedrock exposed by

excavation activities. The cover system design should be completed to meet geotechnical slope stability and



10


hydrotechnical requirements. Rip-rap material used to overlie the cover system is not required to be limestone,

except in ditches.

Two ditches are proposed in the design. The first ditch is located at the northern side of the excavation and will

convey water collected from the highway ditchline. The second ditch is located at the southern side of the excavation

and will convey water from the abutment subdrain. Both ditches will collect natural run-off and convey water down

a natural slope towards the Peace River. The sloped portion of the ditches should incorporate a barrier to prevent

the water from contacting the bedrock and to minimize erosion of slope.

5.1.3 Slope Treatment Considerations for Exposed Bedrock Under Shoreline Protection

Shoreline protection measures within the operating reservoir elevations are proposed (NHC, 2020) for the eastern

abutment works which include a granular filter overlain by large class rip-rap. Based on geotechnical hole

TH18-FC-016, bedrock may be intercepted at approximately 467.9 m elevation requiring it to be excavated to

accommodate placement of the large class rip-rap material between centerline stations 2022+000 to 2022+070

(drawing 2184-282), located along the natural slope south of the existing highway. Bedrock is not anticipated to be

intercepted from stations 2022+70 to 2022+129.328 since the material is embankment fill used in construction of

the existing highway; however, if this material was historically derived from local bedrock cuts, then ARD-ML

mitigation may also be required along this section.

Excavated bedrock will be transported to the PAG disposal facility.

Bedrock that remains exposed in the cut should be covered for erosion control, and to reduce the rate of weathering

of the bedrock by reducing exposure to moisture and atmospheric conditions. The granular filter material used for

the 250 kg shoreline protection rip-rap is coarse and contains open voids therefore will not eliminate water and

oxygen from contacting the bedrock, however, will reduce erosion of weathered bedrock and over time help to build

a low permeability layer of sediment at the filter-bedrock interface. Given the gradient of these slopes and the small

overall surface area exposed under the shoreline protection, an impermeable cover system is not recommended.

It is recommended that limestone be used as part of the shoreline protection installation to provide carbonate

neutralization should run-off water be acidic. Based on material availability, the large class rip-rap is prescribed to

be limestone. However, use of a clean gravel limestone filter of minimum 0.40 m thickness, could also be

considered, subject to geotechnical suitability, thereby eliminating the need for the large class material to be

limestone. Potential savings to the material and haulage costs may be recognized with this option. Based on

availability of materials being produced at West Pine Quarry, limestone material meeting the required specifications

for 250 kg rip-rap filter was not available.

5.1.4 Farrell Creek Realigned Channel Excavation, Bedrock Depth

Depth of bedrock underlying the proposed River Diversion was estimated using geotechnical investigation borehole

logs (Wood, 2020), and is summarized in Table 7. Investigation along the diversion alignment is limited to a single

hole (TH18-FC-003), however, based on other holes in the surrounding area of the floodplain the bedrock is

observed at elevation ranging between 440.09 m and 441.12 m.

The Diversional Channel will be constructed as a new engineered drainage channel for Farrell Creek and will require

excavation of subsurface materials for contouring the main channel, a low flow notch and for keyed placement of

250 kg rip-rap for erosion control along the perimeter of the channel. Excavation may include removal of both native

creek bed soils and bedrock. The elevation of the low flow notch coincident with borehole TH18-FC-003 is

approximately 441 m, indicating that the probability of exposing bedrock at this location during construction is high.

However, the bedrock elevation is not confirmed at all locations along the channel and therefore bedrock excavation

volumes may not be estimated relative to the design elevation of the channel.



11


Effort to minimize disturbance of the native soils is recommended to reduce erosion and scouring potential of the

creek bed. It is recommended a minimum of 0.50 m cover of compacted native creek bed material is maintained

over bedrock. Where bedrock is exposed during excavation, sub-excavation and removal of the material may be

required to accommodate placement of the 0.50 m cover. The excavated bedrock will be transported and placed in

the PAG disposal facility. A volume is estimated to be approximately 2,000 m³ as the amount of bedrock potentially

required for excavation along the channel from station 2020+100 to the southern termination should 0.50 m of

bedrock be removed by sub-excavation. This volume should be confirmed and used for cost-risk planning.

Bedrock exposed in cuts to accommodate toe or rip-rap protection should be mitigated with use of native creek bed

material in voids of the 250 kg rip-rap for lower 0.50 m, subject to geotechnical and hydrotechnical suitability.

Table 7: Depth to Bedrock Estimate under the Realigned Channel

Hole ID

Collar

Elevation

(m)

Depth to

Bedrock

(m)

Bedrock

Elevation

(m)

Location Description

TH18-FC-003 442.31 1.3 441.01 Under the proposed bridge alignment and approximately within the proposed Creek Diversion alignment

TH18-FC-004 444.92 3.8 441.12 To east of Realigned Channel and north of bridge alignment, near toe of eastern abutment slope

TH18-FC-005 445.39 5.3 440.09 East of the Realigned Channel and along the bridge alignment, within flood plain

TH18-FC-006 445.47 5.2 440.27 East of Realigned Channel and south of bridge alignment, within flood plain

5.1.5 Treatment Considerations for Chance Find Bedrock Exposure in Ditches and Roads

It is anticipated that unplanned exposure or excavation of PAG material will occur during the on-site construction

activities. In accordance with the CEMP, these occurrences must be evaluated and treated to minimize potential

negative downstream effects.

As each situation may be unique and influenced by various conditions such as depth, volume or surface area, slope

inclination, proximity to streams or sensitive areas, access to materials, etc., a single prescription will not be suitable

for all instances. It is recommended that “Chance Find” procedures are incorporated into all contractor EPPs to

include procedures such as temporary stoppage of work while the situation is assessed, and immediate

communication be initiated with a representative of BC Hydro and the onsite MoTI Representative to discuss

alternate treatment proposed by the contractor.

