TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis Project Number: TAL-00053888-60 Submitted By: exp Energy Services Inc. 1300 Metropolitan Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32308 T: 850.385.5441 F: 850.385.5523 www.exp•com Document Control Number: KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 Rev Date (yyyy-mm-dd) A 2017-08-02 B Issue Project Manager Prepared by Checked by Approved by Client IFR EXP Stephen Skoropat Richard Gale Richard Gale TCPL 2017-08-09 IFR EXP Mike Aubele Richard Gale Richard Gale TCPL 0 2017-08-10 IFU EXP Mike Aubele Richard Gale Richard Gale TCPL 1 2017-09-27 IFU EXP Mike Aubele Richard Gale Richard Gale TCPL Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Legal Notification This report was prepared by EXP Energy Services Inc. for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. EXP Energy Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this project. i Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Acronyms and Abbreviations cfs cubic feet per second FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling HEC-RAS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System MMI Morrison-Maierle TS Technical Supplement BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamations USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ii Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Table of Contents 1.0  Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1  2.0  Hydraulic Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 1  3.0  4.0  2.1  Hydraulic Model Updates .................................................................................................... 1  2.2  Design Model Input Parameter Selection ........................................................................... 1  2.3  Model Refinements ............................................................................................................. 3  2.4  Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................................. 3  Scour Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 3  3.1  Scour Method Selection ...................................................................................................... 3  3.2  Total Scour .......................................................................................................................... 3  3.3  General River Bed Scour .................................................................................................... 4  3.4  HEC-RAS Contraction Scour Method ................................................................................. 4  3.5  Potential Channel Degradation ........................................................................................... 4  Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................................................................... 5  4.1  Bed Sediment Size Sensitivity ............................................................................................ 5  4.2  Boundary Flow Condition .................................................................................................... 5  4.3  Worst-Case Scenario .......................................................................................................... 5  5.0  Lateral Migration Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5  6.0  Model Results .................................................................................................................................. 6  6.1  Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................................ 10  6.2  Bed Sediment Size............................................................................................................ 10  6.3  Boundary Control .............................................................................................................. 11  6.4  Limitations on Applicability ................................................................................................ 11  6.5  Conservative Nature of the Scour Analysis ...................................................................... 11  7.0  Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 12  8.0  References ..................................................................................................................................... 13  iii Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 List of Appendices Appendix A Detailed Scour Calculation for Scour Analysis Appendix B Review of Collection Sediment Bed Samples for Sensitivity Analysis Appendix C Long Term Bed Elevation Change Appendix D Lateral Migration Analysis Appendix E HEC-RAS Model Output HEC-RAS Plan View Hydraulic Summary Tables Profiles Profile: Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis Cross Sections Cross Sections: Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis Summary Hydraulic Tables at Crossing Location Summary Hydraulic Tables at Crossing Location: Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis 2-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables 5-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables 10-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables 50-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables 100-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables 500-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables D50=1.737 mm Sensitivity Analysis Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables Worst-case Sensitivity Analysis Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables Appendix F Geotechnical Report: Borehole 2 List of Figures Figure 1. HDD Plan for the Missouri River Crossing ................................................................................... 7  List of Tables TABLE 1 Design Inflow for the Missouri River HDD Crossing Hydraulic Model .......................................... 2  TABLE 2 Total Potential Scour Depths for the Missouri River HDD Crossing Design ................................ 8  TABLE 3 Scour Analysis Summary Results ................................................................................................ 8  TABLE 4 500-Year Design, Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................... 9  iv Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 1.0 Introduction The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline crosses the Missouri River downstream of the Fort Peck Spillway. The planned crossing method for this crossing is horizontal directional drilling (HDD) for 2,592 feet at a depth of approximately 53 feet below the lowest surveyed river elevation. An evaluation of the potential for vertical scour is necessary at stream crossings to ensure that the pipeline is buried deep enough to prevent contact between the pipeline and flowing surface water throughout the 50-year to 100-year design life of the pipeline. As a part of the engineering design effort, this report details the scour analysis performed in support of the HDD design for the Missouri River Water Crossing. 2.0 Hydraulic Analysis The original hydraulic model of the Missouri River was generated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HECRAS) v4.1 and was compiled in November 2011 by Morrison-Maierle (MMI), an exp subcontractor responsible for conducting a scour analysis in support of the design of the HDD crossing at the Missouri River. In performing that analysis, MMI collected information necessary to generate a hydraulic model. The data used in the model included survey sonar readings of the Missouri River 0.5 mile upstream and downstream of the crossing location, six survey cross-sections at 1,000-foot intervals, and crossing-specific sediment samples. In researching the input parameters and collecting the available data, MMI acquired and applied the same Manning roughness coefficient (n) at the crossing location that was used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for modeling the section of the Missouri River for flood insurance purposes. The HEC-RAS model input parameters for Manning’s roughness coefficient is 0.024 for the main channel and 0.06 for the floodplain. 2.1 Hydraulic Model Updates In discussions with USACE, a number of input parameters were agreed upon to assist in the scour prediction and provide the information requested in the Section 408 permit application process. A number of sensitivity analyses that were of interest to USACE are evaluated for scour potential, but not as consideration for the crossing design. 2.2 Design Model Input Parameter Selection This section describes the input parameters that were selected for the model. Several model updates and refinements were made to provide a more accurate scour prediction based on the latest available information. 2.2.1 Design Event The following design events were selected for the scour analysis: The 2-Year, 5-Year, 10-Year, 50-Year, 100-Year and 500-Year. The flowrate at each return frequency is defined in the Fort Peck Spillway release probability relationships and is provided in Appendix A. The release curve adopted in 2013 incorporates the data collected for a 2011 extreme event that took place in the river. These flowrates were used as the upstream inflow portion in the model. The flowrate associated with each design return frequency is provided in Table 1 below. The hydraulic outputs from each of the design events were evaluated using the analysis tool provided in the HEC-RAS water surface profiles computer program. The design life of the project is 50 to 100 years. The 100-year frequency flood is stipulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) for the analysis of bed scour for buried utility transmission lines carrying toxic or flammable materials crossing designated floodplains. In addition, under Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act (33 United States Code 401 et seq.) and in consultation with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and USACE, navigable water crossings are to be evaluated using the 100 and 500-Year flood frequency event for scour. The 500-year spillway release flow 1 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 was used for estimating bed scour at the crossing location. Selecting a 500-year return frequency approximates the likelihood at 9.5 to 18 percent of occurring within the lifespan of the project. A risk analysis is required to determine the appropriate level of design. Return frequencies that are not tied to quantifiable extreme event frequencies and those that go beyond a 500- or 40,000-year event are more prone to inaccuracy and determination of the level of risk becomes difficult when considering the validity of the assumptions used in the analysis. While there is always the possibility of operational issues outside of direct relation to inclement weather, a release of this magnitude would most certainly have to align and be compounded by a full reservoir and an infrequently large inflow condition to have the worst-case scenario from the spillway. 2.2.2 Milk River Inflow The Milk River confluence is located approximately 1,500 feet downstream of the proposed pipeline crossing location. The average seasonal flow for the period of May until July from United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage 06174500 Milk River near Nashua was used as a conservatively low estimate for the inflow contribution for this scour analysis to determine the highest potential of scour. These flows are presented in Appendix A. A summary of the inflow used in the model for the selected return frequencies is provided in Table 1. TABLE 1 Design Inflow for the Missouri River HDD Crossing Hydraulic Model Inflow\Return Frequency 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year Worst-Case* Modeled Fort Peck Dam Spillway Flow (cfs) (Hydrologic Statistics USACE) 15,000 17,000 25,000 48,000 60,000 95,000 350,000 Milk River seasonal flow (cfs) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Total modeled flow (cfs) 16,000 18,000 26,000 49,000 61,000 96,000 351,000 Milk River at Nashua peak design flow (cfs) 5,750 12,200 17,200 28,600 33,400 44,100 71,000 ________________________ * used extrapolated value for 40,000-year return frequency The assumption on Milk River inflow significantly lowers the 500-year design flow predicted at the Milk River gage from 44,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1,000 cfs. For the worst-case sensitivity analysis that is described below, the 350,000 cfs flow condition has a 40,000-year return frequency when extrapolating from the Fort Peck release-probability curve. This would result in a decrease from 71,000 cfs, down to the 1,000 cfs wet weather seasonal average that has been conservatively assumed for the hydraulic model. 2.2.3 Bed Sediment Two bed samples were collected by MMI at the crossing location to use in the scour analysis. They represent the best local data possible for determining the bed material composition. For design purposes, the best available information was used for this scour analysis. It is more likely that the sample is representative of the exposed bed material as it was taken several months after the large release event of June 2011. The two site samples were analyzed and were found to have similar characteristics. The two independent samples resulted in grain size distribution profiles with a mean grain size diameter by weight (D50) of 3.5 mm and 3.8 mm. The more conservative D50 of 3.5 mm was used for the design scour analysis to provide the higher scour potential. It is more likely to be representative of the sand and gravel layers that are the result of scour and refill cycle of the river, which has been occurring at the site on a geologic time scale prior to the construction of the dam. 2 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 2.3 Model Refinements Additional model refinements were made to reflect information collected for improved representation of bank stationing and the blocking off the Milk River to prevent allowing it to be used as extra conveyance capacity downstream. In addition, to predict the maximum potential scour depth under all scenarios, a critical flow condition was assumed at the downstream boundary condition for the design model. Consideration was taken for the probability that these more conservative assumptions may occur simultaneously in a compounded event that would allow for the full depth of predicted scour. While this is unlikely to be the case, the results would represent a conservative estimate of scour depth. 