THURBER ENGINEERING LTD. - CivicWeb

YEARS

THURBER ENGINEERING LTD.G E O T E C H N I C A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L M AT E R I A L SP P

June 6, 2007 File: 19-3313-2 Royal Bay Developments c/o Moodie Consultants Ltd. 590 East Tower 555 West 12th Street Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 3X7 Attention: Mr. Jim Moodie ROYAL BAY DEVELOPMENT BEACH MONITORING - 2007 Dear Sir: As requested, we have completed the beach monitoring program at Royal Bay. The methodology and a summary of the results are discussed below and in the attached report from Coastal & Ocean Resources Inc. (CORI). Use of this report is subject to the attached Statement of General Conditions. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to these conditions as it is considered essential that they be followed for the proper use and interpretation of this report. Methodology The beach monitoring was conducted on April 19, 2007 and consisted of the following. 1. The seven original beach monitoring points were re-established by 1st Team

Consulting Ltd. (1st Team). At each beach monitoring point a detailed profile/ cross section to the low tide level was surveyed. A copy of those cross-sections completed by 1st Team is included in Appendix A.

2. The beach geomorphology and stability was assessed and the on-going photo-

log and field notes were updated by John Harper, Ph.D., P.Geo., of CORI. A copy of CORI’s report is included in Appendix A. The CORI survey consisted of comparing; (a) the 2001 photo log and notes with the updated 2007 photo log and notes, and (b) interpreting/comparing the 2005 beach cross sections and the 2007 cross sections.

Survey History The Beach monitoring survey was originally established in May 2001 by 1st Team and an initial survey and cross sections were completed for future comparison at this time. In June 2005 the monitoring points were re-established and the profiles surveyed by 1st Team. These data were then added to the May 2001 record. On April 18 and April 19, 2007, the beach cross sections were re-surveyed and this data was plotted with the June 2005 data for comparison by CORI. Summary We have reviewed the CORI report and are in general agreement with its conclusions. The CORI report indicates that the Royal Bay beach system has been dominated by normal beach cycles that vary seasonally. The report indicates that these typical seasonal beach cycles include erosion of berms in the winter and re-establishment of the berms in the summer months. A dyke breach from the adjacent aggregate pit in the vicinity of BP#5 has introduced new immature sediment (sand) and an alluvial fan to the beach. This sand has been distributed in both a north and south direction by natural processes. CORI’s report indicates that it is likely that the sand will eventually be deposit in the berm along much of the beach. Recommendations CORI provided us with a few recommendations for future surveys, as summarized below;

• Profiles should be surveyed at the same time each year (i.e June). • It is desirable to conduct the survey during spring low tide windows to

maximize the extent into the lower inter-tidal zone.

Please contact us if you have any questions. Yours truly, Thurber Engineering Ltd. K.B. Sterne, P.Eng. Review Principal Tony L Gilman, E.I.T. Project Engineer

YEARS

THURBER ENGINEERING LTD.


STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS

Nature and Exactness of Soil and Contaminant Description: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials and quantities have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. Classification and identification of these factors are judgmental in nature. Comprehensive sampling and testing programs implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel, may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 will involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected and all documents or records summarizing such investigations will be based on assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated and the Client and all other persons making use of such documents or records with our express written consent should be aware of this risk and this report is delivered on the express condition that such risk is accepted by the Client and such other persons. Some conditions are subject to change over time and those making use of the Report should be aware of this possibility and understand that the Report only presents the conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling. Where special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, the Client should disclose them so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken which would not otherwise be within the scope of investigations made for the purposes of the Report.

Reliance on Provided Information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in evidence at the time of site inspections and on the basis of information provided to us. We have relied in good faith upon representations, information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, we cannot accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations, or fraudulent acts of the Client or other persons providing information relied on by us. We are entitled to rely on such representations, information and instructions and are not required to carry out investigations to determine the truth or accuracy of such representations, information and instructions.

a)

b)

1. STANDARD OF CARE

This study and Report have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering or environmental consulting practices in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

2. COMPLETE REPORT

All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment are a part of the Report which is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to us by the Client, communications between us and the Client, and to any other reports, writings, proposals or documents prepared by us for the Client relative to the specific site described herein, all of which constitute the Report.

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. WE CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE REPORT.

3. BASIS OF REPORT

The Report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objectives and purposes that were described to us by the Client. The applicability and reliability of any of the findings, recommendations, suggestions, or opinions expressed in the document, subject to the limitations provided herein, are only valid to the extent that this Report expressly addresses proposed development, design objectives and purposes, and then only to the extent there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided to us unless we are specifically requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation or to consider such representations, information and instructions.