At the design stage, planned exposure or excavation of PAG in ditches with less than a 5% grade could be treated

with MoTI specified materials for accessibility and ease future ditch maintenance. If natural soils are not able to be

immediately replaced on the PAG material to a minimum thickness of 500 mm, a cover consisting of 250 mm

compacted high fines surfacing aggregate, covered with 150 mm of coarser surfacing material, then covered with

a rip-rap if specified for hydraulic engineering could be considered. This would require additional sub-excavation

(min. 400 mm) in the ditches and may not meet the design requirements, in which case an alternate solution will be

required.

It is noted that any PAG material that is required to be excavated to permit space for a cover will need to be transported and disposed of in an approved facility or in a manner approved by a BC Hydro representative.



12


6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary of Bedrock Geochemical Characterization

Bedrock material underlying the Farrell Creek Bridge and road alignment segment is comprised of shale with minor

interbedded sandstone. Based on previous sampling and analytical work conducted on five drill core samples by

Wood (2020), the material is classified as PAG. The samples were collected as composites across wide intervals

of weathered and fresh bedrock. No soils, including residual soils, were analyzed as part of the program.

Consequently, it is recommended that all bedrock material including colluvium and residual soil encountered on the

project be treated as PAG, and that appropriate mitigation and management strategies be applied.

Shake flask extraction testing did not measure any parameters that were in concentration greater than an order of

magnitude or greater than the acceptable CCME and BCAWQG guideline values. Some concentrations of dissolved

aluminum, arsenic, nickel, phosphorus, selenium, and zinc were measured in at least one of the five sample

leachates at concentrations exceeding the most stringent of either the BCAWQG or CCME freshwater aquatic life

reference guideline values, indicating that although low, risk of metal leaching from bedrock material exists for the

site.

Observation of ML mechanisms in the Shaftsbury shale from other locations within the Site C Clean Energy Project

suggest that run-off water quality exceedances to the BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines (freshwater short

term, BCAWQG-FST) limits are commonly associated with the total elemental concentrations due to transport of

elevated element concentrations in the solid phase, due to erosion of bedrock and more significantly erosion of

secondary minerals formed on the surface of moist weathering bedrock. Prediction of species and concentrations

of secondary mineral formation and the associated concentration of ARD-ML related elements cannot be completed

based on the information provided by the preliminary characterization.

Rates and intensity of weathering cannot be predicted based on the preliminary test work and would require further

in-depth study to evaluate. This work is not recommended at this time.

Based on review of the Design Drawings and the results of the ARD-ML geochemical characterization, the

construction work requires some mitigation and management of ARD-ML materials during the handling and storage

of excavated materials, slope treatment of exposed bedrock slopes, and for unplanned bedrock exposures along

access roads and ditches. A PAG storage facility is included in the design with capacity of approximately 4,000 m3.

Recommendations for mitigation of ARD-ML as described in this document for planned excavation sites, handling

and disposal of PAG materials, and for Chance Find procedures have been described and provided to Binnie for

incorporation into the final bridge design.

6.2 On-Going Monitoring

The CEMP Appendix E (rev 5.2, July 26, 2016) Section 5.2.2 requires monitoring of Highway 29 segments with

potential ARD-ML on a monthly basis, except when frozen for the first year of observation then quarterly thereafter.

The monitoring would include inspection of the covered bedrock slopes and bedrock storage facilities to verify that

mitigation strategies are effective in the reduction or isolation of ARD-ML processes such that there are no

potentially negative downstream effects, and that the PAG facilities are in accordance with the site specific EPPs.

Monitoring of PAG contact run-off water quality is to be conducted monthly, except when frozen, to verify that the

BCAWQG-FST objectives are met prior to the water entering any streams. Should onset of ARD-ML processes be



13


observed, additional mitigative strategies may be recommended which may include maintenance requirements for

the installed cover, containment or treatment systems, as applicable to the final construction design.

Recommended monitoring and verification activities during construction include:

1) Verify that appropriate treatment is applied to any chance find, or unexpected exposure, of bedrock.

2) Verify that upslope intercept drainage and or ditch systems are diverting water from the excavations.

3) Verify that the disposal facility is constructed in accordance with the Special Provisions prior to excavation of

PAG material.

4) Verify that PAG is being placed and covered in the disposal facility in accordance with the Special Provisions.

5) Verify that temporary covers in the PAG disposal area are being used correctly, are free of defects, and are

draining to the perimeter ditch.

6) Test water quality of run-off at base of slopes, ditches, outflows, and the Channel Diversion; in situ testing (pH,

electrical conductance, and alkalinity) and laboratory routine water quality analysis.

7) Visually observe for orange staining and/or algal growth on rip-rap and channelized water flow.

8) Visually observe condition of limestone to ensure it is not encased in sediment, or that excessive scaling/mineral

precipitate has developed on the surface of rip-rap.

9) If possible collect samples from bedrock materials to conduct Rinse pH, or laboratory analyses, as part of

routine monthly sampling to assess whether onset of ARD has occurred and or to monitor progression of net

acid production from the materials.

10) Verify that bedrock is not exposed within the Realigned Channel.

Recommended monitoring activities following construction include:

1) Verify that any limestone rip-rap remains in position.

2) Visually observe condition of limestone to ensure it is not encased in sediment, or that excessive scaling/mineral

precipitate has developed on the surface of rip-rap limiting its exposure.

3) Verify that upslope intercept drainage is diverting water from the excavations.

4) Test water quality at base of slopes or in river at base of excavation, ditches and outflows; in situ testing (pH,

electrical conductance, and alkalinity) and laboratory routine water quality analysis.

5) Visually observe for orange staining and/or algal growth on rip-rap and channelized water flow.

6) Visually observe conditions for implementing a revegetation strategy on bedrock excavations, where suitable.

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd., BC Hydro, BC Ministry

of Transportation and Infrastructure, and their agents. Tetra Tech Canada Inc. (operating as Tetra Tech) does not

accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendations contained or



14


referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than R.F. Binnie & Associates

Ltd., BC Hydro, or BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, or for any Project other than the proposed

development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this

document is subject to the Limitations on the Use of this Document attached in an Appendix or Contractual Terms

and Conditions executed by both parties.