2.4 Sensitivity Analysis As described above, several sensitivity runs were conducted to assist in the review of the Section 408 permit application for informational purposes. These include:    A worst-case scenario modelled where the spillway release reaches the maximum capacity of 350,000 cfs, the maximum flow that can be released at high pools from the gates; A D50 of 1.737 mm to determine the impact sediment bed size has to the predicted scour value; and Downstream boundary condition to allow for discharge at normal flow to determine the impact on scour values. Additional details on the sensitivity analysis are discussed in the results section. The HEC-RAS hydraulic analysis and model output is provided in Appendix E. As described previously, the hydraulic model output was used in the scour calculations using the methodology recommended by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). This methodology provides tested and effective scour predictions with the appropriate level of safety needed for the design of pipelines under natural streams. 3.0 Scour Analysis The objective of the scour analysis is to assist in determining the proper design elevation for the HDD under the Missouri River. As previously discussed, the input parameters were selected to provide conservative scour depth predictions for the 500-year event. These include the use of projected peak spillway release flows with downstream average seasonal Milk River inflows, selection of the smaller size of sampled bed material, defined stream channel width, thalweg slope, and base flood elevations. Therefore, the predicted scour depths are expected to be conservative in nature. 3.1 Scour Method Selection The objective of all methods utilized for the evaluation of vertical-scour potential is an estimate of the vertical-scour depth expected in response to a specified flood discharge. The flood discharge that was specified is an estimate of one that is exceeded in magnitude only once every 500 years on average or the 500-year spillway release (Linsley et al. 1992). Since more than one method was used in the evaluation of the stream crossing, a range of scour-depth estimates was generated. 3.2 Total Scour In accordance with National Engineering Handbook Technical Supplement 14B (TS14B, 2007), the total scour calculated within the river is the sum of long-term degradation and general scour. The methods available for predicting depths of total scour are derived empirically from labs and normally extrapolated from observed field data. Yet, the science of predicting scour is inexact and constantly under development 3 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 for a variety of conditions. Therefore, models apply a conservative approach toward the selection of input parameters and in the estimation of potential depths of scour that may occur using the most applicable datasets. 3.3 General River Bed Scour General scour on a natural channel is due to variable velocities at constrictions and meanders along a given stream. This uneven flow results in vortices that are created in the water column. As the science of scour analysis is not well defined, multiple methods are needed to predict scour based on equations that have been developed for specific locations or conditions. Therefore, several methods are presented to confirm and check the results against each other. As described previously, the BOR Regime Equation Method was selected for the prediction of scour depth. This method includes calculating general scour by the application of the Neill, Lacey, and Blench Regime Equations. The BOR Regime Equation method is well established and has been used extensively. It is based on empirical data with documented and specific usage for the safe construction of pipelines under natural channels. It properly addresses the concerns of constructing a pipeline under a waterway and provides a straightforward calculation methodology that can be checked against other methods. The BOR Regime Method considers scour from bend scour, scour caused by debris, and bedform scour. All three equations were used, and the results were compared against each other to check for agreement. The average of the BOR Regime equations was used to predict the scour depth for the design. In addition, the calculations were checked against additional scour prediction methods described in TS14B and BOR and those calculations are provided in Appendix A. 3.4 HEC-RAS Contraction Scour Method The HEC-RAS design function provides hydraulic design functions to determine scour caused as water is constricted through a bridge section. As a check of the scour analysis, a quick reference and check of the BOR method was made against the result from this method. In this analysis, clear-water conditions were used in the function to provide a more conservative estimate for scour. The HEC-RAS contraction scour method is not a good predictor of scour for a natural stream. The contraction scour calculations the model performs assumes the upstream flow is required to flow through a constricted space, as would normally occur under a bridge structure. This affects the flow calculation by increasing velocities through the constricted section. This effect is most prevalent for very large flowrates that also extend onto the floodplain. This increased flowrate provides for a more conservative estimate of the predicted scour and is provided as a check of the BOR method. 3.5 Potential Channel Degradation Analysis of bed-level trends in the Fort Peck Reach of the Missouri River has shown that bed degradation as a direct result of the 1937 closure of Fort Peck Dam has reduced thalweg elevations. Evidence of this is found in the bank heights that have increased by an average of six feet. Future degradation from dam closure is projected to be minimal (Simon, Thomas, Curini, and Shields 2002). In the review of the Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study, a drop-in bed elevation is also confirmed. Figures 6-10 and 6-12 in Appendix C depict the Active Bed and Thalweg Elevation Profile from the stud. They indicate that a large amount of degradation occurred following the construction of the Fort Peck Dam, and has largely stabilized since about 1956. These figures appear to indicate that a drop of four to six feet occurred between 1936 and 1956. The 2012 values seem to indicate some further degradation, however the trend for ultimate slope does not support this conclusion. It seems to indicate a slight potential for aggradation as the channel finds an equilibrium balance. In discussion with USACE, an allowance for degradation of two feet has been agreed upon as an estimate for future degradation. As the degradation component of total scour is long-term, the additional two feet are added to the BOR method scour depth as an estimate for the formation of an armor layer at the crossing location. 4 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 4.0 Sensitivity Analysis 4.1 Bed Sediment Size Sensitivity USACE suggested the use of the D50 from the collected bed samples from the Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study (Missouri River Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study, 2013). There was a wide variation in the “median bed material size ranging from 0.2 mm up to 13 mm” in the collected dataset near the Dam (Missouri River Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study, 2013). For informational purposes the USACE requested a sensitivity analysis using the average of the D50 from the collected 2014 bed samples taken at the two nearest sediment collection points RM 1764 and 1761. The D50 of 1.737 mm was an average of the 1.080 mm and 2.395 mm collected at those sites. This represents decreasing the collected sample at the site by 50% from what was observed in Keystone’s samples. 4.2 Boundary Flow Condition A sensitivity analysis for the downstream boundary control of normal flow condition was tested to determine the impact on the predicted scour depths. 4.3 Worst-Case Scenario The worst-case scenario with the spillway release at the maximum capacity of 350,000 cfs was used at the request of USACE. The results from this run do not represent the design criteria. 5.0 Lateral Migration Analysis Stream lateral migration is a concern if it threatens to impact the operations of the project. To address this concern, a lateral migration analysis was conducted to determine the long-term potential for bank movement and erosion near the crossing location. The figures from the analysis are provided in Appendix D. Fixed survey points from a survey completed in May of 2008 are overlaid on the variously dated aerials. The 2008 surveyed top of bank break lines are provided for visual reference. For this analysis, single frame, National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) and National High Altitude Program (NHAP) aerial images from the historical photograph archives made available in high resolution by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and USGS were obtained. These images were georeferenced and overlaid with the reference layers described above. The streambanks from the 1971 single frame aerial photographs were digitized and compared against the 2015 aerial imagery. The stream centerlines were then processed and the extent of lateral migration was projected. For the 50 and 100-year service life of the pipeline, the potential lateral migration was estimated to be 50 feet and 100 feet, respectively. The conservative estimate of 100 feet for the potential lateral migration has been incorporated into the scour analysis results. In addition, a bank erosion analysis for the record flow and extended spillway release event in 2011 was performed. The May 2008 top of bank appears to be unchanged compared to the 2015 aerial photograph. The extent of the flooding can be observed in the 2011 aerial photograph. These figures show relatively little bank movement caused by the June 2011 record flow release. Despite a continuous release beyond the 10-Year Design flow for nearly 3 months from the spillway, bank erosion is nearly imperceptible in the aerial imagery. Due to inherent shortcomings in using just aerial imagery to determine stream bank migration, a cross sectional view based on historical data available at the crossing location was compiled. Appendix D provides survey data from 2008, November 2011, and 1978 FEMA cross section data collected in support of the hydraulic model for designating flood zones. These 3 cross sections were overlaid on the cross sections made available in the Sediment Trend Study. 5 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 A comparison of data obtained from the original FEMA model, Keystone’s survey data collected at the pipeline crossing location in 2008, and the November 2011 survey data does not indicate any evidence of bank erosion from the release in 2011. A slight narrowing and deepening of the channel is noticeable, likely the result of scour during the 2011 event. Based on the analysis of a single event, it would take a much larger and more prolonged release event than the 2011 flood before it could potentially cause significant bank erosion. 6.0 Model Results The results from the scour analysis are provided in Table 2 and are shown in Figure 1. Table 3 provides the summary of the Blodgett Mean and Max, Degradation, BOR Regime Equations Method, and additional checks provided by HEC-RAS Contraction, BOR Envelope, BOR Competent Velocity and BOR Mean Velocity methods. The supporting individual scour analysis calculation sheets are provided in Appendix A. Under both the 500-Year design and worst-case scenario sensitivity analysis, the pipeline remains intact and unexposed. The HDD profile shows that the pipeline is at an elevation of 1,957 feet, this is 53 feet below the lowest river elevation of 2,010 feet. The HDD is proposed to be constructed with a 3,600-foot radius of curvature. At the closest distance of the pipe to the low point in the stream, a cover of 43 feet is expected. By assuming the scour erodes into the bank to allow for a 100-foot migration of the low point in the channel reduces the cover over the pipe by an additional 9 feet. This scenario would leave 34 feet of cover over the pipeline. Scour depths were compared and averaged for each crossing in accordance with the recommendations in the BOR methodology. This methodology was used in part as bend scour is included in the selection of the adjustment factor and is recognized as an effective and safe method for the prediction of scour. Typically, the BOR equations for scour were based on a reference plane of the surface water elevation, but the method recommends adding the depth to the bottom of the channel as an adequate factor of safety. In accordance with the BOR methodology, the average scour depths were applied to the thalweg elevations to achieve the appropriate factor of safety. Results were checked against TS14B on the regime calculation sheet, TS14B Blodgett max equation, BOR Envelope, BOR Competent Velocity, and BOR Mean Velocity Methods. All methods described rely heavily on real empirical data and represent scour from many types of streams. The Blodgett and BOR methodologies include the effects of bend and bedform scour. A review of the comparison checks indicates the values from the BOR methodology are appropriate for all design events run. The calculations are consistent and the BOR results are greater than the rest of the checks. The predicted scour for the 500-year design event is 11.9 feet. This leaves 22.1 feet of cover remaining. In addition, none of the maximum scour calculations presented in the table as checks would predict pipe exposure. The additional checks were provided to give confidence in the results of the scour predictions. The Sensitivity Analysis for the 350,000 cfs worst-case scenario has a predicted scour of 21.7 feet. This leaves 12.3 feet of cover over the pipeline. The high value predicted by Neill Regime scour are exceptionally high relative to the subsequent checks made across the different methods. This is also significantly greater than the Blodgett Max and BOR Envelope method, both of which generally indicate the maximum amount of scour observed in the empirical dataset. This scour analysis indicates the pipe remains covered during the worst-case scenario. While the results predict the pipe would remain covered during the worst-case scenario, a wide path of flow will occur to allow flood flows to travel downstream, thereby reducing the overall average flow observed in the main channel. Under the worst-case scenario, there is extensive flooding downstream of the spillway. At the crossing location, the width of inundation is predicted to be 11,000 feet wide. The devastation will be immense on or near the floodplain for the entire length of the river. However, design of pipeline valves would withstand the potential inundation and flows of such a massive flood event. These extreme flows would have significant impact downstream with many other stakeholders. While those decisions are being made, pipeline operators would have adequate time to respond and shut in operations. 