4. USE OF THE REPORT

The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole benefit of the Client. NO OTHER PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN CONSENT AND SUCH USE SHALL BE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS WE MAY EXPRESSLY APPROVE. The contents of the Report remain our copyright property. The Client may not give, lend or, sell the Report, or otherwise make the Report, or any portion thereof, available to any person without our prior written permission. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, are the sole responsibility of such third parties. Unless expressly permitted by us, no person other than the Client is entitled to rely on this Report. We accept no responsibility whatsoever for damages suffered by any third party resulting from use of the Report without our express written permission.

5. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT

(see over . . . . )


Design Services: The Report may form part of the design and construction documents for information purposes even though it may have been issued prior to the final design being completed. We should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of the Report. Any differences that may exist between the report recommendations and the final design detailed in the contract documents should be reported to us immediately so that we can address potential conflicts.

Construction Services: During construction we must be retained to provide field reviews. Field reviews consist of performing sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the site conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of the report. Adequate field reviews are necessary for Thurber to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities.

c)

6. RISK LIMITATION

Geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting projects often have the potential to encounter pollutants or hazardous substances and the potential to cause an accidental release of those substances. In consideration of the provision of the services by us, which are for the Client's benefit, the Client agrees to hold harmless and to indemnify and defend us and our directors, officers, servants, agents, employees, workmen and contractors (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, demands, disputes, liability and legal investigative costs of defence, whether for personal injury including death, or any other loss whatsoever, regardless of any action or omission on the part of the Company, that result from an accidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances occurring as a result of carrying out this Project. This indemnification shall extend to all Claims brought or threatened against the Company under any federal or provincial statute as a result of conducting work on this Project. In addition to the above indemnification, the Client further agrees not to bring any claims against the Company in connection with any of the aforementioned causes.

7. SERVICES OF SUBCONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS

The conduct of engineering and environmental studies frequently requires hiring the services of individuals and companies with special expertise and/or services which we do not provide. We may arrange the hiring of these services as a convenience to our Clients. As these services are for the Client’s benefit, the Client agrees to hold the Company harmless and to indemnify and defend us from and against all claims arising through such hirings to the extent that the Client would incur had he hired those services directly. This includes responsibility for payment for services rendered and pursuit of damages for errors, omissions or negligence by those parties in carrying out their work. In particular, these conditions apply to the use of drilling, excavation and laboratory testing services.

8. CONTROL OF WORK AND JOBSITE SAFETY

We are responsible only for the activities of our employees on the jobsite. The presence of our personnel on the site shall not be construed in any way to relieve the Client or any contractors on site from their responsibilities for site safety. The Client acknowledges that he, his representatives, contractors or others retain control of the site and that we never occupy a position of control of the site. The Client undertakes to inform us of all hazardous conditions, or other relevant conditions of which the Client is aware. The Client also recognizes that our activities may uncover previously unknown hazardous conditions or materials and that such a discovery may result in the necessity to undertake emergency procedures to protect our employees as well as the public at large and the environment in general. These procedures may well involve additional costs outside of any budgets previously agreed to. The Client agrees to pay us for any expenses incurred as the result of such discoveries and to compensate us through payment of additional fees and expenses for time spent by us to deal with the consequences of such discoveries. The Client also acknowledges that in some cases the discovery of hazardous conditions and materials will require that certain regulatory bodies be informed and the Client agrees that notification to such bodies by us will not be a cause of action or dispute.

9. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS OF CLIENT

The information, interpretations and conclusions in the Report are based on our interpretation of conditions revealed through limited investigation conducted within a defined scope of services. We cannot accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations and/or decisions of the Client, or others who may come into possession of the Report, or any part thereof, which may be based on information contained in the Report. This restriction of liability includes but is not limited to decisions made to develop, purchase or sell land.

INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT (continued . . . . )

d)