No site visits or investigations related to ARD-ML have been completed by Tetra Tech at the Farrell Creek project

for the preparation of this memo. Data, laboratory coordination and site observations have been provided by others.

Recommendations and mitigation options presented in this report have been provided to help mitigate potential

adverse geochemical effects on the receiving environment potentially generated by ARD and ML reactions due to

weathering of PAG bedrock material. This report limits its scope to providing recommendation for geochemical

mitigation and does not assume responsibility for the necessary hydrotechnical, geotechnical (including slope

stability) and erosion sediment control engineering design and analyses; analyses and recommendations for these

disciplines have been undertaken by others. The potential impacts to geotechnical or engineering design as a result

of the recommendations included herein have not been evaluated and should be reviewed by appropriate design

engineers prior to construction.

8.0 CLOSURE

We trust this report meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the

undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tetra Tech Canada Inc.

FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03

FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03 FILE: 704-V13103415-03

Prepared by: James Barr, P.Geo. Team Lead – Mining Geology Mining Group Direct Line: 778.940.1233 [email protected]

Reviewed by: Lara Reggin, P.Geo. Principal Consultant Mining Group Direct Line: 778.945.5889 [email protected]

/bi Enclosures: Limitations on the Use of This Document – Geoenvironmental

Tabulated SGS Results of Acid Base Accounting Tabulated SGS Results of Trace Element Analysis Tabulated SGS Results of Shake Flask Extraction Analysis Tabulated SGS Results of XRD Mineralogy Analysis



15


REFERENCES

BC Hydro. (2015). Appendix E: Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leachate Management Plan, rev5.2, February 26,

2015, in Site C Clean Energy Project Construction Environmental Management Plan, rev04, July 26,

2016.

BC Hydro. (2016). Site C Clean Energy Project Construction Environmental Management Plan, rev04, July 26,

2016. BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (MoTI, 2013). Technical Circular T-04/13:

Evaluating the Potential for Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching at Quarries, Rock Cut Sites and from

Stockpiled Rock or Talus Materials used by the MoTI. September 15, 2013.

British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines (BCAWQG-FST). Water Protection & Sustainability Branch,

Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy, August 2019.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG),

for the protection of freshwater aquatic life (PAL) (Accessed online July 2018).

Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. and SNC Lavalin Inc. (Klohn and SNC), 2014, Site C Clean Energy Project, Definition

Design, Geochemical Characterization – Status at the End of 2013, BKS-03-104, November 2014.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (NHC) (2020). Site C Hydro Project, Highway No. 29 Realignment and

Associated Roads, Hydraulic Design Report, Farrell Creek Bridge, 100% Submission – Final Report,

Revision 1, January 29, 2020.

Price, W.A. and J. Errington. 1997. Guidelines for Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Minesites in British

Columbia, British Columbia Ministry of Employment and Investment (currently BC MEMPR)

Price WA. 2009. MEND Report 1.20.1: Prediction Manual for Drainage Chemistry from Sulphidic Geologic

Materials.

R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. – Drawings: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Bridge

Project No. 37501-0000, Highway No. 29, Farrell Creek, 100% Detailed Design, Jan. 31, 2020 (issued as

Draft for Review).

Wood, (2020). Geotechnical Data Report, Farrell Creek Segment, Highway 29, British Columbia, Project

#KX052807.31 issued to R.F. Binnie and Associates Ltd., by Wood Environmental and Infrastructure

Solutions, January 13, 2020.

LIMITATIONS ON USE OF THIS DOCUMENT

1

GEOENVIRONMENTAL 1.1 USE OF DOCUMENT AND OWNERSHIP

This document pertains to a specific site, a specific development, and a specific scope of work. The document may include plans, drawings, profiles and other supporting documents that collectively constitute the document (the “Professional Document”). The Professional Document is intended for the sole use of TETRA TECH’s Client (the “Client”) as specifically identified in the TETRA TECH Services Agreement or other Contractual Agreement entered into with the Client (either of which is termed the “Contract” herein). TETRA TECH does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, analyses, recommendations or other contents of the Professional Document when it is used or relied upon by any party other than the Client, unless authorized in writing by TETRA TECH. Any unauthorized use of the Professional Document is at the sole risk of the user. TETRA TECH accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any loss or damage where such loss or damage is alleged to be or, is in fact, caused by the unauthorized use of the Professional Document. Where TETRA TECH has expressly authorized the use of the Professional Document by a third party (an “Authorized Party”), consideration for such authorization is the Authorized Party’s acceptance of these Limitations on Use of this Document as well as any limitations on liability contained in the Contract with the Client (all of which is collectively termed the “Limitations on Liability”). The Authorized Party should carefully review both these Limitations on Use of this Document and the Contract prior to making any use of the Professional Document. Any use made of the Professional Document by an Authorized Party constitutes the Authorized Party’s express acceptance of, and agreement to, the Limitations on Liability. The Professional Document and any other form or type of data or documents generated by TETRA TECH during the performance of the work are TETRA TECH’s professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of TETRA TECH. The Professional Document is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of TETRA TECH. Additional copies of the Document, if required, may be obtained upon request. 1.2 ALTERNATIVE DOCUMENT FORMAT

Where TETRA TECH submits electronic file and/or hard copy versions of the Professional Document or any drawings or other project-related documents and deliverables (collectively termed TETRA TECH’s “Instruments of Professional Service”), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered final. The original signed and/or sealed electronic file and/or hard copy version archived by TETRA TECH shall be deemed to be the original. TETRA TECH will archive a protected digital copy of the original signed and/or sealed version for a period of 10 years. Both electronic file and/or hard copy versions of TETRA TECH’s Instruments of Professional Service shall not, under any circumstances, be altered by any party except TETRA TECH. TETRA TECH’s Instruments of Professional Service will be used only and exactly as submitted by TETRA TECH. Electronic files submitted by TETRA TECH have been prepared and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. TETRA TECH makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems. 1.3 STANDARD OF CARE