6 11.9' 21.7' 100' POTENTIAL MIGRATION 500-YEAR SCOUR 22.1' 12.3' WORST-CASE SCOUR exp Energy Services Inc. t: +1.850.385.5441 f: +1.850.385.5523 1300 Metropolitan Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32308 USA www.exp.com FIGURE 1. Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 TABLE 2 Total Potential Scour Depths for the Missouri River HDD Crossing Design Recurrence Interval (year) Design Flow (cfs) Total Potential Scour Depth (ft) Estimated Remaining Cover (ft) 2 15,000 5.9 28.1 5 17,000 6.1 27.9 10 25,000 6.8 27.2 50 48,000 8.8 25.2 100 60,000 9.7 24.3 500 95,000 11.9 22.1 Bed Sample Grain Size Distribution D50 = 3.5 mm (0.14 inch) D90 = 22 mm (0.87 inch) D95 = 26 mm (1 inch) Lowest elevation of crossing - 2,010 feet Top of pipe at river low point (station 24+50) - 1,967 feet Top of pipe at nearest bank station 23+50 - 1,976 feet TABLE 3 Scour Analysis Summary Results USBOR Regime Scour Method* Blodgett Mean Blodgett Max General Scour Average USBOR Regime Neill Lacey Blench HEC-RAS Contraction† Envelope Competent Velocity Mean Velocity Recurrence Interval (year) Flow (cfs) Total Potential Scour Depth (ft) 2 15,000 5.9 3.9 2.9 5.8 2.9 0.0 4.8 0.8 3.1 Degradation 5 17,000 6.1 4.1 3.1 6.1 3.1 1.0 4.9 1.1 3.3 10 25,000 6.8 4.8 3.9 6.9 3.7 1.4 5.3 2.0 3.8 50 48,000 8.8 6.8 6.1 8.6 5.6 2.9 6.1 3.9 5.5 100 60,000 9.7 7.7 7.3 9.3 6.4 3.6 6.4 4.9 6.3 95,000 11.9 9.9 10.2 10.8 8.7 6.1 7.2 7.9 8.2 350,000 21.7 19.7 24.5 16.0 18.7 21.0 9.5 25.7 15.7 500 Worst-case † 2.4 10.9 2 ________________________ * based on empirical data, includes bend, local and bedform scour † for informational purposes only 8 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 TABLE 4 500-Year Design, Sensitivity Analysis USBOR Regime Scour Method* Input Parameter D50 (mm) Downstream Boundary Condition Baseline Design 3.5 Critical Flow D50† 1.737 Critical Flow Boundary Control 3.5 Total Potential Scour Depth (ft) Blodgett Mean Blodgett Max 11.9 2.4 10.9 12.1 2.6 11.8 11.9 2.4 10.9 Degradation 2 Normal Flow ________________________ * based on empirical data, includes bend, local and bedform scour † for informational purposes only 9 General Scour Average BOR Regime Neill Lacey Blench HEC-RAS Contraction† Envelope Competent Velocity Mean Velocity 9.9 10.2 10.8 8.7 6.1 7.2 7.9 8.2 10.1 8.8 12.2 9.3 9.7 7.2 9.9 8.2 9.9 10.2 10.8 8.7 4.5 7.2 5.3 9.4 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 6.1 Sensitivity Analysis The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 presents the worstcase scenario and is in the previous section. Table 4 presents sensitivity analysis results of the scour analysis under the 500-year design event. 6.2 Bed Sediment Size The reduction of D50 by 50 percent increases the predicted scour from BOR equations Lacey and Blench, but the difference is nearly offset by an equivalent decrease in the Neill Regime scour prediction. One of the input parameters required in the Neill Regime Equation is an exponent (m) which varies from 0.67 to 0.85 depending on sediment size. For the sensitivity analysis, the D50 value decreased in size from medium gravel to very coarse sand. Therefore, the associated value for (m) decreased from 0.76 to 0.67. The reduction in the Neill equation calculation is due to the reclassification of the sediment as the D50 decreased in size. Several of the checks of the scour analysis presented in the table predict an increase in scour. They are presented for comparison purposes only and are not relied on for the final scour depth prediction. The HECRAS Contraction scour and Competent Velocity Methods indicate that scour would increase up to 59 percent and 25 percent respectively for the 500-year design event. As discussed previously, the HEC-RAS contraction scour is not likely an appropriate measure for the scour prediction on an open natural stream. As the Missouri River is an open natural stream at the crossing location without any bridge structure, this method results in overpredicting the scour. In contrast, the Blodgett maximum scour prediction which is entirely dependent on the D50 predicts a minor increase in scour of 8 percent from the 500-year design event. The results from the envelope and mean velocity methods are unaffected by a change in D50. The Fort Peck Sediment Trends Study indicated high variability in the sediment samples collected near the crossing location. However, the bed samples collected are not representative of the substrate bed material. On page 7-1 of that study, the authors note that the samples obtained “are more likely indicative of the most recently deposited or exposed sediments at the sampling location at the time of the sample.” Regardless, it would be unlikely that an extended layer of smaller sized material would be encountered with the variability shown in the samples to significantly impact the results. The history of the effort in collecting and analyzing the trend in sediment particle size seems to indicate there is significant variability in collected bed material. This suggests that even if a pocket of fine sediment were encountered, it would not extend for a significant depth given the variability in the bed samples. Appendix B compiles the bed sample data collected from the Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study. The information presented does not indicate a significant change in the D50 for any extended depth within the channel bed. However, reviewing the historical bed sample collection efforts in the Ft. Peck Study, it appears that if any variation were to occur, it would more likely increase rather than decrease the representative D50. The samples that were collected for the scour analysis were for the specific purpose of performing a scour analysis at the crossing location. While supplemental data was provided for review and analyzed, much of the data was determined unlikely to be representative of the material that would be encountered during scouring of the bed. In contrast, the samples collected at the site are consistent with the geotechnical data collected for the HDD crossing at Borehole #2, which indicates a 15-foot layer which contains gravel material. The presence of this layer indicates there likely is a sufficient local source to form an armor layer in the active bed. The borelogs from the Geotech Report are provided in Appendix F. This borehole is the one nearest to the lowest point in the stream. Based on the information provided above, the collected sample D50 appears to be the most appropriate to use for the scour analysis without additional information. Further discussion on the appropriateness of use of sediment samples collected for the Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study is provided in Appendix B. 10 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 6.3 Boundary Control The sensitivity analysis with a downstream boundary control of normal flow condition had little impact on predicted scour for the 500-year event. It has a more significant impact on the worst-case scenario as the conveyance issues would decrease velocities at the crossing location. The design model assumes a free discharge boundary condition. An assumption of normal boundary control is the more likely scenario. However, for the purposes of the scour analysis the assumption to determine the greater scour prediction was used. By assuming free discharge at the boundary condition and allowing critical flow to occur, the increases in velocities impact the HEC-RAS Contraction and Competent Velocity scour calculations by increasing the predicted scour by 74 percent and 49 percent respectively. While these additional scour methods predict an increase in scour, they are not being relied on in the scour depth prediction and are being presented for information purposes only. Although an assumption of normal boundary control is the more likely scenario, for the purposes of the scour analysis the assumption to determine the greater scour prediction was used. 6.4 Limitations on Applicability The sensitivity analysis was performed running the 500-year design model under the worst-case scenario. However, attempting to apply the results of the sensitivity analysis directly for the worst-case scenario may not be realistic since there are many unknown factors that have a great influence on the predicted scour, including but not limited to:  The selection of conservative values used in the Design model may not be applicable for the worstcase scenario as they are primarily based on empirical data;  Reduced conveyance downstream due to unsurveyed obstructions in the 2-mile-wide flow path on the floodplain that decrease velocities experienced at the crossing location;  Downstream inflows that add to the backwater condition and decrease velocities at the crossing location. As such, it would be impractical to extend the assumptions used in the scour analysis as they were developed from empirical data which most likely don’t encompass the conditions for the worst-case scenario. The main channel can contain the 500-year design flow at the crossing location. However, for the worst-case scenario, flooding extends widely in the floodplain. Additional data acquisition is needed to precisely determine the likely scour at the crossing location for such a scenario, including fully projecting the flow contribution from the Milk River downstream of the crossing location, establishing a probable downstream boundary control, surveying for obstructions and ineffective areas to the flow along the floodplain, collecting additional sediment samples and more detailed model refinements to more accurately predict the likely scour potential. While the selected model input parameters represent an evaluation based on the best available information at the time, any other application of the model results beyond its intended use should review the model carefully as to suitability of the assumptions used. 6.5 Conservative Nature of the Scour Analysis The scour predictions presented in the scour analysis are at the high end of the maximum predicted scour based on Blodgett maximum envelope calculations. In the collection of data at 21 sites over a long period of time, which included effects of degradation and many forms of scour, the amount of scour as predicted in the 500-year design and worst-case scenario is far beyond any that are predicted through this dataset, and is likely unrealistic for a number of reasons. The conservative assumptions as discussed previously that are built into the hydraulic model include:  Assuming bank erosion and scour occurs at the nearest point to the pipeline crown which would assume a migration of the channel by 100. This assumes a project life of 100 years and bank 11 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 erosion continues through the existing high bank. In addition, the historical channel corridor is the existing floodplain to the south. Absent this migration, an additional 9 feet of cover would be gained;  Using the smaller of two grain size distributions rather than the average of two site-specific sediment samples that were collected;  Results for the 500-year and worst-case scenario are more conservative than any of the empirical data has shown. Selecting a 500-year Design event is more conservative than the typically used 100-year design;  Assuming the pipeline is operational despite a service life of anywhere between 50-100 years or 0.1-0.25 percent of the worst-case scenario event frequency;  Assuming critical flow as the downstream control, thereby allowing higher velocities and a higher scour prediction. During such an extreme event, significant backwater effects are expected due to limited conveyance capacity as well as additional flow contributions downstream; and  Assuming downstream inflow for the Milk River is not experiencing the same event phenomenon. The flow contribution at the Milk River confluence is average seasonal flow rather than concurrent flood flow. This assumption allows more flow out of the system and these higher velocities allow for higher scour predictions. More than likely, during such an extreme event there will be comparative increases in flow contributions throughout the system and there will be significant backwater effects due to a limitation in conveyance capacity. The modeled Milk River inflow is less than 3% of the projected peak flows from the 100-, 500- or 40,000-year return event. In addition, there are many layers of mitigative actions that would remove most of the hazard the pipeline installation may cause. These include the installation of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, leak detection system, and remotely operated valves near the crossing location, where the shut-in of the pipe can be completed in minutes. There will also be pipeline monitoring by in-line inspection, yearly surveys, regular communication with landowners, routine maintenance to ensure depth of cover is maintained over the pipeline, damage prevention plan, spill prevention and contingency plans to ensure emergency crews are nearby and ready to respond, and awareness of USACE Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Bulletins posted during extreme weather events. These layers significantly reduce the risk of a breach or significant release as a result of the installation of the pipeline. 7.0 Summary The results of this scour analysis indicate that the scour for the 500-year design event is 11.9 feet. This leaves 22.1 feet of cover remaining over the pipeline. Upon completion of construction, a cross-sectional survey to establish baseline conditions should be conducted. Thereafter, monitoring and verification of the scour model should be made when advanced notice can be given for the use of spillway and the flowrate is expected to exceed 20,000 cfs. This includes taking cross sectional surveys 500 feet upstream and downstream at 100 foot. A potential of lateral migration of up 100 feet encroachment for a 100-year project life to the northern bank is estimated. The HDD entry is 380 feet from the bank and will not be impacted. However, it is recommended that should any observation indicate lateral migration beyond 50 feet from the existing bank, mitigation measures should then be considered. In addition, a sensitivity analysis for the worst-case flow scenario of 350,000 cfs was analyzed. The results indicate that it will generate an additional scour of 9.8 feet. This would leave 12.3 feet of cover when the scour is applied to the lowest elevation of the Missouri River and allowed to migrate to the nearest point of the pipeline in the HDD curvature under the river. Neither the projected 500-year design event nor the worst-case event present a significant risk to expose the pipe as proposed. However, model results indicate that an extreme event of this magnitude would have floodwaters significantly overtopping the banks and would extend for two miles wide at the crossing location, and impact many who are downstream of the 12 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 spillway along the Missouri River floodplain. This flowrate has never been observed at this location, the results indicate that many along the floodplain would be severely impacted and the devastation would be widespread under these very unlikely circumstances. The worst-case scenario model run was performed as a sensitivity analysis with the intent to estimate the upper limit of potential scour along the main channel of the Missouri River and compare it to the HDD crossing design. Based on the results of the analysis, it does not appear that a modification to the design of the HDD is warranted. In regards to the safety and integrity of the pipeline at this crossing location, based on the model result and scour analysis performed, the current design depth is adequate to protect against potential scour resulting from the 500-year design and the worst-case scenario. 