Development Variance Permit No. 641-42 (073182 BC Ltd. (Hagglund) DESCRIPTION: Report from Ken Gobeil, Senior Planner, Dated November 27, 2020

BOARD REPORT

TO: Chair and Directors File No: DVP641-42C PL20200000122

SUBJECT: Electoral Area C: Development Variance Permit No. 641-42 (073182 BC Ltd. (Hagglund) DESCRIPTION: Report from Ken Gobeil, Senior Planner, dated November 27, 2020. 1885, Tappen Notch Hill Road, Tappen RECOMMENDATION: THAT: In accordance with Section 498 of the Local Government Act, Development Variance Permit No. 641-42C for Lot 1, Section 23, Range 10, W6M, KDYD Plan KAP55494, Excluding Plans KAP65068, KAP69965 and KAP75073; and Lot 1 Section 23 Township 21 Range 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan 34273, varying Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 641 as follows; Section 7.2 Access Driveways. The maximum grade of access driveways where multiple dwelling units are proposed is varied from 12.5% to 15% for Lots 2 and 3 of a proposed four lot subdivision under application number 2019-03788; be approved this 10th day of December 2020; AND THAT: Issuance of the Development Variance Permit be withheld until the Manager of Development Services has approved a Hazardous Lands (Steep Slope) Development Permit for Subdivision File No. 2019- 03788.

SHORT SUMMARY: The owner is requesting to vary the maximum grade permitted for an access driveway servicing two lots in a proposed subdivision. The owner has applied to subdivide the properties into four lots, and proposes to utilize an existing access driveway for two of those four lots. The access driveway has a maximum grade of 15%, whereas the CSRD Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No 641 (Bylaw No. 641) requires a maximum grade of 12.5% for driveways accessing more than one dwelling. The variance (15% grade) is 20% steeper than permitted in Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 641 (12.5%).

Unweighted LGA Part 14 Weighted Stakeholder VOTING: Corporate (Unweighted) Corporate (Weighted)

BACKGROUND: REGISTERED OWNER: 073182 BC LTD (Richard Hagglund) AGENT: Franklin Engineering (Dave Sonmor)

Page 1 of 7

Board Report DVP 641-42C December 10, 2020

ELECTORAL AREA: C LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - Lot 1, Section 23, Range 10, W6M, KDYD Plan KAP55494, Excluding Plans KAP65068, KAP69965 and KAP75073 - Lot 1 Section 23 Township 21 Range 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan 34273 PID: - 023-187-468 - 002-999-838 CIVIC ADDRESS: 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road, Tappen SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: North = Trans-Canada Highway, Agriculture South = Rural East = Rural Residential, Agriculture West = Rural CURRENT USE: Agriculture; Mobile Home Park; Vacant PROPOSED USE: Agriculture; Mobile Home Park; Three lot subdivision. PARCEL SIZE: 38.39 ha 54.85 ha PROPOSED PARCEL SIZE: Lot 1: 4.54 ha Lot 2: 6.04 ha Lot 3: 13.73 ha Lot 4: 68.98 ha DESIGNATION: NR Neighbourhood Residential SH Small Holdings ZONE: N/A PROPOSED DESIGNATION: N/A PROPOSED ZONE: N/A AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE: 0% SITE COMMENTS: There are two subject properties, the northern property is 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road and the southern property has no civic address.

Page 2 of 7 Board Report DVP 641-42C December 10, 2020

There are two lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CRR) on the northern property (1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road). The CPR runs along the northern and eastern side of the property, and a different track runs through the centre of the lot joining with the main track at the south eastern corner of the property. The property is also bisected by Tappen Notch Hill Road at the south end of the property. The portion of the property north of Tappen Notch Hill Road is used for agriculture, and the portion south of Tappen Notch Hill Road is a mobile home park. This property is sloped on the north and south ends with a relatively flat middle section. The northern property has two designations in the Electoral Area C Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 725 (Bylaw No. 725) the portion of the property north of Tappen Notch Hill Road is designated as AG Agriculture, and the portion of the property south of Tappen Notch Hill Road with the mobile home park is designated NR Neighbourhood Residential, The southern property has a panhandle access between 1747 and 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road. It is steeply sloped down toward the east, with most of the property having slopes over 30%. The flattest portion of the property is at the northernmost side of the property. The southern property has two designations in the Electoral Area C Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 725 (Bylaw No. 725), the northern half of the property is designated Neighbourhood Residential and the southern half of the property is designated as Small Holdings. There is a proposed subdivision, (file 2019-03788) which would subdivide three lots out of the southern half (designated Small Holdings); and consolidate the remainder (designated Neighbourhood Residential) with the mobile home park to the north (Lot 1, Section 33, Township 21, Range 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan 34273).