Services performed by TETRA TECH for the Professional Document have been conducted in accordance with the Contract, in a manner

consistent with the level of skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided. Professional judgment has been applied in developing the conclusions and/or recommendations provided in this Professional Document. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made concerning the test results, comments, recommendations, or any other portion of the Professional Document. If any error or omission is detected by the Client or an Authorized Party, the error or omission must be immediately brought to the attention of TETRA TECH. 1.4 DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY CLIENT

The Client acknowledges that it has fully cooperated with TETRA TECH with respect to the provision of all available information on the past, present, and proposed conditions on the site, including historical information respecting the use of the site. The Client further acknowledges that in order for TETRA TECH to properly provide the services contracted for in the Contract, TETRA TECH has relied upon the Client with respect to both the full disclosure and accuracy of any such information. 1.5 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH BY OTHERS

During the performance of the work and the preparation of this Professional Document, TETRA TECH may have relied on information provided by persons other than the Client. While TETRA TECH endeavours to verify the accuracy of such information, TETRA TECH accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the reliability of such information even where inaccurate or unreliable information impacts any recommendations, design or other deliverables and causes the Client or an Authorized Party loss or damage. 1.6 GENERAL LIMITATIONS OF DOCUMENT

This Professional Document is based solely on the conditions presented and the data available to TETRA TECH at the time the data were collected in the field or gathered from available databases. The Client, and any Authorized Party, acknowledges that the Professional Document is based on limited data and that the conclusions, opinions, and recommendations contained in the Professional Document are the result of the application of professional judgment to such limited data. The Professional Document is not applicable to any other sites, nor should it be relied upon for types of development other than those to which it refers. Any variation from the site conditions present, or variation in assumed conditions which might form the basis of design or recommendations as outlined in this report, at or on the development proposed as of the date of the Professional Document requires a supplementary investigation and assessment. TETRA TECH is neither qualified to, nor is it making, any recommendations with respect to the purchase, sale, investment or development of the property, the decisions on which are the sole responsibility of the Client. 1.7 NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES

In certain instances, the discovery of hazardous substances or conditions and materials may require that regulatory agencies and other persons be informed and the client agrees that notification to such bodies or persons as required may be done by TETRA TECH in its reasonably exercised discretion.


FILE: 704-V13103415-03 | APRIL 2020 | ISSUED FOR USE

CLIENT : Wood PLC

PROJECT : Farrell Creek

SGS Project # : 1923

Test : Modified Acid-Base Accounting

Date : July 15, 2019

Sample ID Paste TIC CaCO3 S(T) S(SO4) S(S-2) Insoluble S AP NP Net Fizz Test

pH % NP % % % % NP

Method Code Sobek CSB02V Calc. CSA06V CSA07C1 CSA08C1 Calc. Calc. Modified Calc. Sobek

LOD 0.2 0.01 #N/A 0.01 0.01 0.01 #N/A #N/A 0.5 #N/A #N/A

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-1 6.16 0.11 9.2 1.36 0.08 1.15 0.13 35.9 7.9 -28.0 None

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-2 6.14 0.14 11.7 1.4 0.09 1.21 0.10 37.8 8.6 -29.2 None

TH18-FC-003 ARDFC-3 9.19 0.16 13.3 1.12 0.03 1.02 0.07 31.9 11.3 -20.6 None

TH18-FC-015 ARDFC-4 9.15 0.23 19.2 1.06 0.03 1.01 0.02 31.6 8.9 -22.7 None

TH19-FC-001 ARDFC-5 8.65 0.07 5.8 1.06 0.04 0.90 0.12 28.1 6.6 -21.5 None

Duplicates

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-2 0.14

TH19-FC-001 ARDFC-5 0.07 0.91QC

SY4 0.91AMIS0282 0.17GTS-2A 0.322RTS-3A 2.54NBM-1 41.3 Slight

Expected Values 0.91 0.341 0.17 2.46 42.0 Slight

Tolerance (+/-) 0.07 0.030 0.04 0.25 4.0TIC-L1 0.13

Expected Values 0.1325Tolerance (+/-) 0.02

Note:

AP = Acid potential in tonnes CaCO3 equivalent per 1000 tonnes of material. AP is determined from the measured sulphide sulphur content.

NP = Neutralization potential in tonnes CaCO3 equivalent per 1000 tonnes of material.

NET NP = NP - AP

Carbonate NP is calculated from TIC originating from carbonate minerals and is expressed in kg CaCO3/tonne.

Sulphate Sulphur determined by 25% HCl Leach with S by ICP Finish

Sulphide Sulphur determined by Sobek 1:7 Nitric Acid with S by ICP Finish

Insoluble S is acid insoluble S (Total S - (Sulphate S + Sulphide S)).



CLIENT : Wood PLC



Test : Metals by Aqua Regia Digestion with ICP-MS Finish


Sample ID Ag Al Ba Ca Cr Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Na Ni P S Sr Ti V Zn Zr As Be Bi Cd Ce Co

ppm % ppm % ppm ppm % % ppm % ppm % ppm % % ppm % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

Method Code ICM21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 ICP21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20

LOD 0.01 0.01 5 0.01 1 0.5 0.01 0.01 1 0.01 2 0.01 0.5 0.005 0.01 0.5 0.01 1 1 0.5 1 0.1 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.1

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-1 0.57 0.71 362 0.46 11 33.1 1.83 0.22 12 0.3 80 0.02 31 0.1 1.34 41 <0.01 26 115 5.7 11 0.5 0.2 0.34 11.47 4.4

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-2 0.58 0.77 436 0.49 12 40.8 1.82 0.26 12 0.33 73 0.03 37 0.08 1.32 43.9 <0.01 25 147 5.9 8 0.6 0.24 0.49 10.74 5.7

TH18-FC-003 ARDFC-3 0.42 1.07 630 0.44 17 41.2 1.84 0.35 20 0.38 86 0.19 36 0.1 1.11 74.3 <0.01 38 153 5.3 9 0.7 0.27 0.35 13 5.8

TH18-FC-015 ARDFC-4 0.6 0.74 535 0.4 12 35.6 2.2 0.21 16 0.31 127 0.11 33 0.13 1.17 63.3 <0.01 30 134 4.6 13 0.5 0.2 0.33 13.53 5.7