8.0 References Blench, T., 1969, “Mobile-Bed Fluviology: A Regime Theory Treatment of Rivers for Engineers and Hydrologists,” Second Edition, University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. Chang, Howard H. 2002. “Fluvial Processes in River Engineering,” Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL, 432 p. Chow, V.T. 1959. “Open-Channel Hydraulics,” McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 680 p. Emmett, William. 1972. “Hydraulic Geometry of Some Alaskan Streams South of Yukon River,” USGS Open File Report OFR 72-018. Expe Wilcock, P.R., Kenworthy, S.T. and Crowe, J.C. 2001. Experimental study of the transport of mixed sand and gravel, Water Resources Research, 37(12), 3349-.3358. Lagasse, P.F., W.J. Spitz, L.W. Zevenbergen, and D.W. Zachman (Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, CO). 2004. “Handbook for Predicting Stream Meander Migration,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 533, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 66 p. and Appendices. Linsley, Ray K., Joseph B. Franzini, David L. Freyberg, and George Tchobanoglous. 1992. “WaterResources Engineering,” Fourth Edition., Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, 841 p. Hydrologic Statistics Technical Report Missouri River Basin Water Management Division Omaha, Nebraska. September 2013. Missouri River Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study, Updated April 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Missouri River Basin. M.R.B. Sediment Memorandum 28. Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, Master Water Control Manual, Missouri River Basin. 2006. Neill, C.R., 1973. "Guide to Bridge Hydraulics," published for Road and Transportation Association of Canada. Part 654 National Engineering Handbook Technical Supplement 14B, 2007. Scour Calculations, Publication 210–VI–NEH. Pemberton E.L & Lara, J.M. (1984). "Computing Degradation and Local Scour." Technical Guideline for Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. Simon, A., Thomas, R.E., Curini, A. and Shields, F.D., Jr. 2002. Case Study: Channel Stability of the Missouri River, Eastern Montana, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 128(10): 880-890. Transport of Gravel and Sediment Mixtures of Parker’s Chapter 3 for ASCE Manual 54. 13 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Trow Engineering Consultants, Inc., 1996, “Water-Crossing Design and Installation Manual,” prepared for the Offshore and Onshore Design Application Supervisory Committee of PRC International (copyright to American Gas Association). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Channel Stability Assessment for Flood Control Projects (1994a). Publication 1110-2-1418. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994b). Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channel. Publication 1110-21601. 14 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Appendix A – Detailed Scour Calculation for Scour Analysis Design Flow Input Parameters The newly adopted release curves incorporate the data collected for the 2011 extreme event. A copy of Table 5 on page 15 2013 release probability relationships for the Fort Peck Dam from the “Hydrologic Statistics Technical Report: Missouri River Basin Water Management Division Omaha, Nebraska,” dated September 2013 is provided for convenience below: A-1 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 USBOR Envelope Curve Method Scour Calculations Recurrence Interval (year) Main Channel Flow (cfs) Main Channel Top Width (ft) Unit Discharge (cfs/ft) Scour (ft)* 2 15,000 891 17 4.8 5 17,000 920 18 4.9 10 25,000 1023 24 5.3 50 48,000 1070 45 6.1 100 60,000 1074 56 6.4 500 95,000 1082 88 7.2 d50=1.737mm 95,000 1082 88 7.2 DS BC=normal 94,988 1087 87 7.2 306,099 1104 277 9.5 Sensitivity Analysis † Worst-case ________________________ * provided as a check, empirical data based on slope of 0.004-0.008 ft/ft and d50 of 0.5-0.7mm † for informational purposes, only Source: Pemberton & Lara, 1984: Equation 24, page 32 A-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Detailed Scour Calculation for Scour Analysis USBOR Mean Velocity Method Scour Calculations BOR Lacey Z Factor (severe bend) Main Channel Mean Depth (ft) Scour (ft) 2 0.75 4.17 3.1 5 0.75 4.36 3.3 10 0.75 5.03 3.8 50 0.75 7.31 5.5 100 0.75 8.40 6.3 500 0.75 10.98 8.2 d50=1.737mm† 0.75 10.98 8.2 DS BC=normal 0.75 12.56 9.4 Worst-case† 0.75 20.99 15.7 Recurrence Interval (year) Sensitivity Analysis ________________________ † for informational purposes, only Source: Pemberton & Lara, 1984: Equation 29, pages 36-37 A-3 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Neill Competent Velocity Method Scour Calculations D50 (mm) Main Channel Mean Depth (ft) Main Channel Mean Velocity (ft/s) Competent Mean Velocity (ft/s) * Scour (ft) 2 3.5 4.17 4.04 3.4 0.8 5 3.5 4.36 4.24 3.4 1.1 10 3.5 5.03 4.86 3.5 2.0 50 3.5 7.31 6.13 4.0 3.9 100 3.5 8.40 6.65 4.2 4.9 500 3.5 10.98 8.00 4.7 7.9 d50=1.737mm 1.74 10.98 8.00 4.2 9.9 DS BC=normal 3.5 12.56 6.96 4.9 5.3 Worst-case† 3.5 20.99 13.21 5.9 25.7 Recurrence Interval (year) Sensitivity Analysis * from USBOR Figure 12, page 41 † for informational purposes, only Source: Pemberton & Lara, 1984: Equation 32, page 38 A-4 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Neill Scour Calculations Main Channel Flow (cfs) Bankfull Average Depth (ft) Bankfull Flow (cfs) Bankfull Top Width (ft) Main Channel Top Width (ft) Neill exponent m (0.67-0.85) Neill Method (ft) USBOR Neill Z Factor (severe bend) Scour (ft) 2 15,000 4.2 15,000 891 891 0.76 4.2 0.70 2.9 5 17,000 4.2 15,000 891 920 0.76 4.5 0.70 3.1 10 25,000 4.2 15,000 891 1023 0.76 5.5 0.70 3.9 50 48,000 4.2 15,000 891 1070 0.76 8.8 0.70 6.1 100 60,000 4.2 15,000 891 1074 0.76 10.4 0.70 7.3 500 95,000 4.2 15,000 891 1082 0.76 14.6 0.70 10.2 95,000 4.2 15,000 891 1082 0.67 12.6 0.70 8.8 DS BC=normal 94,988 4.2 15,000 891 1087 0.76 14.6 0.70 10.2 Worst-case† 306,099 4.2 15,000 891 1104 0.76 35.1 0.70 24.5 Recurrence Interval (year) Sensitivity Analysis d50=1.737mm Source: Pemberton & Lara, 1984: Equation 25, pages 34-37 Lacey Scour Calculations Main Channel Flow (cfs) Main Channel Top Width (ft) D50 (mm) Lacey Silt Factor Lacey Method (ft) USBOR Lacey Z Factor (severe bend) Scour (ft) TS14B-23 check (ft)‡ 2 15,000 891 3.50 3.29 7.8 0.75 5.8 5.8 5 17,000 920 3.50 3.29 8.1 0.75 6.1 6.1 10 25,000 1023 3.50 3.29 9.2 0.75 6.9 6.9 50 48,000 1070 3.50 3.29 11.5 0.75 8.6 8.6 100 60,000 1074 3.50 3.29 12.4 0.75 9.3 9.3 500 95,000 1082 3.50 3.29 14.4 0.75 10.8 10.8 d50=1.737mm 95,000 1082 1.74 2.32 16.2 0.75 12.2 12.2 DS BC=normal 94,988 1087 3.50 3.29 14.4 0.75 10.8 10.8 Worst-case† 306,099 1104 3.50 3.29 21.3 0.75 16.0 16.0 Recurrence Interval (year) Sensitivity Analysis Source: Pemberton & Lara, 1984: Equation 26, pages 34-37 A-5 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Blench Scour Calculations Main Channel Flow (cfs) Main Channel Top Width (ft) Blench Zero Bed Factor (ft2/s) * Blench Method (ft) USBOR Blench Z Factor Scour (ft) TS14B-23 check (ft)‡ 2 15,000 891 2.52 4.8 0.60 2.9 3.0 5 17,000 920 2.52 5.1 0.60 3.1 3.2 10 25,000 1023 2.52 6.2 0.60 3.7 3.9 50 48,000 1070 2.52 9.3 0.60 5.6 5.8 100 60,000 1074 2.52 10.7 0.60 6.4 6.8 500 95,000 1082 2.52 14.5 0.60 8.7 9.1 95,000 1082 2.08 15.5 0.60 9.3 9.9 DS BC=normal 94,988 1087 2.52 14.5 0.60 8.7 9.1 Worst-case† 306,099 1104 2.52 31.2 0.60 18.7 19.7 Recurrence Interval (year) Sensitivity Analysis d50=1.737mm ________________________ * from BOR Figure 9, page 35 † for informational purposes, only ‡ Source: National Engineering Handbook TS14B, 2007: Equation TS14B-23, page 14 A-6 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 A-7 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Source: Pemberton & Lara, 1984: Equation 27, pages 34-37 A-8 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Blodgett Scour Calculation D50 3.5 mm Equation Blodgett Zt (mean) 2.4 ft TS14B–21 Blodgett Zt (max) 10.9 ft TS14B–22 Sensitivity Analysis Bed Size:† D50 1.737 mm Equation Blodgett Zt (mean) 2.6 ft TS14B–21 Blodgett Zt (max) 11.8 ft TS14B–22 ________________________ † for informational purposes only Source: National Engineering Handbook TS14B, 2007: pages 13-14 A-9 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 USGS gage 06174500 Milk River at Nashua MT Seasonal Average: Month Flow (cfs) May 1240 June 1070 July 664 Average 991 Model applies Milk River seasonal average flow of 1,000 cfs for scour analysis. These monthly flows are obtained from the website on the following page. A-10 9/23/2017 USGS Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics USGS Home Contact USGS Search USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface Data Category: USGS Water Resources Geographic Area: Surface Water United States GO Click to hideNews Bulletins Please see news on new formats Full News USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics for the Nation The statistics generated from this site are based on approved daily-mean data and may not match those published by the USGS in official publications. The user is responsible for assessment and use of statistics from this site. For more details on why the statistics may not match, click here. USGS 06174500 Milk River at Nashua MT Available data for this site Time-series: Monthly statistics GO Valley County, Montana Output formats Hydrologic Unit Code 10050012 Latitude 48°07'48.19", Longitude 106°21'51.53" NAD83 HTML table of all data Drainage area 22,452 square miles Tab-separated data Contributing drainage area 20,254 square miles Reselect output format Gage datum 2,027.75 feet above NGVD29 00060, Discharge, cubic feet per second, YEAR Monthly mean in ft3/s Jan Feb Mar Apr (Calculation Period: 1939-10-01 -> 2017-05-31) May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1939 Oct Nov Dec 122.1 113.5 150.5 1940 38.2 88.5 644.1 5,025 1,656 1,072 220.9 181.3 108.9 101.6 158.9 108.2 1941 80.7 78.7 977.3 843.6 364.1 1942 53.0 72.4 1,565 489.8 139.1 2,254 1,118 247.0 246.3 191.8 300.1 160.3 1943 140.2 137.9 2,868 5,974 547.9 3,577 970.3 270.3 226.3 241.5 340.4 184.7 1944 131.6 128.3 1,743 1,288 205.6 1,328 566.3 176.4 64.9 101.7 158.8 95.9 1945 80.8 185.2 1,057 379.4 72.0 129.1 68.8 64.3 92.1 88.9 1946 91.0 231.4 1,606 179.2 60.6 267.8 542.5 68.8 175.7 86.6 84.5 98.1 1947 129.0 117.9 1,754 4,127 381.9 663.2 180.2 629.7 187.7 175.1 176.0 145.5 1948 118.4 74.7 233.1 780.9 469.0 1,568 1,141 410.4 224.1 307.5 290.1 1949 38.5 38.9 619.5 468.7 211.5 1950 36.0 50.9 6,312 480.5 88.5 70.9 96.3 91.5 60.5 77.3 105.5 72.9 49.0 123.9 138.0 66.5 120.5 175.1 93.1 77.5 98.1 46.1 1,964 365.3 256.8 466.6 175.6 124.0 92.7 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module=sw&site_no=06174500&por_06174500_81329=65596,00060,81329,1939-10,201… 1/4 9/23/2017 1951 USGS Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics 82.9 92.5 539.2 5,847 2,210 537.6 305.5 435.4 661.1 470.5 382.2 220.9 1952 138.5 297.4 359.9 20,930 3,690 591.3 890.2 370.5 252.4 266.6 246.8 141.5 1953 117.3 138.4 394.6 302.1 2,093 6,611 1,031 524.9 281.4 196.4 280.8 199.9 1954 164.1 656.1 428.1 4,463 498.0 1,368 376.2 997.5 390.1 512.1 372.0 303.4 1955 187.1 175.0 466.1 7,341 5,008 1,771 1,969 616.3 374.0 353.0 275.8 221.0 1956 193.2 175.4 734.4 748.7 396.6 310.5 294.2 435.6 284.6 160.3 188.1 158.1 1957 130.3 149.6 574.2 592.1 628.3 438.4 149.5 284.5 314.9 163.5 218.5 161.3 1958 137.1 117.5 181.1 2,028 227.3 231.1 143.0 130.1 168.8 111.4 117.5 140.0 1959 93.7 113.8 3,478 1,075 335.9 329.9 580.9 278.5 263.0 190.6 167.3 217.1 1960 114.5 315.9 3,661 2,486 1,136 405.9 223.6 245.5 203.3 112.1 152.7 107.7 1961 107.6 111.4 202.2 60.6 38.8 107.6 14.6 45.1 59.9 56.8 106.9 59.7 1962 64.8 96.3 632.6 801.7 546.8 980.2 3,578 301.3 140.3 174.4 136.0 142.0 1963 98.6 796.0 1,084 308.0 231.4 1,448 1,136 316.5 198.0 82.6 151.9 118.6 1964 118.7 122.8 121.7 93.0 702.2 934.1 273.0 147.8 110.5 63.8 124.3 152.3 1965 134.2 155.7 243.2 5,059 4,342 1,410 3,084 892.3 666.7 541.7 547.2 314.5 1966 196.6 191.8 2,135 1,159 496.9 267.2 456.9 308.5 155.4 130.8 215.3 166.5 1967 152.3 160.4 1,878 5,844 4,716 1,388 240.6 135.6 286.1 139.5 144.6 199.2 1968 144.7 190.0 1,004 195.4 240.8 297.3 122.9 227.4 149.8 361.7 360.8 182.9 1969 129.8 173.9 915.8 6,071 1,655 274.0 1,929 251.1 178.7 188.5 171.0 198.8 1970 133.9 138.5 539.9 1,667 3,506 2,192 639.7 379.3 225.6 160.1 211.9 162.6 1971 156.0 710.4 1,273 2,279 510.7 355.1 123.7 1972 112.9 103.6 1,803 361.0 519.3 2,263 387.3 615.5 300.6 252.3 185.0 1973 102.7 161.3 258.1 260.2 175.5 191.3 196.0 1974 842.7 509.5 789.0 2,224 2,553 2,984 690.1 890.1 387.3 297.7 342.4 255.8 1975 195.0 109.3 193.1 2,453 5,207 1,634 1,533 783.0 512.6 423.3 690.7 362.9 1976 307.4 469.7 2,769 1,577 186.5 795.6 1,546 507.6 275.0 200.4 238.9 151.8 1977 112.6 310.1 297.9 26.6 146.9 1978 123.0 102.4 1,270 10,140 2,381 948.4 999.2 440.4 2,138 541.4 369.6 250.6 1979 179.5 182.1 4,396 7,766 3,800 662.5 818.3 370.6 246.9 172.5 184.9 178.9 1980 147.7 125.3 139.4 362.5 1981 156.6 215.0 142.1 15.1 112.0 1982 79.0 128.6 2,752 3,866 662.0 3,731 605.2 275.5 233.8 211.5 207.6 144.3 1983 160.3 683.2 397.6 191.2 512.9 110.2 939.2 1984 94.7 103.6 112.4 55.4 20.2 28.0 1985 60.0 41.3 17.9 139.1 72.5 102.3 43.9 133.4 25.9 98.3 197.2 114.6 184.9 116.9 51.6 110.9 23.1 75.2 98.1 90.7 137.3 100.4 98.8 81.3 75.1 52.5 128.9 182.8 151.0 130.6 157.1 121.5 246.7 131.2 142.6 3.54 97.1 167.0 144.3 128.5 88.1 179.4 96.3 118.5 39.7 3.43 45.9 62.3 11.0 175.7 19.8 68.5 61.1 149.6 117.6 123.2 1986 161.9 208.6 6,678 264.0 3,783 1,188 374.7 175.6 1,354 6,837 767.6 487.1 1987 373.9 518.2 1,580 1,711 263.9 