POLICY: Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 641 PART 7 ACCESS TO PROPERTY Building Sites 7.1 An Owner must supply a diagram with an application for subdivision that shows adequate building sites for Parcels proposed to be subdivided. For the purpose of this bylaw an adequate building site, where on-site sewer and water servicing is proposed an area of 1,000 m2, having average natural (pre- development) slopes in the identified area of less than 20%, in the case of parcels smaller than 1.0 Ha., at least 40% of the lot area must be under 30% average natural slope. Access Driveways 7.2 An Owner must provide a diagram indicating access driveways to any existing and proposed building site, as indicated in 7.1, above. Access Driveways, to single Dwelling Units must be a minimum of 4.0 m wide and have a maximum grade on the property of less than 15%. Access Driveways, where multiple Dwelling Units are proposed must be a minimum of 6.9 m wide and have a maximum grade of 12.5%. All Access Driveways must conform to Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure requirements for private access within the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Right-of-Way area.

FINANCIAL: There are no financial implications for the CSRD as a result of this application.

Page 3 of 7 Board Report DVP 641-42C December 10, 2020

KEY ISSUES/CONCEPTS: See “Maps_Plans_Photos_DVP641-42C.pdf". The applicant has applied to subdivide their properties into four lots. This subdivision is part of an ongoing effort to bring the mobile home park located at 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road into compliance with the Bylaw No. 725. 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road is a mobile home park, the property is designated as NR Neighbourhood Residential in Bylaw No. 725, which permits a maximum density of 2 units per acre (1 unit per 0.2 ha).  Under the current regulation, only 51 units are permitted at 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road.  Currently there are 67 modular homes on the property. The proposed Lot 4 of the subdivision will increase the size of 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road property. If this subdivision is completed, the mobile home park at 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road could have 121 mobile homes. The portion of the property designated SH is able to accommodate the three proposed lots in this subdivision and there is no change to the portion of the property designated AG. Subdivision No. 2019-03788. The CSRD provided initial comments regarding the proposed subdivision on December 13, 2019; and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) issued their Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review February 20, 2020, which establishes the obligations of the owner in order for the Provincial Approving Officer to approve a subdivision. The applicant has noted that the owner does not want to begin work completing the other CSRD subdivision requirements until this variance application is approved. The owner may need to request additional variances if the owner cannot meet the other subdivision requirements of Bylaw No. 641. However, plans for proposed building sites have also been included for reference in this DVP application. Bylaw No. 641: Part 7.2 Access Driveways Part 7 of Bylaw No, 641 requires properties to have road access. For an access to a single dwelling, the access must be 4 m wide with a maximum grade of 15%. For a shared access to multiple dwellings, the access must be 6.9 m wide with a maximum grade of 12.5%. Access driveways that are shared by multiple dwellings increase the likelihood that vehicles will need to pass by one another. The change in grade and width for shared access driveways makes it easier for vehicles to pass.  The application does not include any variance to the minimum width requirements (6.9 m). Currently there is one existing access driveway on the southern property. The owner proposes that a new access driveway be installed for Lot 1, and that the existing driveway be upgraded and used as a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3. This driveway is approximately 265 m through Lot 3 starting from the road going to the boundary of proposed Lot 2. Lot 4 is proposed to be consolidated with 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road to the north which has its own access.  The applicant noted that if a variance was not granted, a 6.5 m cut would be required to maintain the grade required. If the variance is approved, a cut of only 2.5 m would be required to meet the grade requirements.