TH19-FC-001 ARDFC-5 0.71 1 458 0.3 17 42.2 1.71 0.34 18 0.28 82 0.11 32 0.09 1.04 49 <0.01 38 150 5.1 16 0.7 0.23 0.41 11.33 6.2

Duplicate

TH18-LX-005 ARDLX2 0.25 2.03 411 1.48 38 50.7 3.81 0.22 44 1.24 488 0.06 44 0.1 0.13 73.3 <0.01 65 119 4.6 8 0.6 0.17 0.47 15.41 15.1

QC

OREAS 260 0.14 1.3 145 0.84 48 44.2 3.58 0.27 21 0.6 458 0.08 73 0.04 0.07 13.7 <0.01 19 125 16.3 11 1.1 0.53 0.21 56.14 30

Certified Values 0.146 1.33 151 0.885 49.2 46.5 3.73 0.285 21.5 0.593 450 0.082 75 0.04 0.077 14.8 BDL 22.0 125 12.6 12.5 1.24 0.54 0.21 55 32.10

Tolerance (%) 30.77 12.80 20.12 14.46 16.31 13.55 11.33 23.08 24.25 14.55 11.76 46.15 14.29 66.67 66.67 20.32 BDL 23.9 12.77 #N/A 35.29 35.07 20.41 27.03 #N/A 11.39

OREAS 502B 1.91 1.89 311 1.04 82 7927 4.91 0.97 30 1.26 397 0.14 31 0.11 0.96 60.9 0.32 107 119 10.6 25 0.4 5.07 0.35 50.35 16.9

Expected Values 2.01 1.90 299 1.10 79 7580 5.02 0.941 29.1 1.22 398 0.148 33.5 0.098 0.97 63 0.307 114 124 10.9 18.6 0.43 5.22 0.2 52 19.0

Tolerance (%) 11.91 12.00 15.26 13.07 14.09 10.55 11.08 13.52 20.50 12.82 11.93 31.07 19.13 25.68 13.42 12.74 19.95 13.0 12.79 24.05 45.54 103.35 11.60 #N/A 10.79 12.00

Sample ID Cs Ga Ge Hf Hg In La Lu Mo Nb Pb Rb Sb Sc Se Sn Ta Tb Te Th Tl U W Y Yb

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

Method Code IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20 IMS21B20

LOD 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.1 1 0.3 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-1 1.45 1.9 <0.1 0.15 0.22 0.04 4.5 0.11 2.13 0.15 14 16.5 0.59 3.3 2 0.7 <0.05 0.64 0.06 5.5 0.11 1.58 <0.1 16.49 0.8

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-2 1.67 2.1 <0.1 0.15 0.23 0.04 4.3 0.09 3.31 0.13 15.3 18.5 0.53 3.6 2 0.7 <0.05 0.6 0.08 6 0.18 1.54 <0.1 13.44 0.7

TH18-FC-003 ARDFC-3 2.1 2.9 <0.1 0.15 0.18 0.05 5.4 0.11 1.67 0.16 16.1 22.1 0.77 4.1 2 0.8 <0.05 0.68 0.08 6.6 0.13 1.63 <0.1 17.05 0.8

TH18-FC-015 ARDFC-4 1.59 2.1 <0.1 0.12 0.19 0.04 5.2 0.12 1.34 0.09 16 17 0.76 3.6 2 0.6 <0.05 0.67 0.07 5.5 0.08 1.92 <0.1 18.15 0.9

TH19-FC-001 ARDFC-5 2.03 2.7 <0.1 0.14 0.17 0.04 4.5 0.1 1.21 0.12 13.6 22.4 0.88 3.7 2 0.7 <0.05 0.65 0.09 5.4 0.14 1.63 <0.1 15.91 0.8

Duplicate

TH18-LX-005 ARDLX2 0.95 7.2 <0.1 0.14 0.06 0.04 5.6 0.11 2.51 <0.05 13.3 10.4 0.55 8.2 <1 0.8 <0.05 0.55 <0.05 4.2 0.03 0.6 <0.1 13.49 0.8

QC

OREAS 260 2.7 4.7 0.1 0.42 0.06 0.03 29.1 0.14 0.39 <0.05 27.9 18.1 1.09 2.9 <1 0.8 <0.05 0.55 <0.05 11.5 0.21 1.32 <0.1 11.67 0.9

Certified Values 3.12 5.05 BDL 0.33 0.047 0.027 28.1 0.140 0.43 BDL 30.7 21.2 1.32 3.39 BDL 0.62 BDL 0.52 0.081 11.30 0.22 1.29 BDL 11.7 0.99

Tolerance (%) #N/A 16.04 BDL #N/A #N/A 90.91 #N/A 33.33 49.28 BDL 12.35 #N/A 21.85 19.06 BDL #N/A BDL 21.28 89.66 13.01 37.84 21.46 BDL 11.76 42.94

OREAS 502B 8.06 8.4 0.2 0.44 0.06 0.59 26.5 0.19 225 2.01 18.3 94.7 0.91 6.1 7 10 <0.05 0.53 0.15 15.4 0.59 3.57 3.4 14.45 1.3

Expected Values 8.34 8.58 0.22 0.43 0.038 0.58 25.4 0.2 229 1.44 19.6 106 1.09 7.00 7.97 9.93 #N/A 0.52 0.16 15.0 0.60 3.93 2.29 15.2 1.39

Tolerance (%) 12.20 13.80 76.41 48.56 #N/A 20.53 11.62 25.35 10.58 20.6 13.39 11.05 24.05 14.56 52.16 19.24 #N/A 21.75 157.53 12.39 20.18 14.11 23.36 11.44 32.54



CLIENT : Wood PLC



Test : 24 Hour Nanopure Water Leach Extraction Test at 3:1 Liquid to Solid Ratio


Leachate Analysis

Sample ID TH18-FC-002 TH18-FC-002 TH18-FC-003 TH18-FC-015 TH19-FC-001 Blank

ARDFC-1 ARDFC-2 ARDFC-3 ARDFC-4 ARDFC-5

Parameter Method Units

Volume Nanopure Water mL 750 750 750 750 750 750

Sample Weight g 250 250 250 250 250 -

pH meter 7.25 7.16 9.69 8.89 8.78 6.01

Redox meter mV 316 335 252 254 259 -

Conductivity meter uS/cm 844 814 406 282 319 1

Acidity (to pH 4.5) titration mg CaCO3/L #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A -