259.4 263.0 439.0 164.7 177.1 114.9 197.9 1988 115.5 113.3 142.2 38.1 199.9 1989 65.8 103.0 205.1 57.8 12.6 77.2 95.0 86.3 59.8 577.4 889.5 225.4 251.8 133.7 236.9 180.7 149.5 184.3 136.8 1990 338.4 176.8 721.0 169.5 287.2 442.8 144.1 270.7 169.9 115.5 177.6 117.4 1991 109.5 138.2 245.9 110.1 374.4 711.0 2,664 193.0 175.5 131.6 187.7 177.7 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module=sw&site_no=06174500&por_06174500_81329=65596,00060,81329,1939-10,201… 2/4 9/23/2017 1992 1993 USGS Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics 159.7 171.0 171.6 69.4 29.1 10.5 121.6 168.6 66.1 94.0 142.2 117.1 80.9 84.3 1,832 425.8 127.7 232.5 2,561 1,754 848.7 920.0 362.2 296.0 1994 257.3 258.9 4,417 1,049 761.2 1,270 162.5 151.8 189.0 177.0 186.7 142.4 1995 104.2 1996 94.6 86.7 80.7 85.8 1,118 632.4 149.5 160.3 292.4 241.7 224.5 263.9 2,337 6,097 4,565 660.9 516.4 270.6 141.2 527.3 263.8 214.9 161.0 1997 255.2 784.6 3,488 4,762 397.1 1,137 576.1 244.5 285.1 296.8 204.8 165.8 1998 126.5 159.3 165.5 1999 141.6 241.1 4,012 2000 129.7 138.6 168.8 88.7 71.3 203.1 1,454 165.0 224.9 280.8 353.4 183.5 635.3 1,438 1,123 342.0 206.9 305.2 247.2 217.9 156.4 38.4 66.8 440.2 678.5 65.6 95.4 58.6 95.4 96.3 86.6 43.1 34.4 61.1 53.8 2001 99.2 88.4 452.6 61.7 12.4 700.5 301.4 2002 53.3 57.5 72.9 69.0 1,044 468.4 635.1 170.3 161.6 101.2 102.9 2003 96.8 94.6 1,321 516.1 733.7 182.9 2004 72.3 95.2 2,676 832.0 1,237 1,094 190.9 170.4 119.2 159.5 125.5 151.1 1,310 203.2 90.8 140.6 95.6 111.8 106.5 122.3 68.4 90.3 56.5 90.1 98.8 99.4 103.1 143.6 150.3 83.2 2005 127.7 200.4 192.3 163.9 2006 150.6 143.7 284.8 745.1 119.4 122.7 2,623 180.7 69.1 107.6 1,141 77.8 130.6 118.1 151.0 121.0 55.8 94.4 134.8 131.9 2007 67.1 71.8 572.0 236.8 1,069 2008 95.6 93.6 118.0 42.9 107.2 2009 106.6 119.1 816.5 749.6 977.6 156.8 161.0 170.2 125.2 131.6 166.9 108.8 2010 110.2 117.6 232.9 222.5 2,145 3,753 1,806 256.0 891.7 427.1 282.0 249.1 2011 266.6 633.8 1,900 12,030 8,361 14,200 1,910 553.8 472.1 417.6 380.9 354.7 2012 333.1 316.3 641.7 264.7 660.6 1,916 501.9 262.8 170.8 151.1 197.5 171.0 2013 198.0 262.0 488.8 1,419 712.9 5,908 1,296 589.3 598.5 388.3 363.3 344.2 2014 341.1 328.6 1,981 1,023 521.6 1,013 722.9 2,691 2,852 811.8 566.4 474.5 2015 297.1 465.0 1,821 390.8 397.2 349.3 272.9 316.7 127.0 230.1 253.3 175.2 2016 160.6 316.1 309.9 407.2 3,314 1,163 1,349 859.7 505.3 4,292 1,469 524.2 2017 358.5 1,834 3,379 1,035 291.3 Mean of monthly Discharge 154 260 1,240 2,050 1,070 1,240 91.3 664 335 309 82.2 114.2 347 231 168 ** No Incomplete data have been used for statistical calculation Questions about sites/data? Feedback on this web site Automated retrievals Help Data Tips Explanation of terms Subscribe for system changes News Accessibility Plug-Ins FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Title: Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module=sw&site_no=06174500&por_06174500_81329=65596,00060,81329,1939-10,201… 3/4 9/23/2017 USGS Surface Water data for USA: USGS Surface-Water Monthly Statistics URL: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly? Page Contact Information: Montana Water Data Support Team Page Last Modified: 2017-09-23 00:30:44 EDT 1.15 0.99 vaww02 https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module=sw&site_no=06174500&por_06174500_81329=65596,00060,81329,1939-10,201… 4/4 Montana Flood-Frequency and Basin-Characteristic Data Page 1 of 4 Montana Flood-Frequency and Basin-Characteristic Data Flood-frequency data are based on recorded annual peak discharges through 1998. Peak discharges for specified frequencies (exceedance probabilities) were determined by fitting a log-Pearson Type 3 probability distribution to base 10 logarithms of recorded annual peak discharges as described by the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (1982, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency--Bulletin 17-B of the Hydrology Subcommittee: U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination). Note: Data are provisional and user is responsible for assessment and interpretation of flood-frequency data. Most of the basin characteristic data were measured in the 1970s from the best-scale topographic maps available at the time. Some data, such as mean annual precipitation, soil index data, and mean January minimum temperatures, were compiled from maps prepared by other agencies. Channel widths were measured in the field by USGS personnel. The flood-frequency and basin characteristics data were used in a new flood-frequency report just published by the USGS, entitled "Methods for estimating Flood Frequency in Montana Based on Data through Water Year 1998" (Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4308). Information about the equations described in that report can be found at the following link. For more detailed information contact Wayne Berkas: Phone: 406-457-5903 or by e-mail. 06174500 Milk River at Nashua, MT Flood-frequency analysis based on period of record since beginning of flow regulation. Annual peak discharge, in cubic feet per second (top line), for indicated exceedance probability, in percent (bottom line): -99.5 -99 848 1360 2330 5750 12200 17200 23700 28600 33400 38100 44100 95 90 80 50 20 10 4 2 1 0.5 0.2 https://wy-mt.water.usgs.gov/freq?page_type=site&site_no=06174500 9/16/2017 Montana Flood-Frequency and Basin-Characteristic Data Page 2 of 4 NOTE: Systematic peaks are those that are recorded within the period of gaged record. The computed systematic flood-frequency curve is based only on the systematic peaks. The computed Bulletin 17-B flood-frequency curve often is different from the systematic flood-frequency curve because of differences between station skew and regional skew, low- or high-outlier adjustments, or the presence of one or more historical peaks outside the systematic record. Historical peaks also result in historical adjusted plotting positions (exceedance probabilities) for all peaks. Recorded Annual Peak Discharge: 06174500 Milk River at Nashua, MT Location.-- Lat 48 07'47", Long 106 21'50", Hydrologic Unit 10050012. Drainage area.-- 22332.0 square miles. Datum of gage.-2027.75 ft above sea level. Table of annual peak discharge data [--, no data] Water year 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Date Apr. Mar. June Apr. Mar. Mar. July Mar. June Apr. 23, 31, 6, 2, 27, 28, 11, 30, 6, 1, Gage height (ft) 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 21.80 17.67 -26.97 18.59 12.08 12.74 23.56 12.11 -- _/1 _/2 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/2 Discharge ft3/s 12000 6660 6270 17400 6700 2500 5080 11000 4760 2070 Date of Max. Maximum gage gage height height (ft) _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/25 _/15 _/5 _/15 _/5 _/5 --Mar. 20, 1942 ------Mar. 23, 1949 https://wy-mt.water.usgs.gov/freq?page_type=site&site_no=06174500 --14.98 ------7.62 9/16/2017 Montana Flood-Frequency and Basin-Characteristic Data 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Apr. Apr. Apr. May Apr. Apr. Mar. Mar. Apr. Mar. Mar. Mar. July June June May Mar. Mar. Mar. Apr. May Apr. June July May May Mar. Feb. Apr. Mar. Apr. June Mar. July 22, 9, 18, 31, 13, 6, 28, 30, 8, 24, 27, 22, 17, 10, 20, 9, 25, 30, 9, 8, 6, 9, 13, 3, 29, 12, 23, 26, 5, 27, 5, 5, 31, 17, Aug. Mar. Oct. May Mar. Mar. July June July Mar. June Mar. Mar. July 4, 8, 8, 11, 30, 17, 8, 18, 30, 16, 26, 20, 31, 8, 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 22.62 -31.38 25.50 22.35 20.98 --11.31 24.43 26.17 -20.30 11.70 9.40 20.23 21.35 25.39 10.43 19.34 15.05 12.41 18.57 4.21 17.85 18.13 20.20 -28.93 -5.58 3.63 19.27 8.42 -4.50 30.09 26.11 3.60 15.11 9.27 15.99 3.30 16.37 23.02 10.40 -25.75 11.68 _/2 _/2 _/2 _/1 _/2 _/2 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/2 _/2 _/2 _/2 _/1 _/1 _/2 _/1 12500 10100 45300 13400 10900 10200 3170 1750 3840 10000 14200 702 9670 4250 3330 9610 7060 12000 2500 8880 6320 4670 7360 1070 8140 8220 9240 690 18900 14300 1350 666 8160 2620 229 1230 18500 13700 679 4500 1700 6170 523 6380 8800 3500 10000 13300 4270 Page 3 of 4 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/15 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/15 _/25 _/25 _/5 _/5 _/25 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/15 _/5 _/15 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/15 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/5 _/125 _/5 _/5 Apr. Mar. Mar. Feb. Apr. Apr. Feb. Mar. Feb. Mar. Dec. Dec. Feb. Mar. -3, ----29, 29, ---6, ---13, -----4, -----21, -28, -26, 30, -18, 18, ------11, ---20, --- 1951 1956 1957 1961 1965 1971 1977 1979 1981 1982 1983 1984 1992 1996 -21.87 ----13.34 8.74 ---4.05 ---22.93 -----14.57 -----4.47 -29.58 -4.20 20.54 -3.73 3.73 ------4.40 ---23.71 --- _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/1 _/ Explanation of the footnotes used for Gage height data: 1 Gage height affected by backwater. 2 Gage height not the maximum for the year. _/ Explanation of the footnotes used for Discharge data: 1 Discharge is maximum daily average. 2 Discharge is an estimate. 5 Discharge affected to unknown degree by regulation or diversion. _/ Explanation of the footnotes used for Maximum gage height data: 1 Gage height due to backwater. Basin Characteristics: Value -- Abbrev SLOPE Explanation Main channel slope, in ft per mile https://wy-mt.water.usgs.gov/freq?page_type=site&site_no=06174500 9/16/2017 Montana Flood-Frequency and Basin-Characteristic Data -- LENGTH -- ELEV Mean basin elevation, ft above msl -- EL6000 Percent of basin above 6,000 ft, msl ---48.12972222 Page 4 of 4 Total stream length, miles STORAGE Percent of basin in lakes, ponds, and swamps FOREST Percent of basin in forest SOIL_INF Soil index, in inches LAT_GAGE Latitude of gage, in decimal degrees 106.36388889 LNG_GAGE Longitude of gage, in decimal degrees -- PRECIP -- I24_2 -- JANMIN -- WAC -- W2 -- WBF -- W4 Mean annual precipitation, in inches Precipitation intensity for a 24-hour storm having a 2-year recurrence interval, in inches per hour Mean minimum January temperature, in degrees F Width of active channel, in feet Mean depth for active channel, in feet Width of bankfull channel, in feet Mean depth of bankfull channel, in feet Montana Flood-Frequency and Basin-Characteristic Data Retrieved on: 2017.09.16 20:26:37 Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Privacy Statement Disclaimer Accessibility FOIA https://wy-mt.water.usgs.gov/freq?page_type=site&site_no=06174500 9/16/2017 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Appendix B – Review of Collection Sediment Bed Samples for Sensitivity Analysis Review of Collected Sediment Bed Samples for Sensitivity Analysis An attempt was made to use the geotechnical analysis logs and recorded survey notes for the samples collected near the crossing location to determine the D 50 and D90 size. However, wide variation in characteristic and D50 were observed in the collected sample dataset, suggesting that the previous bed sampling effort did not provide a consistent substrate representation, but more likely represented the top of the local active layer at various levels in the channel. Representative D50 for use in the Scour Analysis The bed sample data near the crossing location was compiled and is presented in Appendix B. The original survey notes and complete dataset were reviewed based on the datasheets provided by USACE. For determining the elevation at which the sample was collected, the recorded gage depth and the surface water elevation were determined at the date of collection. The data from the recorded depth of the bed samples were compared with streamgage data to determine flow conditions and elevation at which the bed sample was acquired. A summary table is provided in the appendix showing very little correlation to depth and flow and a wide range of bed sample sizes. For the 2014 bed samples, no water surface elevation data was recorded at the time the samples were taken to establish the elevation where the bed material was collected. Using available historical daily flow data from the stream gage located near Fort Peck Dam on the Missouri River, the water surface elevations could be estimated. The gage height records at the streamgage located nearest to the sampling location was limited. However, water quality records provided additional data and the approximate water surface elevation could be estimated at around 2,021 feet at the time of collection. Using that information while subtracting out the depth, gave an estimated depth of 2,013 feet for the northern sample, ,2016 feet for the middle sample, and 2,017 feet for the southern sample. The bed elevation at the crossing location is near 2,010 -2,014 feet, indicating that the samples taken were not of the substrate bed material. More than likely they are of transient dunes, and the south sample likely a finer representation due to vertical selective sorting. The laboratory experiments conducted in “Transport of Gravel and Sediment Mixtures” of “Parker’s Chapter 3 for ASCE Manual,” under the section “3.15.2 Extension of the Active Layer Model to Describe Vertical Sorting,” illustrate the process by which the active layer is transported downstream above the substrate layer. The sample from the inside bend likely took a smaller diameter bed representation at a higher level of the active layer. This is indicated by the finer representation than what is present in the rest of the active layer. It is not likely to be representative of the layer to be encountered during a scour event and should not be used to determine the depth of scour for the design event. This active layer and moving sand dune is comprised of downstream fining, abrasion of upstream gravel material, entrainment of the active bed layer, and settlement during baseflow and recession limb of inflow events. This layer forms due to the transport of bed material downstream and can selectively sort. It will typically have layers of finer material overlaid on a coarser layer. The exact source of the material collected in the 2014 sampling is unknown. Defining the likely source allows for the categorization for appropriateness for use in the analysis. The samples could be from the upstream active layer, mixing and sorting of the local active layer during base flow or the substrate material. Most likely it is a mixture of all three. In the Sediment Trends Study, it appears the 1978 sampling is an outlier and no detail is provided on the methodology used to combine four samples into a single datapoint. This also is the case for the 1973A sampling. The characteristics for these samples don't conform to any of the other samples collected at the crossing location. It is likely that these are not representative of the substrate material, but are likely from a moving active layer that is subjected to selective sorting. With the exceptions of the 1973A and 1978 B-1 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 samples as noted above, most samples had similar characteristics to the samples taken for the scour analysis. 