Page 4 of 7 Board Report DVP 641-42C December 10, 2020

The driveway grade meets the requirements for access to a single dwelling (15%). However, it is 20% steeper than the maximum permitted in Bylaw No. 641 (12.5%). The applicant noted that given the terrain, available access, and building sites are limited. CSRD mapping indicates that there are over 30% slopes on each lot, and nearly all of proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 have slopes greater than 30%. The proposed building sites have odd shapes, and have been specifically drawn to meet bylaw standards.  In Lot 1, the proposed building site is oddly shaped with only the portion of the property immediately adjacent to the road having a slope less than 20%. The building site has a maximum slope of 174.94%.  In Lot 2, the flattest portion of the building site is the furthest form the access driveway. It has a maximum slope of 116.85%  In Lot 3, the building site is shaped around the driveway access for Lot 2, and has a portion of the lot less than 3 m wide. The maximum slope in this building site is 92.7%. If the dimensions of the access driveway were to change, it would affect building sites, specifically for Lot 3. To support their DVP application the owners have submitted a Geotechnical Hazard Assessment Report from WSP Canada Inc. attached as Professional_Reports_DVP641-42C.pdf". This report concluded that the subdivision could be safe for the use intended with site improvements and mitigation. However, the assessment did not include the specific driveway proposed and does not include the entire property. The specific designs, will be confirmed with the issuance of a Hazardous Lands (Steep Slope) Development Permit, which is another obligation for this subdivision. If this variance is approved and the proposed subdivision is completed, there are no negative effects expected to the surrounding property owners. The only effect to adjacent properties would be traffic of 2 dwellings using a single driveway to a property that was previously vacant.  As per the CSRD Development Procedures Bylaw No. 4001 surrounding landowners within 100 m of the subject property are mailed a notification of the application which provides them an opportunities to provide comment on how they may be affected by the application. As of this date no comments have been received. As a shared access driveway, the property owners will be responsible for any required maintenance or repairs over time. Further details on any required maintenance will be established in the Hazardous Lands, Steep Slope Development Permit which is required for this subdivision due to the steep slopes on the property.

SUMMARY: The applicant is applying to vary provisions of Part 7, Access to Property of the CSRD Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 641 by varying the access driveways serving multiple dwellings from 12.5% to 15% for a 265 m driveway that would serve two properties of a proposed 4 lot subdivision under application 2019-03788. Staff are recommending that the Board approve Development Variance Permit No. 641-42C for the following reasons:  The width of the driveway access is not being varied and it will be 6.9 m wide;  The proposed grade is not steeper than what would be required for a single lot subdivision;  The driveway will serve two properties; and,

Page 5 of 7 Board Report DVP 641-42C December 10, 2020

 The report by WSP indicates that it is possible to have a safe access driveway for the properties. It is recommended that issuance of the proposed development variance permit be withheld until the proposed subdivision receives issuance of a Hazardous Lands (Steep Slopes) Development Permit by the Manager of Development Services.

IMPLEMENTATION: If the Board approves the staff recommendation, the Development Variance Permit will be conditionally approved for issuance which would encourage the applicants to move forward with the other requirements of this subdivision.

COMMUNICATIONS: Notice of the proposed Development Variance Permit was sent to all owners of property within 100 m of the subject property in accordance with Section 499 of the Local Government Act advising of the opportunity to comment on the proposed variances. Staff will provide a verbal update to the Board if any submissions are received with regards to this application. Due to gathering restrictions with regard to COVID-19, Advisory Planning Commission (APC) meetings are not currently being held.

DESIRED OUTCOMES: That the Board endorse staff recommendation.

BOARD’S OPTIONS: 1. Endorse the Recommendation. 2. Deny the Recommendation. 3. Defer. 4. Any other action deemed appropriate by the Board.