Total Acidity (to pH 8.3) titration mg CaCO3/L 3.5 3.6 #N/A #N/A #N/A -

Alkalinity titration mg CaCO3/L 12.8 10.4 149.9 81.7 72.8 -

Sulphate Turbidity mg/L 399 371 8 32 54 -

Ion Balance

Major Anions Calc meq/L 8.57 7.94 3.17 2.31 2.59 #N/A

Major Cations Calc meq/L 9.12 8.69 3.90 2.71 2.83 #N/A

Difference Calc meq/L -0.55 -0.75 -0.73 -0.41 -0.24 #N/A

Balance (%) Calc % -3.1% -4.5% -10.3% -8.1% -4.4% #N/A

Dissolved Metals

Hardness CaCO3 mg/L 400 363 0.64 0.42 0.67 -

Aluminum Al ICP-MS mg/L 0.004 0.005 0.831 0.326 0.330 -

Antimony Sb ICP-MS mg/L < 0.0009 0.0011 0.0203 0.0128 0.0114 -

Arsenic As ICP-MS mg/L 0.0004 0.0003 0.0288 0.0198 0.0224 -

Barium Ba ICP-MS mg/L 0.0413 0.0257 0.0929 0.0441 0.0456 -

Beryllium Be ICP-MS mg/L 0.000007 0.000012 0.000036 0.000010 0.000013 -

Bismuth Bi ICP-MS mg/L < 0.000007 < 0.000007 < 0.000007 < 0.000007 < 0.000007 -

Boron B ICP-MS mg/L 0.204 0.191 0.237 0.217 0.195 -

Cadmium Cd ICP-MS mg/L 0.000300 0.000757 0.000021 0.000011 0.000005 -

Calcium Ca ICP-MS mg/L 93.7 83.2 0.13 0.11 0.16 -

Chromium Cr ICP-MS mg/L < 0.00008 < 0.00008 0.00080 0.00031 0.00037 -

Cobalt Co ICP-MS mg/L 0.0162 0.0242 0.000204 0.000083 0.000154 -

Copper Cu ICP-MS mg/L 0.0006 0.0012 0.0010 0.0005 0.0010 -

Iron Fe ICP-MS mg/L < 0.007 < 0.007 0.215 0.055 0.077 -

Lead Pb ICP-MS mg/L < 0.00001 0.00049 0.00032 0.00010 0.00034 -

Lithium Li ICP-MS mg/L 0.122 0.0669 0.107 0.0721 0.0804 -

Magnesium Mg ICP-MS mg/L 40.2 37.6 0.077 0.038 0.066 -

Manganese Mn ICP-MS mg/L 0.655 0.126 0.00109 0.00056 0.00078 -

Mercury Hg ICP-MS ug/L < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 -

Molybdenum Mo ICP-MS mg/L 0.00341 0.00327 0.0288 0.0216 0.0158 -

Nickel Ni ICP-MS mg/L 0.112 0.168 0.0009 0.0003 0.0006 -

Phosphorus P ICP-MS mg/L < 0.003 < 0.003 0.064 0.070 0.045 -

Potassium K ICP-MS mg/L 11.0 10.4 0.662 0.647 0.735 -

Selenium Se ICP-MS mg/L 0.0225 0.0199 0.0322 0.0186 0.0263 -

Silicon Si ICP-MS mg/L 2.33 2.26 3.42 2.30 2.36 -

Silver Ag ICP-MS mg/L < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 < 0.00005 -

Sodium Na ICP-MS mg/L 17.0 25.1 84.7 59.4 61.9 -

Strontium Sr ICP-MS mg/L 0.724 0.630 0.00515 0.00290 0.00338 -

Sulphur (S) ICP-MS mg/L 148 141 19.3 24.4 30.6 -

Thallium Tl ICP-MS mg/L 0.000131 0.000260 0.000008 0.000007 0.000008 -

Tin Sn ICP-MS mg/L < 0.00006 < 0.00006 0.00010 < 0.00006 < 0.00006 -

Titanium Ti ICP-MS mg/L < 0.00005 < 0.00005 0.00473 0.00087 0.00058 -

Uranium U ICP-MS mg/L 0.000136 0.000225 0.00152 0.000692 0.000726 -

Vanadium V ICP-MS mg/L 0.00009 0.00014 0.0331 0.0212 0.0184 -

Zinc Zn ICP-MS mg/L 0.029 0.065 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 -

Zirconium Zr ICP-MS mg/L < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 -

Report Prepared for:

Project Number/ LIMS No. 14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

Batch No. Lynx Creek & Farrell

Sample Receipt: July 9, 2019

Sample Analysis: July 12, 2019

Reporting Date: July 16, 2019

Instrument:

Test Conditions:

Interpretations :

Detection Limit : 0.5-2%. Strongly dependent on crystallinity.

Contents: 1) Method Summary

2) Quantitative XRD Results

3) XRD Pattern(s)

Kim Gibbs, H.B.Sc., P.Geo. Huyun Zhou, Ph.D., P.Geo.

Senior Mineralogist Senior Mineralogist

SGS Minerals P.O. Box 4300, 185 Concession Street, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada K0L 2H0

a division of SGS Canada Inc. Tel: (705) 652-2000 Fax: (705) 652-6365 www.sgs.com www.sgs.com/met

Member of the SGS Group (SGS SA)

SGS Canada Inc

Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction by Rietveld Refinement

BRUKER AXS D8 Advance Diffractometer

Co radiation, 35 kV, 40 mA

Regular Scanning: Step: 0.02°, Step time: 1s, 2θ range: 3-80°

PDF2/PDF4 powder diffraction databases issued by the International Center

for Diffraction Data (ICDD). DiffracPIus Eva and Topas software.