2014A and 201C were much finer, and 1973B was much coarser. The D50 for the filtered dataset, five were smaller, and nine were larger than the sediment sample used for the design. There is significant variation in the sample data collected, as noted above. This indicates significant variation from sample to sample. The wide variation of the collected bed layer data suggests the active bed could be both smaller and larger than the samples collected at the crossing location, with more datapoints indicating a larger mean diameter. A deeper sample of the substrate material would likely yield more consistent results than the samples collected of the active layer. Based on the data presented, it would unlikely for an extended layer to consist of only smaller diameter bed material for a significant depth given the variation in the sampling dataset. This suggests that the material collected by the sampler is highly dependent on location. There are numerous dynamics that occur depending on the location of the sampling. It is important to note that the samples were collected to support a Sediment Trends Study and were not taken precisely at the crossing location. The variation in the values in the Sediment Trends Study is most likely too great to have any confidence in using a singly value from them in a scour model and with the fact that sediment samples have been collected at the specific crossing location for the sole purpose of performing a scour analysis, and the samples align with the borehole data taken at the crossing location. In addition, the sample collection occurred 5 months after the 2011 event. The bed sample obtained directly following a scour event is more likely to represent the material that would be encountered and represent the layer to perform a scour analysis on and predict the depth of scour. The 2014 sample occurred 37 months after the 2011 event with no significant scouring event preceding it. It would have had adequate time to refill from the scour event and the channel to reconfigure the active layer following several minor events. The active layer and subsequent dune formations would then be the likely source of the collected samples in 2014. Armor Layer The armoring that occurs on the riverbed has developed due to river geomorphology that both deepen and broaden the valley of the floodplain over geologic timescales. The riverbed produces a self-armoring layer as events pass through over a very long period, leaving larger diameter bed material behind that is less likely to move to act as an armor layer in the channel. This can be significant as recent research indicates that this armor layer is not removed or eliminated with a significant event (Experimental Study of the Transport of Mixed Sand and Gravel), but goes deeper as fill is added back on the recession limb. This has occurred for many millennia, prior to the construction of the dam. The degradation phase has nearly completed and the substrate will likely remain consistent based on the bore logs at the crossing location. There is little evidence to suggest that the armor layer does not exist or that it will be transported away. B-2 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Missouri River Collected Bed Samples Year D50 (mm) Depth (ft) Flow (cfs) Surface water elevation (ft) Sample elev (ft) Avg d50 (mm) 2011A 3.5 1 10000 2021 2020 3.650 2011B 3.8 1 10000 2021 2020 3.650 2014A 0.339 4 7500 2021 2017 1.080 RM1861.1 2014B 2.557 5 7500 2021 2016 1.080 RM1861.1 2014C 0.343 7 7500 2021 2014 1.080 RM1861.1 1984A 8.185 6.5 10800 2024.2 2017.7 3.946 RM1861.1 1984B 1.146 7 10800 2024.2 2017.2 3.946 RM1861.1 1984C 2.508 4.5 10800 2024.2 2019.7 3.946 RM1861.1 1978 0.383 6.125 7300 2023.5 2017.4 0.383 4.5,9,7,4 RM1861.1 1973A 0.379 5.5 6000 2023.5 2018 9.741 6,6.5,4 RM1861.1 1973B 24.709 7.5 6000 2023.5 2016 9.741 RM1861.1 1973C 4.135 2.8 6000 2023.5 2020.7 9.741 RM1861.1 1966A 8.246 3.875 14800 2025 2021.1 7.645 RM1861.1 1966B 7.043 11 14800 2025 2014 7.645 RM1861.1 1960A 6.315 7.5 6140 2025 2017.5 7.597 RM1861.1 1960B 6.261 5.5 6140 2025 2019.5 7.597 RM1861.1 1960C 6.077 3.5 6140 2025 2021.5 7.597 RM1861.1 1960D 11.737 1.5 6140 2025 2023.5 7.597 Crossing RM1861.1 Consolidated sample depths(ft) (avg used) 2.5,4.5,7.5,1 Flow and Sample collection 70000 60000 Q 2011 2014 1984 50000 1978 1973 1966 1960 Flow cfs 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 11/7/1932 7/17/1946 3/25/1960 12/2/1973 -10000 B-3 8/11/1987 4/19/2001 12/27/2014 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Sample Elevation Sediment Trend Study 2011 2024 1960D 2022 1960C 1966A 1973C Elevation ft 2020 2011A 1984C 2011B 1960B 1973A 2018 1978 2016 2014A 1984A 1960A 1984B 1973B 2014B 2014 1966B 2014C 2012 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 D50 mm Flow 16000 1966A 14000 12000 1984A 2011A Q cfs 10000 8000 1978 2014A 1960A 6000 1973A 4000 2000 0 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 Avg D50 mm B-4 8.000 10.000 12.000 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Sample Characteristics 100% 90% 0.01 1966A 1966B 70% 2011B 2011A 60% 1960A 1960B 1960C 1960D 1973A 1973B 1973C 1978 30% 1984A 1984B 20% 1984C 2014A 10% 2014B 2014C 0.1 50% 40% 0% 1 10 Grain Size mm B-5 100 Percent coarser by weight 80% Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Appendix C – Long Term Bed Elevation Change C-1 Prediction of Long Term Bed Elevation Change Crossing location Ultimate slope Supplemented with data from M.R.B Sediment Memorandum 28 Prediction of Long Term Bed Elevation Change Crossing  location Ultimate slope Supplemented with data from M.R.B Sediment Memorandum 28 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Appendix D – Lateral Migration Analysis D-1 Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 1971 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 1975 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 1985 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 1991 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 1996 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 2006 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 2009 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 2013 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Lateral Migration Analysis: 2015 Aerial E Waters Edge Year E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 2015 year E E 1971 Lateral Migration E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EEE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E Legend 1971 2015 2068 2118 Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E E E E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 2012.4 - 2013.6 2013.7 - 2015.0 2015.0 - 2016.2 2016.2 - 2017.5 2017.6 - 2018.9 2018.9 - 2020.2 2020.3 - 2021.7 2021.7 - 2023.4 2023.4 - 2037.1 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK ? ¯ 0 50 100 HDD Entry and Exit Points Proposed HDD Centerline 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E EEEE EE E E EEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE E E E EEE EEE EEEE EEE EEE E E E E E E E EE E EE EEE E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE EE EE E EE EE E E EE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EEEEE E E E E EEEE E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEE EEEE EEE EE E E EEE EE EEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E EE E EE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E EE EE E EE EE E E E EE EE EEEE EEE E E EEEE E E EEEE EE E EEEEE EE EE EE E EEE E E EEE E E E EEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ? 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Bank Erosion Analysis: 2009 Aerial E E E E E E E Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E EE E E EE E E E EE E EE E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Legend E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 E 2012.4 - 2013.6 E 2013.7 - 2015.0 E E 2015.0 - 2016.2 E 2017.6 - 2018.9 E 2018.9 - 2020.2 E 2020.3 - 2021.7 E 2021.7 - 2023.4 E 2023.4 - 2037.1 2016.2 - 2017.5 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK Proposed HDD Centerline ¯ 0 50 100 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EEEEEE E E EE E E EE E E E EEEEE E E E EEE EEE E E E EE EEE E E E EE E EE EE E E E E EE E E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE E EEEE EE EE E EEE EE E E E EEE E E E E E EE EEE E E E E EE EE E EE EEE E E E E E E E E EE EEE EE EE E EE E E EEE E EEEEE EEEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEE E E E E EEEE EE E E E E EE E EE E EE EE EE E E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E E EE E EE EE E EEEE E EE E EE E EEE E E EEEE E EE EEEE EE E EEEE EE EE E E EE EE E EE E E EEE E E EEEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 E 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Bank Erosion Analysis: 2011 Aerial E E E E E E E Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E EE E E EE E E E EE E EE E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Legend E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 E 2012.4 - 2013.6 E 2013.7 - 2015.0 E E 2015.0 - 2016.2 E 2017.6 - 2018.9 E 2018.9 - 2020.2 E 2020.3 - 2021.7 E 2021.7 - 2023.4 E 2023.4 - 2037.1 2016.2 - 2017.5 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK Proposed HDD Centerline ¯ 0 50 100 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EEEEEE E E EE E E EE E E E EEEEE E E E EEE EEE E E E EE EEE E E E EE E EE EE E E E E EE E E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE E EEEE EE EE E EEE EE E E E EEE E E E E E EE EEE E E E E EE EE E EE EEE E E E E E E E E EE EEE EE EE E EE E E EEE E EEEEE EEEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEE E E E E EEEE EE E E E E EE E EE E EE EE EE E E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E E EE E EE EE E EEEE E EE E EE E EEE E E EEEE E EE EEEE EE E EEEE EE EE E E EE EE E EE E E EEE E E EEEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 E 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Missouri River HDD Crossing Bank Erosion Analysis: 2013 Aerial E E E E E E E Survey 5/2008 ELEVATION E E EE E E EE E E E EE E EE E E E E E EE E E EE E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E EE E E EEEE E E E E EEE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Legend E E E E E E 1885.6 - 2012.4 E 2012.4 - 2013.6 E 2013.7 - 2015.0 E E 2015.0 - 2016.2 E 2017.6 - 2018.9 E 2018.9 - 2020.2 E 2020.3 - 2021.7 E 2021.7 - 2023.4 E 2023.4 - 2037.1 2016.2 - 2017.5 Survey Break Lines LAYER TOP BANK Proposed HDD Centerline ¯ 0 50 100 200 300 Feet E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E E E E EEEEEE E E EE E E EE E E E EEEEE E E E EEE EEE E E E EE EEE E E E EE E EE EE E E E E EE E E EE EE E E E EEEEE E EE EE EE E EEEE EE EE E EEE EE E E E EEE E E E E E EE EEE E E E E EE EE E EE EEE E E E E E E E E EE EEE EE EE E EE E E EEE E EEEEE EEEE EE E EE E EE EEEE EEE E E E E EEEE EE E E E E EE E EE E EE EE EE E E E EE E E E EEEE EE EE E E E E E E EE E EE EE E EEEE E EE E EE E EEE E E EEEE E EE EEEE EE E EEEE EE EE E E EE EE E EE E E EEE E E EEEEEE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 E 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet Bank Erosion Cross Section Profile Comparison Past and Present 1978 FEMA RM1761 6/2008 at Crossing 11/2011 at Crossing Supplemented with data from Fort Peck Downstream Sediment Trends Study 4/2013: Figure A‐7. Cross‐Section at 1761.56 (Range 1857.5) on Page A‐7 of the M.R.B Sediment Memorandum 28 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Appendix E – HEC-RAS Model Output E-1 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 HEC-RAS Plan View E-2 r54 Missouri RiveE Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Hydraulic Summary Tables E-3 HEC-RAS River: Missouri River Reach: Missouri River Reach River Sta Profile Plan Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 2-year 2-year 5-year 5-year 10-year 10-year 50-year 50-year 100-year 100-year 500-year 500-year Worst Worst Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Q Total (cfs) 15000.00 15000.00 17000.00 17000.00 25000.00 25000.00 48000.00 48000.00 60000.00 60000.00 95000.00 95000.00 350000.00 350000.00 Min Ch El (ft) 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 2012.60 W.S. Elev (ft) 2020.36 2021.34 2020.69 2021.79 2021.84 2023.04 2024.41 2025.62 2025.56 2026.77 2028.32 2029.42 2039.21 2040.61 Crit W.S. (ft) Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2-year 2-year 5-year 5-year 10-year 10-year 50-year 50-year 100-year 100-year 500-year 500-year Worst Worst Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal 15000.00 15000.00 17000.00 17000.00 25000.00 25000.00 48000.00 48000.00 60000.00 60000.00 95000.00 95000.00 350000.00 350000.00 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2009.60 2019.96 2021.17 2020.30 2021.63 2021.44 2022.85 2023.99 2025.37 2025.13 2026.51 2027.93 2029.17 2039.12 2040.57 Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2-year 2-year 5-year 5-year 10-year 10-year 50-year 50-year 100-year 100-year 500-year 500-year Worst Worst Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal 15000.00 15000.00 17000.00 17000.00 25000.00 25000.00 48000.00 48000.00 60000.00 60000.00 95000.00 95000.00 350000.00 350000.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2019.36 2020.96 2019.69 2021.41 2020.83 2022.62 2023.40 2025.05 2024.53 2026.16 2027.29 2028.73 2038.44 2040.25 Missouri River 6 Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2-year 2-year 5-year 5-year 10-year 10-year 50-year 50-year 100-year 100-year 500-year 500-year Worst Worst Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal 15000.00 15000.00 17000.00 17000.00 25000.00 25000.00 48000.00 48000.00 60000.00 60000.00 95000.00 95000.00 350000.00 350000.