SGC20050425


AP

PE

ND

IX

A

4 June 2007 Royal Bay Beach Assessment Page 1

Review of Beach Profiling Program, Royal Bay Beach by John R. Harper, Ph.D., P.Geo. Coastal & Ocean Resources Inc. Introduction A series of seven beach profile sites were established by First Team consulting in the Royal Bay area to provide a measure of the beach stability. It was envisaged that the profiles would be periodically surveyed and the sequential data reviewed with respect to beach stability and beach process. Harper conducted an initial survey of the sites on 26 May 2001. Beach profiles were established and surveyed about that time by First Team Consulting. Profiles were resurveyed in June 2005 as part of a bluff survey. The most recent survey was conducted in April 2007; Harper conducted an associated reconnaissance survey on 19 April 2007. The beach stability assessment is based on (a) comparison and notes of the 2001 and 2007 foot surveys by Harper and (b) the 2001, 2005 and 2007 profile data provided by Thurber. The 2001 data were not co-plotted with the 2005 and 2007, complicating the comparison. Locations of the profiles are shown in Figure 1 and are based on GPS fix data. Profile-by-Profile Description Profile 1 Profile 1 is located at the southern end of the Royal Bay beach, just to the north of the Albert head Lagoon. The 2005-2007 profile comparison shows that the upper intertidal zone is most variable in elevation whereas the mid and lower intertidal zone has remained relatively stable. The maximum vertical variation of about 0.5 m in elevation is considered normal and may simply reflect seasonal variation (2005 surveys were conducted in June when one would expect berm development during the summer whereas the 2007 surveys were conducted in April, closer to the winter storm season). The 2001 to 2007 comparison indicates higher beach levels at the seawall (2001 height = 2.6m and 2007 height = 2.7 m), and an approximate six metres retreat of the berm (landward edge of the berm was at 11m in 2001 and at 5 m in 2007). The photo comparison (Appendix A) shows that the upper beach has dropped about 20-25 cm between 2001 and 2007 (note this is not consistent with the plotted profile data which shows little to no change in beach height). Seasonal vegetation evident in 2001 is also missing in 2007. There has been no significant change in beach sediment composition between 2001 and 2007. The data suggest that there is some long term retreat at this profile (2001 to 2007) masked by seasonal variations in berm development. Had profiles been surveyed later in the summer of 2007, it is likely that there would have been berm accretion during the months of May, June, July and August.

4 Ju

ne 2

007

Roya

l Bay

Bea

ch A

sses

smen

t Pa

ge 2

Fi

gure

1 L

ocat

ion

of R

oyal

Bay

Bea

ch p

rofil

es, i

nitia

lly e

stab

lishe

d in

200

1 an

d re

-occ

upie

d in

200

5 an

d 20

07.


Profile 2 Profile 2 is located several hundred metres to the north of Profile 1 on an a relatively stable cliff. As with Profile 1, the survey data shows that the upper beach has been the most dynamic and the mid to lower beach face is stable. The comparative profiles (2005 to 2007) show elements of both erosion (supratidal zone) and accretion (upper intertidal zone). The maximum vertical change is about 30cm (vertical drop of the supratidal berm). The 2001 data were not co-plotted with the 2005 and 2007 data and are very generalized; a completely flat, linear profile is shown in 2001 (no berm was surveyed; this is not consistent with photos which clearly show a supratidal berm, including ephemeral vegetation on the berm.). The photo comparison of the berm area (Appendix A) shows little change – in fact the same log is apparent in the 2001 and 2007 photos (upper photo set, large log on left). There has been no change in sediment type on the berm or beach face. There are no significant trends in the data in terms of long-term change. The observed changes in berm configuration are consistent with seasonal or year-to-year fluctuations in beach morphology.

Profile 7 Profile 7 is located between Profiles 2 and 3, seaward of a large, stable cliff. The overhanging trees extend 13m over the beach from the base of the cliff. The comparison of the 2005 and 2007 profiles indicate some volumetric changes in the upper beach and a seaward displacement of the lower beach profile suggesting overall accretion. The 2001 survey data is not useful as the bench mark elevation was assumed. This data was not used in the evaluation. Photo comparisons (Appendix A), especially the photo looking up slope, seem to indicate finer sand has been deposited on the beachface. The cobble-veneer of the low tide terrace appears to be covered in sand. These observations indicate that there has been a net accretion of sand at the site, probably relatively recently as the deposit has not had time to coarsen. This profile shows sediment mobility in the upper intertidal zone that is commonly associated with seasonal variations in on-offshore sediment cycling as well as year-to-year variations in beaches due to storm intensity. The seaward displacement of the mid and lower beach profile indicates net accretion is occurring; this is confirmed by the comparative photos that show the cobble terrace near the low water line has been buried by sand. Profile 3 Profile 3 is located ~ 100m to the north of Profile 7. The location is backed by a semi stable cliff. Comparative profiles survey profiles from 2005 and 2007 indicate almost identical trends to Profile 7 during the same time period. Vertical drops of nearly 0.5 m occurred in the upper portion of the profile while accretion occurred throughout the mid and lower beach sections. The erosion that occurred in the upper intertidal zone resulted in a ~5m landward displacement of the high water line.