ACCREDITATION: SGS Minerals Services Lakefield is accredited to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 for specific tests as listed on

our scope of accreditation, including geochemical, mineralogical and trade mineral tests. To view a list of the accredited methods, please

visit the following website and search SGS Canada - Minerals Services - Lakefield: http://palcan.scc.ca/SpecsSearch/GLSearchForm.do.

Mineral Identification and Interpretation:

Quantitative Rietveld Analysis:

SGS Minerals P.O. Box 4300, 185 Concession Street, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada K0L 2H0

a division of SGS Canada Inc. Tel: (705) 652-2000 Fax: (705) 652-6365 www.sgs.com www.sgs.com/met

Member of the SGS Group (SGS SA)

DISCLAIMER: This document is issued by the Company under its General Conditions of Service accessible at

http://www.sgs.com/en/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx. Attention is drawn to the limitation of liability, indemnification and jurisdiction issues

defined therein. Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company’s findings at the time of

its intervention only and within the limits of Client’s instructions, if any. The Company’s sole responsibility is to its Client and this

document does not exonerate parties to a transaction from exercising all their rights and obligations under the transaction documents.

Any unauthorized alteration, forgery or falsification of the content or appearance of this document is unlawful and offenders may be

prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

WARNING: The sample(s) to which the findings recorded herein (the “Findings”) relate was(were) drawn and / or provided by the Client

or by a third party acting at the Client’s direction. The Findings constitute no warranty of the sample’s representativeness of any goods

and strictly relate to the sample(s). The Company accepts no liability with regard to the origin or source from which the sample(s) is/are

said to be extracted.

Rietveld refinement is completed with a set of minerals specifically identified for the sample. Zero values

indicate that the mineral was included in the refinement calculations, but the calculated concentration was less

than 0.05wt%. Minerals not identified by the analyst are not included in refinement calculations for specific

samples and are indicated with a dash.

Mineral identification and interpretation involves matching the diffraction pattern of an unknown material to

patterns of single-phase reference materials. The reference patterns are compiled by the Joint Committee on

Powder Diffraction Standards - International Center for Diffraction Data (JCPDS-ICDD) database and released

on software as Powder Diffraction Files (PDF).

Interpretations do not reflect the presence of non-crystalline and/or amorphous compounds, except when

internal standards have been added by request. Mineral proportions may be strongly influenced by

crystallinity, crystal structure and preferred orientations. Mineral or compound identification and quantitative

analysis results should be accompanied by supporting chemical assay data or other additional tests.

Quantitative Rietveld Analysis is performed by using Topas 4.2 (Bruker AXS), a graphics based profile

analysis program built around a non-linear least squares fitting system, to determine the amount of different

phases present in a multicomponent sample. Whole pattern analyses are predicated by the fact that the X-ray

diffraction pattern is a total sum of both instrumental and specimen factors. Unlike other peak intensity-based

methods, the Rietveld method uses a least squares approach to refine a theoretical line profile until it matches

the obtained experimental patterns.

Method SummaryThe Rietveld Method of Mineral Identification by XRD (ME-LR-MIN-MET-MN-D05) method used by SGS

Minerals Services is accredited to the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025.

SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-LX-004

ARDLX1

TH18-LX-005

ARDLX2

TH18-LX-005

ARDLX3

TH18-LX-007

ARDLX4

TH19-LX-

501A

ARDLX5

TH19-LX-507

ARDLX6

TH18-FC-002

ARDFC-1

TH18-FC-002

ARDFC-2

TH18-FC-003

ARDFC-3

TH18-FC-015

ARDFC-4

TH18-FC-001

ARDFC-5

JUL4513-01 JUL4513-02 JUL4513-03 JUL4513-04 JUL4513-05 JUL4513-06 JUL4513-07 JUL4513-08 JUL4513-09 JUL4513-10 JUL4513-11

(wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %) (wt %)

Quartz 31.5 32.2 29.2 34.7 33.2 28.4 53.7 50.6 44.5 51.8 50.9

Albite 25.6 23.0 20.2 25.1 24.3 19.1 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.9 6.1

Microcline 2.5 3.1 4.9 2.8 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.8 3.5 3.8

Chlorite 7.3 7.1 7.5 6.3 5.7 5.3 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.9

Pyrite 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.8 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.8

Calcite 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.6 2.9 4.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3

Diopside 3.1 3.1 2.8 3.0 4.0 5.3 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.9

Dolomite 1.5 1.5 2.3 2.2 2.8 2.0 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.3

Ankerite 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.4 1.7 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0

Kaolinite 0.9 1.1 1.9 1.1 0.6 1.2 2.8 4.1 4.1 2.9 3.1

Anatase 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5

Muscovite 11.4 12.9 16.8 13.4 9.1 14.3 15.1 17.5 19.8 17.0 18.1

Biotite 0.8 1.0 0.9 2.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 - - - -

Fluorapatite 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 4.0 0.6 0.3 0.5 2.0 0.4

Montmorillonite 8.9 7.5 6.7 4.9 8.4 9.7 9.4 6.3 9.6 6.8 6.5

Illite 4.1 4.5 5.2 2.3 3.3 1.5 3.1 5.3 5.3 4.8 5.4

TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Zero values indicate that the mineral was included in the refinement, but the calculated concentration is below a measurable value.

Dashes indicate that the mineral was not identifed by the analyst and not included in the refinement calculation for the sample.

The weight percent quantities indicated have been normalized to a sum of 100%. The quantity of amorphous material has not been determined.