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2010.00 2018.47 2020.73 2018.77 2021.19 2019.89 2022.34 2022.45 2024.64 2023.58 2025.69 2026.23 2028.06 2035.95 2039.34 Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2-year 2-year 5-year 5-year 10-year 10-year 50-year 50-year 100-year 100-year 500-year 500-year Worst Worst Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal Critical Normal 16000.00 25050.00 18000.00 27050.00 26000.00 35050.00 49000.00 58050.00 61000.00 70050.00 96000.00 105050.00 351000.00 360050.00 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2010.50 2017.55 2020.23 2017.84 2020.72 2018.91 2021.85 2021.49 2024.01 2022.66 2025.04 2025.27 2027.53 2035.70 2039.02 2015.47 Missouri River Missouri River Missouri River 1 1 1 2-year 2-year 5-year Critical Normal Critical 16000.00 25050.00 18000.00 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2014.56 2019.66 2014.79 2014.56 2015.50 2014.79 2016.20 2016.20 2016.66 2016.66 2018.04 2018.04 2019.71 2019.71 2020.34 2020.34 2022.02 2022.02 2030.37 2030.37 E.G. Elev (ft) 2020.49 2021.44 2020.84 2021.90 2022.05 2023.19 2024.78 2025.90 2026.00 2027.11 2028.97 2029.95 2040.73 2041.79 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000315 0.000164 0.000319 0.000162 0.000341 0.000194 0.000390 0.000246 0.000394 0.000262 0.000416 0.000309 0.000482 0.000360 Vel Chnl (ft/s) 2.97 2.43 3.13 2.55 3.72 3.06 4.87 4.23 5.33 4.70 6.45 5.87 10.58 9.54 Flow Area (sq ft) 5043.06 6162.53 5422.80 6678.18 6729.05 8170.46 9846.45 11335.88 11260.03 12769.99 15010.64 16867.43 60392.72 75210.56 Top Width (ft) 1128.51 1139.49 1132.25 1144.51 1145.01 1218.49 1229.85 1238.07 1237.66 1284.36 1640.75 1776.24 8724.63 12419.93 Froude # Chl 2020.12 2021.26 2020.47 2021.73 2021.67 2022.99 2024.37 2025.64 2025.58 2026.83 2028.51 2029.61 2040.16 2041.35 0.000434 0.000186 0.000430 0.000179 0.000436 0.000195 0.000425 0.000271 0.000457 0.000298 0.000469 0.000315 0.000388 0.000276 3.21 2.44 3.34 2.53 3.85 3.02 4.94 4.15 5.34 4.53 6.11 5.39 8.82 7.81 4680.11 6149.49 5083.12 6723.20 6486.17 8268.93 9716.61 11645.36 11287.54 13522.25 16130.42 19040.76 67332.53 84743.97 1192.29 1248.34 1207.92 1258.79 1258.00 1263.90 1272.63 1535.16 1489.86 1753.70 1887.83 2605.14 10525.47 12592.92 0.29 0.19 0.29 0.19 0.30 0.21 0.32 0.25 0.33 0.27 0.34 0.29 0.35 0.30 2019.58 2021.06 2019.93 2021.53 2021.14 2022.78 2023.86 2025.35 2025.06 2026.52 2028.00 2029.28 2039.72 2041.07 0.000673 0.000209 0.000680 0.000216 0.000632 0.000239 0.000604 0.000294 0.000569 0.000304 0.000524 0.000341 0.000444 0.000280 3.81 2.61 3.95 2.70 4.46 3.20 5.45 4.38 5.84 4.82 6.79 5.94 9.97 8.36 3936.25 5755.70 4300.96 6299.09 5608.05 7802.67 8807.60 11101.87 10336.85 12824.22 14718.35 17590.34 71680.99 95141.91 1074.68 1154.82 1119.94 1227.61 1153.52 1268.22 1295.67 1486.14 1423.36 1618.60 1758.78 2410.04 12922.83 13003.26 0.35 0.21 0.36 0.21 0.36 0.23 0.37 0.27 0.37 0.28 0.37 0.30 0.38 0.31 2018.78 2020.85 2019.12 2021.31 2020.34 2022.53 2023.12 2025.02 2024.35 2026.17 2027.31 2028.85 2038.87 2040.67 0.000868 0.000216 0.000894 0.000212 0.000956 0.000248 0.000865 0.000347 0.000817 0.000376 0.000793 0.000468 0.001012 0.000435 4.50 2.73 4.73 2.85 5.39 3.47 6.56 4.97 7.04 5.56 8.35 7.11 14.40 10.48 3332.90 5490.18 3595.77 5970.12 4634.81 7198.06 7318.41 9659.50 8528.18 10793.62 11376.24 13382.25 39482.09 77472.24 858.50 1052.61 879.25 1059.38 978.16 1066.64 1067.34 1075.85 1072.69 1079.02 1080.64 1114.39 8647.49 11634.82 0.40 0.21 0.41 0.21 0.44 0.24 0.44 0.29 0.44 0.31 0.45 0.36 0.57 0.38 2017.88 2020.51 2018.19 2020.99 2019.39 2022.18 2022.21 2024.55 2023.48 2025.64 2026.33 2028.30 2037.70 2040.21 0.000879 0.000406 0.000886 0.000377 0.000890 0.000389 0.000879 0.000555 0.000862 0.000660 0.001124 0.000584 0.000763 0.000392 4.58 4.21 4.80 4.21 5.51 4.64 6.81 5.88 7.27 6.22 8.28 7.03 11.87 9.51 3493.06 5956.80 3748.40 6423.94 4718.50 7556.20 7194.23 9868.66 8388.30 11260.02 11602.58 15348.23 43277.66 65060.22 885.15 1066.09 890.51 1118.62 922.13 1242.32 1203.31 1599.52 1330.21 1958.67 2013.88 2569.35 6467.74 7968.23 0.41 0.30 0.41 0.29 0.43 0.30 0.45 0.36 0.45 0.39 0.52 0.39 0.49 0.36 2015.89 2020.01 2016.22 0.006116 0.000591 0.005863 9.25 4.72 9.57 1729.31 5306.27 1881.29 653.85 1294.22 655.28 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.19 0.27 0.21 0.30 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.33 0.29 0.40 0.35 Bridge 2031.91 2015.69 2016.52 2018.20 2018.94 2029.80 HEC-RAS River: Missouri River Reach: Missouri River (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total (cfs) Missouri River 1 5-year Normal 27050.00 Missouri River 1 10-year Critical 26000.00 Missouri River 1 10-year Normal 35050.00 Missouri River 1 50-year Critical 49000.00 Missouri River 1 50-year Normal 58050.00 Missouri River 1 100-year Critical 61000.00 Missouri River 1 100-year Normal 70050.00 Missouri River 1 500-year Critical 96000.00 Missouri River 1 500-year Normal 105050.00 Missouri River 1 Worst Critical 351000.00 Missouri River 1 Worst Normal 360050.00 Min Ch El (ft) 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 2009.90 W.S. Elev (ft) 2020.18 2015.59 2021.33 2017.52 2023.42 2018.43 2024.37 2021.23 2026.82 2029.14 2037.73 Crit W.S. (ft) 2015.68 2015.59 2016.42 2017.52 2018.21 2018.43 2019.57 2021.23 2021.60 2029.14 2029.39 E.G. Elev (ft) 2020.51 2017.41 2021.70 2020.26 2023.96 2021.54 2025.00 2024.09 2027.69 2035.78 2039.65 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000591 0.005468 0.000590 0.004757 0.000590 0.004544 0.000590 0.004684 0.000590 0.003542 0.000590 Vel Chnl (ft/s) 4.64 10.82 4.87 13.27 5.94 14.16 6.39 13.57 7.48 20.67 11.66 Flow Area (sq ft) 5828.30 2402.84 7195.53 3692.75 9774.86 4308.83 10961.15 7073.17 14037.80 17003.96 49104.57 Top Width (ft) 1416.56 660.17 1578.45 672.37 1596.16 687.82 1604.25 1577.60 1625.10 1687.19 7641.07 Froude # Chl 0.35 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.44 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Profiles E-4 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 Missouri River Missouri River 2045 Legend EG Worst WS Worst Crit Worst 2040 EG 500-year EG 100-year WS 500-year Crit 500-year EG 50-year 2035 WS 100-year Crit 100-year Crit 50-year WS 50-year 2030 EG 10-year Elevation (ft) EG 5-year EG 2-year WS 10-year 2025 Crit 10-year Crit 5-year WS 5-year WS 2-year 2020 Crit 2-year Ground 2015 2010 2005 0 1000 2000 3000 Main Channel Distance (ft) 4000 5000 6000 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Profile: Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis E-5 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 02 7/26/2017 Missouri River Missouri River 2045 Legend EG 500-year WS 500-year Crit 500-year 2040 Ground 2035 Elevation (ft) 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2005 0 1000 2000 3000 Main Channel Distance (ft) 4000 5000 6000 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Cross Sections E-6 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 X-Section #11 .06 .024 .06 2070 Legend EG Worst WS Worst 2060 EG 500-year WS 500-year EG 100-year 2050 Elevation (ft) WS 100-year EG 50-year WS 50-year 2040 EG 10-year WS 10-year 2030 EG 5-year WS 5-year EG 2-year 2020 WS 2-year Ground Bank Sta 2010 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 X-section #9 .06 .024 .06 2070 Legend 2060 WS Worst EG Worst EG 500-year WS 500-year 2050 EG 100-year Elevation (ft) WS 100-year 2040 EG 50-year WS 50-year EG 10-year 2030 WS 10-year EG 5-year 2020 WS 5-year 2010 WS 2-year EG 2-year Ground Bank Sta 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 X-Section #7 .06 .024 .06 2100 Legend EG Worst WS Worst Crit Worst EG 500-year 2080 WS 500-year EG 100-year WS 100-year Elevation (ft) EG 50-year WS 50-year 2060 Crit 500-year EG 10-year WS 10-year Crit 100-year 2040 EG 5-year Crit 50-year WS 5-year EG 2-year WS 2-year 2020 Crit 10-year Crit 5-year Crit 2-year Ground Bank Sta 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Crossing .06 .024 .06 2100 Legend EG Worst WS Worst Crit Worst EG 500-year 2080 WS 500-year EG 100-year WS 100-year Elevation (ft) EG 50-year WS 50-year 2060 Crit 500-year EG 10-year WS 10-year Crit 100-year 2040 Crit 50-year EG 5-year WS 5-year EG 2-year WS 2-year 2020 Crit 10-year Crit 5-year Crit 2-year Ground Bank Sta 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Crossing .06 .024 .06 2090 Legend EG Worst WS Worst 2080 Crit Worst EG 500-year WS 500-year 2070 EG 100-year WS 100-year Elevation (ft) EG 50-year 2060 WS 50-year Crit 500-year EG 10-year 2050 WS 10-year Crit 100-year EG 5-year 2040 Crit 50-year WS 5-year EG 2-year 2030 WS 2-year Crit 10-year Crit 5-year 2020 Crit 2-year Ground Bank Sta 2010 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 X-Section #5 .06 .024 .06 2090 Legend 2080 WS Worst 2070 EG 500-year EG Worst Crit Worst Elevation (ft) WS 500-year EG 100-year 2060 WS 100-year EG 50-year 2050 WS 50-year EG 10-year 2040 WS 10-year EG 5-year EG 2-year 2030 WS 5-year WS 2-year 2020 Ground Bank Sta 2010 0 5000 10000 Station (ft) 15000 20000 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 X-Section #3 .06 .024 .06 2120 Legend EG Worst WS Worst Crit Worst 2100 EG 500-year WS 500-year EG 100-year WS 100-year Elevation (ft) 2080 EG 50-year WS 50-year EG 10-year Crit 100-year 2060 WS 10-year Crit 50-year EG 5-year EG 2-year 2040 WS 5-year WS 2-year Crit 10-year Crit 5-year 2020 Crit 2-year Ground Ineff Bank Sta 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: Plan 01 9/21/2017 X-Section #1 .06 .024 .06 2060 Legend EG Worst WS Worst Crit Worst 2050 EG 500-year EG 100-year WS 500-year Crit 500-year 2040 EG 50-year Elevation (ft) WS 100-year Crit 100-year Crit 50-year 2030 WS 50-year EG 10-year EG 5-year EG 2-year WS 10-year 2020 Crit 10-year Crit 5-year WS 5-year WS 2-year 2010 Crit 2-year Ground Ineff Bank Sta 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 Station (ft) 8000 10000 12000 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Cross Sections: Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis E-7 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 X-Section #11 .06 .024 .06 2070 Legend EG 500-year - Normal 2060 WS 500-year - Normal EG 500-year - Critical WS 500-year - Critical Elevation (ft) 2050 Ground Bank Sta 2040 2030 2020 2010 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 X-section #9 .06 .024 .06 2070 Legend EG 500-year - Normal 2060 WS 500-year - Normal EG 500-year - Critical 2050 Elevation (ft) WS 500-year - Critical Ground 2040 Bank Sta 2030 2020 2010 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 X-Section #7 .06 .024 .06 2100 Legend EG 500-year - Normal WS 500-year - Normal 2080 EG 500-year - Critical Elevation (ft) WS 500-year - Critical Crit 500-year - Critical 2060 Crit 500-year - Normal Ground 2040 Bank Sta 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Crossing .06 .024 .06 2100 Legend EG 500-year - Normal WS 500-year - Normal 2080 EG 500-year - Critical Elevation (ft) WS 500-year - Critical Crit 500-year - Critical 2060 Crit 500-year - Normal Ground 2040 Bank Sta 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline Crossing .06 .024 .06 2090 Legend EG 500-year - Normal 2080 WS 500-year - Normal 2070 EG 500-year - Critical Elevation (ft) WS 500-year - Critical 2060 Crit 500-year - Critical Crit 500-year - Normal 2050 Ground Bank Sta 2040 2030 2020 2010 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 X-Section #5 .06 .024 .06 2090 Legend EG 500-year - Normal 2080 WS 500-year - Normal 2070 EG 500-year - Critical Elevation (ft) WS 500-year - Critical 2060 Ground Bank Sta 2050 2040 2030 2020 2010 0 5000 10000 Station (ft) 15000 20000 Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 X-Section #3 .06 .024 .06 2120 Legend EG 500-year - Normal 2100 WS 500-year - Normal EG 500-year - Critical WS 500-year - Critical Elevation (ft) 2080 Ground Ineff 2060 Bank Sta 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Station (ft) Missouri River Keystone XL Plan: 1) Critical 9/21/2017 2) Normal 7/26/2017 X-Section #1 .06 .024 .06 2060 Legend EG 500-year - Normal 2050 WS 500-year - Normal EG 500-year - Critical Crit 500-year - Normal Elevation (ft) 2040 WS 500-year - Critical Crit 500-year - Critical 2030 Ground Ineff 2020 Bank Sta 2010 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 Station (ft) 8000 10000 12000 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Summary Hydraulic Tables at Crossing Location E-8 Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2019.16 Vel Head (ft) 0.25 W.S. Elev (ft) 2018.90 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 2016.26 Flow Area (sq ft) BR D Element Profile: 2-year Left OB Wt. n-Val. E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000636 Area (sq ft) Q Total (cfs) 15000.00 Flow (cfs) Channel 499.00 499.00 3713.12 15000.00 891.01 Top Width (ft) Vel Total (ft/s) 4.04 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 4.04 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 8.90 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.17 Conv. Total (cfs) 594637.6 Min Ch El (ft) 891.01 Conv. (cfs) 594637.6 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 892.57 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.17 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.67 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.37 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 182.63 C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2019.51 Vel Head (ft) 0.28 W.S. Elev (ft) 2019.23 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 2016.61 Flow Area (sq ft) 48.76 BR D Element Profile: 5-year Left OB Wt. n-Val. E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000662 Area (sq ft) Q Total (cfs) 17000.00 Flow (cfs) Channel 499.00 499.00 4005.75 17000.00 919.58 Top Width (ft) 4.24 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 4.24 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 9.23 Hydr. Depth (ft) 4.36 Conv. Total (cfs) 660704.3 919.58 Conv. (cfs) 660704.3 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 921.24 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.18 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.76 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.38 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 196.74 C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2020.76 Vel Head (ft) 0.37 W.S. Elev (ft) 2020.39 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 2017.54 Flow Area (sq ft) 49.43 BR D Element Profile: 10-year Left OB Wt. n-Val. Channel 499.00 499.00 0.000719 Area (sq ft) 25000.00 Flow (cfs) Top Width (ft) 1022.75 Top Width (ft) Vel Total (ft/s) 4.86 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 4.86 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 10.39 Hydr. Depth (ft) 5.03 Conv. Total (cfs) 932334.1 5139.56 25000.00 1022.75 Conv. (cfs) 932334.1 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1024.79 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.23 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) Frctn Loss (ft) 0.41 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 0.01 250.53 C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 0.22 52.39 Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2023.52 Element Vel Head (ft) 0.58 W.S. Elev (ft) 2022.93 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 2019.28 Flow Area (sq ft) BR D 1.10 Profile: 50-year Left OB Wt. n-Val. Channel 499.00 499.00 7829.34 0.000693 Area (sq ft) Q Total (cfs) 48000.00 Flow (cfs) Top Width (ft) 1070.35 Top Width (ft) 1070.35 Vel Total (ft/s) 6.13 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.13 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 