The 2001 to 2007 profile comparison indicates a 2.5 m retreat of the small scarp near the top of the profile. The photo documentation from 2001 and 2007 (Appendix A) shows the removal of the season berm in the supra tidal (2nd row of photos) in 2007 photos. The coloration of the beach is “browner” in 2007 than in 2001, usually indicating less mature sediments. The cobble beach terrace near the low water line (lower two rows of photos) has been partially buried; unfortunately the topographic surveys were not conducted at low enough tide to document the break in slope at the base of the beach and the associated progradation of the beach toe. My interpretation of this data, along with similar observations from Profile 7 located just to the south, is that (a) a large sedimentation event has occurred on the beach, (b) this sedimentation event is relatively recent and (c) there has been insufficient time since the event for a seasonal berm to develop. Profile 4 This beach profile is located immediately to the south of the sand and gravel loading wharf. The 2005 to 2007 surveys indicate that erosion has taken place in the upper intertidal near the base of the dock and that accretion has taken place in the middle and lower intertidal zone. The plotted profile for 2001 has “assumed datum” so the data could not be used in profile comparison. Photos (Appendix A) show a similar trend to other profiles where there has been a landward displacement of the high water line (Appendix A, top row of photos). However, a concrete footing that was “hanging” in 2001 (last row of photos for Profile 4) has been infilled, suggesting about 0.5 m of vertical accretion near this footing between 2001 and 2007. Sand coloration is considerably browner in 2007 suggesting less sediment maturity. A large, relatively recent sedimentation event appears to have recently occurred on this beach. The profile changes that have occurred in the upper intertidal appear to be a result of normal seasonal beach cycles or year-to-year cycles. “Fresh” sediment has been deposited in the middle and lower intertidal zone; sediment has not yet been reworked into a seasonal berm. Considerable spillage of sand was noted around the conveyor. Profile 5 This profile is located north of the loading dock and is directly across the concrete bulkhead for an older wharf. Apparently some type of containment dyke broke inside the gravel pit during 2006/2007 and an alluvial fan formed over the previous bench mark; at least 2.5 m of sediment was deposited. The 2007 profile indicates that most of the deposition at the time of the survey was above the high-water line. The beach face and low-tide terrace have been stable with little observed change. The comparative photos from 2001 and 2007 show that the sand and gravel beach in the upper intertidal was probably wider in 2001 than in 2007. There is no photographic evidence of change in the lower intertidal zone. The large alluvial fan that formed in the supratidal zone at this profile probably contributed a substantial amount of sediment to the beach system that has subsequently been transported away


from this site, both to the north and to the south. The present active beach appears to be similar in size at present to the 2001 beach. Profile 6 Profile 6 is the northern-most profile of the seven beach profiles. Plotted beach profiles from 2005 and 2007 show substantial retreat at this site – approximately 7 m of scarp retreat in the supra-tidal storm ridge. A supra-tidal terrace evident in the 2001 photos (Appendix A) was nearly completely removed in 2007. Comparison of the 2001-2005 profile shows this supratidal terrace did not change between 2001 and 2005. There is a suggestion that considerable accretion has occurred in the lower portion of the profile, although the 2005 survey was so short that it missed the lower third of the intertidal zone. Photo documentation from 2001 and 2007 shows the substantial retreat of the low scarp. Comparison of the 2001 and 2007 photos for the lower intertidal zone (last two rows of photo table) shows a well-armored lower beach during 2001 whereas the 2007 photos shows the cobble armor to be covered by sand in the lower beach. The profile data indicate considerable erosion has taken place in the supratidal – about 5-10m of scarp retreat into a supra-tidal berm. The seasonal berm observed in 2001 photos was missing in 2007 photos. Some of this material may have moved to the lower intertidal, as evidenced by the infilling that has occurred there. It also may be several events combined – erosion of the bluff in the upper intertidal may have occurred during a series of storms in following 2005 surveys whereas the deposition of sand in the lower intertidal zone appears “fresher” and may be related to the dyke breaching noted at Profile 5. The browner, lower intertidal sediment appears less mature (brown coloration comes from feldspars in the sand that typically weather more rapidly than quartz minerals; older sand is white because of a higher quartz content and “younger sand” is browner because of a higher feldspar content). Overview The Royal Bay beach system appears to have been dominated by normal seasonal beach cycles, which could include (a) a typical winter-summer cycle where berms are eroded by winter storms and reform during more quiescent summer months or (b) year to year storm intensities, where beaches show a longer term change related to the frequency and intensity of storms (2006/2007 is known to be more severe). The beach system appears to have had a major sedimentation event as evidenced by the extensive presence of brown sand in the lower portion of several profiles (Profiles 7, 3, 4, 6). The brown coloration is typically due to immaturity (more feldspars-rich minerals) and suggests are relatively recent introduction to the beach system. My suspicion is that sediments were introduced primarily from a dyke breaching within the pit. A relatively large alluvial fan formed at Profile 5. Sediment introduced to the beach was likely transported to both the north and south of this location. It is likely that seasonal beach sediment cycling will eventually result in this material being deposited in berms on the upper beach of most profiles.


APPENDIX A

Comparative Photographs, May 2001 to April 2007


Profile 1, 26 May 2001 Profile 1, 19 April 2007





(continued on next page)












Profile 5, 19 April 2007 Profile 5, 19 April 2007 Alluvial fan formed over profile due to a dyke burst within gravel pit. Note that at least several meters of sediment were deposited near the original survey stake.






Profile 6, 19 April 2007 Profile 6, 19 April 2007

.

Documents

THURBER ENGINEERING LTD. - CivicWeb