Mineral/Compound Formula

Quartz SiO2

Albite NaAlSi3O8

Microcline KAlSi3O8

Chlorite (Fe,(Mg,Mn)5,Al)(Si3Al)O10(OH)8

Pyrite FeS2

Calcite CaCO3

Diopside CaMgSi2O6

Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2

Ankerite CaFe(CO3)2

Kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4

Anatase TiO2

Muscovite KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2

Biotite K(Mg,Fe)3(AlSi3O10)(OH)2

Fluorapatite Ca5(PO4)3F

Montmorillonite (Na,Ca)0.3(Al,Mg)2Si2O10(OH)2·10H2O

Illite (K,H3O)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10[(OH)2,(H2O)]

Mineral/Compound

Summary of Rietveld Quantitative Analysis X-Ray Diffraction Results

SGS Minerals Services, P.O. Box 4300, 185 Concession Street, Lakefield, Ontario, Canada K0L 2H0

SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-LX-004 ARDLX1

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

JUL4513-1 riet.raw_1 Quartz 31.47 %

Albite 25.59 %

Microcline intermediate1 2.47 %

Chlorite IIb 7.29 %

Pyrite 0.35 %

Calcite 0.50 %

Diopside 3.07 %

Dolomite 1.49 %

Ankerite Fe0.55 0.49 %

Kaolinite 0.89 %

Anatase 0.58 %

Muscovite 2M1 11.40 %

Biotite 1M Mica 0.82 %

Fluorapatite 0.56 %

Montmorillonite-11A 8.92 %

Illite 4.09 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-LX-005 ARDLX2

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000


Albite 23.04 %


Chlorite IIb 7.09 %

Pyrite 0.28 %

Calcite 0.84 %

Diopside 3.12 %

Dolomite 1.49 %


Kaolinite 1.13 %

Anatase 0.67 %



Fluorapatite 0.25 %


Illite 4.51 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-LX-005 ARDLX3

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

23,000

22,500

22,000

21,500

21,000

20,500

20,000

19,500

19,000

18,500

18,000

17,500

17,000

16,500

16,000

15,500

15,000

14,500

14,000

13,500

13,000

12,500

12,000

11,500

11,000

10,500

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

-500

-1,000

-1,500

-2,000

-2,500

-3,000

-3,500

-4,000

-4,500

-5,000

-5,500

-6,000

-6,500

-7,000


Albite 20.21 %


Chlorite IIb 7.49 %

Pyrite 0.28 %

Calcite 0.12 %

Diopside 2.82 %

Dolomite 2.33 %


Kaolinite 1.90 %

Anatase 0.78 %



Fluorapatite 0.33 %


Illite 5.22 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-LX-007 ARDLX4

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

27,000

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000


Albite 25.06 %


Chlorite IIb 6.26 %

Pyrite 0.13 %

Calcite 0.56 %

Diopside 2.99 %

Dolomite 2.23 %


Kaolinite 1.08 %

Anatase 0.53 %



Fluorapatite 0.29 %


Illite 2.31 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH19-LX-501A ARDLX5

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000


Albite 24.27 %


Chlorite IIb 5.67 %

Pyrite 0.34 %

Calcite 2.89 %

Diopside 3.97 %

Dolomite 2.84 %


Kaolinite 0.57 %

Anatase 0.34 %



Fluorapatite 0.42 %


Illite 3.29 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH19-LX-507 ARDLX6

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

21,000

20,500

20,000

19,500

19,000

18,500

18,000

17,500

17,000

16,500

16,000

15,500

15,000

14,500

14,000

13,500

13,000

12,500

12,000

11,500

11,000

10,500

10,000

9,500

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

-500

-1,000

-1,500

-2,000

-2,500

-3,000

-3,500

-4,000

-4,500

-5,000

-5,500

-6,000

-6,500


Albite 19.07 %


Chlorite IIb 5.33 %

Pyrite 0.11 %

Calcite 4.25 %

Diopside 5.32 %

Dolomite 2.00 %


Kaolinite 1.25 %

Anatase 0.61 %



Fluorapatite 3.96 %


Illite 1.52 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-1

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

36,000

35,000

34,000

33,000

32,000

31,000

30,000

29,000

28,000

27,000

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000

-9,000

-10,000

-11,000

-12,000

-13,000

-14,000


Albite 6.32 %


Chlorite IIb 1.33 %

Pyrite 1.78 %

Calcite 0.52 %

Diopside 1.02 %

Dolomite 0.49 %


Kaolinite 2.78 %

Anatase 0.48 %



Fluorapatite 0.57 %


Illite 3.05 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-FC-002 ARDFC-2

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

31,000

30,000

29,000

28,000

27,000

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000

-9,000

-10,000


Albite 6.34 %


Chlorite IIb 1.60 %

Pyrite 2.14 %

Calcite 0.42 %

Diopside 0.85 %

Dolomite 0.70 %


Kaolinite 4.07 %

Anatase 0.53 %


Fluorapatite 0.28 %


Illite 5.26 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-FC-003 ARDFC-3

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

29,000

28,000

27,000

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000

-9,000

-10,000


Albite 5.85 %


Chlorite IIb 1.67 %

Pyrite 1.55 %

Calcite 0.47 %

Diopside 1.11 %

Dolomite 1.01 %


Kaolinite 4.14 %

Anatase 0.65 %


Fluorapatite 0.46 %


Illite 5.25 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-FC-015 ARDFC-4

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

35,000

34,000

33,000

32,000

31,000

30,000

29,000

28,000

27,000

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000

-9,000

-10,000

-11,000

-12,000


Albite 5.86 %


Chlorite IIb 2.08 %

Pyrite 1.58 %

Calcite 0.13 %

Diopside 1.13 %

Dolomite 0.10 %


Kaolinite 2.93 %

Anatase 0.43 %


Fluorapatite 1.97 %


Illite 4.76 %


SGS Canada Inc

14094-01B/MI4513-JUL19

16-Jul-19

TH18-FC-001 ARDFC-5

2Th Degrees787674727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086

Co

un

ts

34,000

33,000

32,000

31,000

30,000

29,000

28,000

27,000

26,000

25,000

24,000

23,000

22,000

21,000

20,000

19,000

18,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

-1,000

-2,000

-3,000

-4,000

-5,000

-6,000

-7,000

-8,000

-9,000

-10,000

-11,000

-12,000


Albite 6.14 %


Chlorite IIb 1.87 %

Pyrite 1.76 %

Calcite 0.33 %

Diopside 0.87 %

Dolomite 0.28 %


Kaolinite 3.11 %

Anatase 0.51 %


Fluorapatite 0.35 %


Illite 5.44 %


highway 29 realignment, farrell creek ard-ml mitigation · 2020. 5. 14. · highway 29 realignment,...

Documents