12.93 Hydr. Depth (ft) Conv. Total (cfs) 1823129.0 Length Wtd. (ft) Min Ch El (ft) Right OB 0.024 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) Conv. (cfs) 499.00 5139.56 Q Total (cfs) Min Ch El (ft) Right OB 0.024 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) Length Wtd. (ft) 499.00 4005.75 Vel Total (ft/s) Min Ch El (ft) Right OB 0.024 Top Width (ft) Length Wtd. (ft) 499.00 3713.12 Top Width (ft) Length Wtd. (ft) Right OB 0.024 7829.34 48000.00 7.31 1823129.0 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1073.40 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.32 499.00 Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 BR D Profile: 50-year (Continued) Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) Frctn Loss (ft) 0.39 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 7.54 386.72 C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 5.62 56.52 Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2024.73 Vel Head (ft) 0.69 W.S. Elev (ft) 2024.05 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 2020.06 Flow Area (sq ft) BR D Element 1.94 Profile: 100-year Left OB Wt. n-Val. Channel 499.00 499.00 0.000679 Area (sq ft) Q Total (cfs) 60000.00 Flow (cfs) Top Width (ft) 1074.08 Top Width (ft) 1074.08 Vel Total (ft/s) 6.65 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.65 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 14.05 Hydr. Depth (ft) Conv. Total (cfs) 2303370.0 Min Ch El (ft) 9023.21 60000.00 8.40 Conv. (cfs) 2303370.0 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1077.79 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.35 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) Frctn Loss (ft) 0.37 Cum Volume (acre-ft) C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) Plan: Critical Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 BR D Element 2.36 15.50 450.25 8.06 57.78 Profile: 500-year E.G. Elev (ft) 2027.69 Vel Head (ft) 0.99 W.S. Elev (ft) 2026.70 Reach Len. (ft) Crit W.S. (ft) 2021.88 Flow Area (sq ft) 11881.80 Left OB Wt. n-Val. Channel 499.00 499.00 0.000688 Area (sq ft) 11881.80 Q Total (cfs) 95000.00 Flow (cfs) 95000.00 Top Width (ft) 1082.04 Top Width (ft) Vel Total (ft/s) 8.00 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 8.00 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 16.70 Hydr. Depth (ft) 10.98 Conv. Total (cfs) 3622480.0 Min Ch El (ft) Conv. (cfs) 3622480.0 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1087.36 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.47 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) Frctn Loss (ft) 0.37 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 56.08 624.75 C & E Loss (ft) 0.01 Cum SA (acres) 20.56 73.91 Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2039.37 Vel Head (ft) 2.38 W.S. Elev (ft) 2037.00 Reach Len. (ft) 2031.91 Crit W.S. (ft) E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000796 499.00 1082.04 Alpha Plan: Critical Right OB 0.024 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) Length Wtd. (ft) 499.00 9023.21 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) Length Wtd. (ft) Right OB 0.024 BR D Element 3.75 Profile: Worst Left OB Channel 0.060 0.024 0.060 499.00 499.00 499.00 Flow Area (sq ft) 8338.86 23169.50 18858.13 Area (sq ft) 8338.86 23169.50 18858.13 Flow (cfs) 7406.08 306098.80 36495.18 Wt. n-Val. Right OB Q Total (cfs) 350000.00 Top Width (ft) 11044.94 Top Width (ft) 5817.70 1104.00 4123.23 Vel Total (ft/s) 6.95 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 0.89 13.21 1.94 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 26.99 Hydr. Depth (ft) 1.43 20.99 4.57 Conv. Total (cfs) 12406520.0 262525.0 10850350.0 1293653.0 Length Wtd. (ft) Min Ch El (ft) Conv. (cfs) 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 5818.05 1113.79 4125.25 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.07 1.03 0.23 Alpha 3.17 Stream Power (lb/ft s) 0.06 13.65 0.44 Frctn Loss (ft) 0.45 Cum Volume (acre-ft) 599.97 1352.31 542.01 C & E Loss (ft) 0.05 Cum SA (acres) 168.54 75.19 138.69 Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Summary Hydraulic Tables at Crossing Location: Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis E-9 Plan: Normal Missouri River Missouri River RS: 6 E.G. Elev (ft) 2029.08 Vel Head (ft) 0.75 W.S. Elev (ft) 2028.33 Reach Len. (ft) 2021.88 Crit W.S. (ft) BR D Element Profile: 500-year Left OB Wt. n-Val. 499.00 Channel Right OB 0.024 0.060 499.00 499.00 Flow Area (sq ft) 13647.26 26.66 E.G. Slope (ft/ft) 0.000436 Area (sq ft) 13647.26 26.66 Q Total (cfs) 95000.00 Flow (cfs) 94988.30 11.71 Top Width (ft) 1120.79 Top Width (ft) 1086.93 33.86 Vel Total (ft/s) 6.95 Avg. Vel. (ft/s) 6.96 0.44 Max Chl Dpth (ft) 18.32 Hydr. Depth (ft) 12.56 0.79 Conv. Total (cfs) 4547486.0 4546926.0 560.7 Length Wtd. (ft) Min Ch El (ft) Conv. (cfs) 499.00 Wetted Per. (ft) 1093.24 34.06 2010.00 Shear (lb/sq ft) 0.34 0.02 2.37 0.01 136.05 829.03 0.46 36.08 74.49 0.85 Alpha 1.00 Stream Power (lb/ft s) Frctn Loss (ft) 0.23 Cum Volume (acre-ft) C & E Loss (ft) 0.00 Cum SA (acres) Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 2-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-10 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 2-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Input Data Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 3.93 3.21 3.39 15000.00 1012.31 3.50 15000.00 1192.29 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 0.83 Results Combined Scour Depths Clear Right Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 5-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-11 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 5-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Input Data Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 4.21 3.34 3.56 17000.00 1060.15 3.5 17000.00 1207.92 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 0.95 Results Combined Scour Depths Clear Right Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 10-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-12 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 10-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Input Data Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 5.16 3.85 4.44 25000.00 1149.08 3.5 25000.00 1258.00 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 1.42 Results Combined Scour Depths Clear Right Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 50-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-13 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 50-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Input Data Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 7.64 4.94 6.47 48000.00 1282.42 3.5 48000.00 1272.63 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 2.87 Results Combined Scour Depths Clear Right Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 100-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-14 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 100-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Right Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 8.13 5.34 7.53 59991.15 1300.40 3.5 59977.52 1380.09 0.590 0.57 0.36 0.35 8.85 79.41 3.5 22.49 109.77 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 3.64 0.00 Clear Clear Input Data Results Combined Scour Depths Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 500-Year Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-15 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 500-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Right Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 9.78 6.11 10.21 94400.52 1317.74 3.5 94354.65 1578.23 0.590 2.26 0.92 1.75 599.47 395.50 3.5 645.36 309.60 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 6.09 0.00 Clear Clear Input Data Results Combined Scour Depths Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 D50=1.737 mm Sensitivity Analysis Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-16 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 500-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Right Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 9.78 6.11 10.21 94400.52 1317.74 1.74 94354.65 1578.23 0.640 2.26 0.92 1.75 599.47 395.50 1.74 645.36 309.60 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 9.70 0.00 Clear Clear Input Data Results Combined Scour Depths Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Normal Flow Sensitivity Analysis Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-17 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS 500-year Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Right Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 10.91 5.39 11.71 93990.78 1327.54 1.74 93749.09 1594.03 0.640 1.63 0.76 1.57 1009.22 1001.12 1.74 1250.92 1011.10 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 8.00 0.00 Clear Clear Input Data Results Combined Scour Depths Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Worst-case Sensitivity Analysis Contraction Scour Hydraulic Tables E-18 Bridge Scour RS = 6 2100 Legend WS Worst Ground Bank Sta Contr Scour 2080 Elevation (ft) 2060 2040 2020 2000 1980 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Station (ft) 10000 12000 14000 Contraction Scour Left Channel Right Average Depth (ft): Approach Velocity (ft/s): Br Average Depth (ft): BR Opening Flow (cfs): BR Top WD (ft): Grain Size D50 (mm): Approach Flow (cfs): Approach Top WD (ft): K1 Coefficient: 1.96 1.06 1.94 13385.15 6834.89 3.50 9950.51 4794.77 0.590 19.57 8.82 20.92 292760.50 1358.73 3.50 300749.00 1741.70 0.590 5.98 1.65 5.61 43854.31 4542.55 3.50 39300.48 3989.00 0.590 Scour Depth Ys (ft): Critical Velocity (ft/s): Equation: 0.00 21.01 0.00 Clear Clear Clear Input Data Results Combined Scour Depths Keystone XL Pipeline Missouri River Scour Analysis KXL1399-EXP-A-PLN-0002 September 27, 2017 Appendix F – Geotech Report: Borehole 2 E-19 90103 MISSOURI RIVER 12?16-08 MAT MONTANA DOT ENGLISH OUTPUT Tetra Tech Figure No.2 TETRA TECH 2535 Palmer Street 1% Missoula. MT 59806 OF BORING Phone: 406-543-3045 Fax: 406-543-3088 Project Name: Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Priority 2008 Sites - Montana Facilities Project Number: 9570103 Borehole Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map (Missouri River) Number: BH-2.1.02-02 Sheet 1 of 3 Hammer: Stationing: Type: Automatic Driller: Mark Medley Logger: Jeremy Dierking Borehole Drilling Equipment: CME-55 ATV Diameter 6.00 Date Started: 10-29-03 Date Finished: 10-29-08 Elevation . and Datum: Gmund- 2037-05 Notes: N17465199.3 E1316514.2 qu Pocket Penetrometer Reading DRILL .2 . 33. Torvane Reading .-.. LIMATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS a m8 :0 o. i?Lusp-r 2 LL pl 2 to TOPSOIL, organic material, dark brown, '_1.00 .: \moist (32 in. thiCk). - Silty SAND and Sandy lean CLAY, .- alternating seams 3 to 6 in. thick, medium -: stiff to stiff, loose, brown, moist, ?ne 5 grained, non-plastic to tow plasticity. 100 we 27 qu 2.25 0.6 102.5 0.6 15?- - 65 2?34 22 AW 00 - Silty SAND. very loose to loose, brown. - wet, ?ne grained, non-plastic3.1- 3 qu 0.5 i- 2. 0.15 100 3-4-2 1 Flowing sands below water table. - 100 3-2-3 . _j - 30- 100 3-3-4 .. 29.1.00 - Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, If medium dense, brown to gray, wet, ?ne grained sand and gravel, subangular to 35: 1 subrounded gravel, non-plastic. - X100 ses ?gs" Auger $333? 33'3? Penetrometer WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 3% Air Rotary - Shelby I Vane Shear While Drilling 3 17.00 ft Upon Completion of Drilling 5.1 19.00 ft Continuous Diamond Bulk l?fo - Time After Drilling Flight Auger Core I Sample 3' mla "19 Depth To Water (ft) E6 Remarks: Flowin sand below roundwater table. Event 9 9 mm 1-01-0? (MAT) 90103 RIVER 12-16-08 MAT MONTANA DOT ENGLISH OUTPUT Tetra Tech 2535 Palmer Street Missoula. MT 59806 Phone: 406-543-3045 Fax: 406-543-3088 Figure No. 2 0F BORING TETRA TECH Project Name: Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Priority 2008 Sites - Montana Facilities Project Number: 9570103 Borehole Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map (Missouri River) Number: BH-2.1.02-02 Sheet 2 of 3 Hammer: Stationing: Type: Automatic Driller: Mark Medley Logger: Jeremy Dierking Borehole Drilling Equipment: CME-55 ATV Diameter 6.00 Date Started: 10-29-08 Date Finished: 10-29-08 Elevation . and Datum: Gmund- 2037.05 Notes: N17465199.3 E13165142 DRILL qu Pocket Penetrometer Reading Torvane Reading A D: I.I$20, a uJ ?0 or) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I REMARKS 3) Lu LLIQ x9 O) 5 3 D. l- eaarossaasmroad?Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel 40 - :9 (continued). 80 7-7-8 14 12 -: Approximately 3 in. coarse grained sand at 45 511;. [535.00 .2 X100 Poorly graded SAND with silt, medium q" 0-75 dense to dense, brown to gray. wet. ?ne grained, non?plastic. 50?- 3 X100 11-14-17 - qu 1.5 55'? - 100 6-7-6 3-: - 60?- 100 9-21-25 - qu 2.0 65': . - 100 6-3-9 . .. .- Lean clay seam from 65.5 to 66 ft. 70?- - X100 4-5-5 - 75?- 100 4 5-10 - eration Sam ler - Tfpes; Auger Type?; 333:0" Penetrometer WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS $ng 3% Air Rotary I Shelby I Vane Shea, While Drilling 17.00 ft Upon Completion of Drilling 119.00 ft . . . Time After Drilling - lk . . . Fligh'tnx?g'gr 0:210? ng Depth To Water (ft) Wash Drive Eerab Remarks: Flowin sand below roundwater table. Rotary Casing ijSample Testpit Revised 1431-0? 90103 MISSOURI RIVER LOGS.GPJ 12-16-08 MAT MONTANA DOT ENGLISH OUTPUT Tetra Tech Fig ure No.2 TETRA TECH 2535 Palmer Street 1% Missoula. MT 59806 0F BORING Phone: 406-543-3045 Fax: 406-543-3088 Project Name: Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Priority 2008 Sites - Montana Facilities Project Number: 9570103 Borehole Borehole Location: Refer to Site Map (Missouri River) Number: BH-2.1.02-02 Sheet 3 of 3 Hamm Stationing: Type:e Automatic Driller: Mark Medley Logger: Jeremy Dierking Borehole Drilling Equipment: CME-SS ATV Diameter 6.00 Date Started: 10-29-08 Date Finished: 10-29-08 Elevation . and Datum: Gmund- 2037-05 Notes: N17465199.3 E13165142 DRILL qu Pocket Penetrometer Reading a: Torvane ReadIng .-.. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS I- to DJ LIJO 5:9 a. I-unu 000. sp-r Poorly graded SAND with silt (continued). 80?- - 100 3-3-3 85?- - 100 13-14-21 .. 90- - 100 12-14-14 - qu - 3.0 95?? 100 8?10-21 21 8 - qu 4.0 0.4 100?- 100 11-33-13 "101.53 Bottom of Boring at 101.5 ft 953;?? Auger $3520? 3% pent-romeo WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 3g Ail-Rotary I Shelby Vane Shear 17.00 ft Upon Completion of Drilling 19.h'ii'I Higi?nin??gir camm'a Rm Depth To Water (11) 1 Grab . Remarks: Flowin sand below roundwater table. Roatgry 0:319 Sample ?35?9" Revised 1411-0: (MAT)