LIST NAME OF REPORT(S) / DOCUMENT(S) AVAILABLE FROM STAFF: 1. Electoral Area C Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 725 2. CSRD Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 641

Page 6 of 7 Board Report DVP 641-42C December 10, 2020

Report Approval Details

Document Title: 2020-12-10_Board_DS_DVP641-42C_Hagglund.docx

Attachments: - DVP641-42C.pdf - Applicant_Submission_DVP641-42C.pdf - Geotechnical_Report_DVP641-42C.pdf - Maps_Plans_Photos_DVP641-42C.pdf Final Approval Date: Nov 30, 2020

This report and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:

Corey Paiement

Gerald Christie

Lynda Shykora

Charles Hamilton

Page 7 of 7 DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 641-42C

OWNERS: 073182 BC Ltd 5-1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road, Tappen BC V0E 2X3

1. This Development Variance Permit is issued subject to compliance with all the Bylaws of the Regional District applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit.

2. This Permit applies only to the lands described below:

Lot 1 Section 33 Township 21 Range 10 W6M KDYD Plan KAP55494 Excluding Plans KAP65068, KAP69965 and KAP75073 (PID: 023-187-468); and Lot 1 Section 33 Township 21 Range 10 W6M KDYD Plan 34273 (PID: 022-999-838) which property is more particularly shown outlined in bold on the Location Map attached hereto as Schedule A.

3. The CSRD Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 641, is hereby varied as follows: a. Section 7.2 Access Driveways. The maximum grade of access driveways where multiple dwelling units are proposed is varied from 12.5% to 15% for Lots 2 and 3 of a proposed four lot subdivision under application number 2019- 03788. as more particularly shown on the Proposed Subdivision plan attached hereto as Schedule B, and the Shared Access Plan attached hereto as Schedule C.

3. This Permit is NOT a building permit.

Page 1 of 4 DVP641C

AUTHORIZED FOR ISSUANCE BY RESOLUTION of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District Board on the ______day of______, 2020.

ISSUED on the _____ day of _____ 20__.

CORPORATE OFFICER

NOTE: Subject to Section 504 of the Local Government Act, if the development of the subject property is not substantially commenced within two years after the issuance of this permit, the permit automatically lapses.

Schedule A Location Map

Page 2 of 4 COLUMBIA SHUSWAP REGIONAL DISTRICT Schedule B - Proposed Subdivision DVP641-42C

1 2 3 4

1885 Tappen- Subject Properties Notch Hill Rd

Page 3 of 4 Schedule C - Shared Access Plan DVP641-42C

Requested Variance: 15% maximum slope for a shared access driveway

Page 4 of 4

PO Box 2590, 416A 4th Street NE Salmon Arm, BC, V1E 4R5 Phone 250.832.8380 Nov 18th, 2020

Columbia Shuswap Regional District 555 Harbourfront Drive NE PO Box 978 Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4P1

RE: Development Application Form – Shuswap Country Estates – Preliminary Project Impact Assessment MOT file # 2019‐03788

Franklin Engineering have been acting as agent for Mr. Richard Hagglund with regards to the subdivision of the following property.

 Lot 1 KAP55494, Sec. 33, Tp. 21, R 10, W6M, KDYD, PID 023‐187‐468

The following is meant to be read along side our clients Development Variance Application Form for the above noted lands and to provide further clarification to the noted items within the Preliminary Project Impact Assessment.

Preliminary Project Impact Assessment Checklist:

Note 5) “Does the project involve work on slopes of 30% or greater”

The development of lots 1,2, & 3 for which the bylaw variance request is being submitted will require lot grading and access road construction on slopes in excess of 30%. As per bylaw 641 section 7.1, the attached drawings by Franklin Engineering show a minimum of one adequate building site of at least 1,000m2 with an average pre development slope not exceeding 20% per lot. Access to lot 2 is proposed to be by way of a shared access off Tappen Notch Hill Road for which the variance is requested to increase shared access driveway maximum grades from 12.5% to 15%.

Note 7) “Will the proposal require an amendment of a CSRD bylaw or plan? If yes, please attach the description on a separate page”

An increase to the maximum allowable grade for a shared access has been proposed for lot 2. Currently CSRD bylaw 641 section 7.2 restricts grades of shared access driveways to a maximum of 12.5%. The proposed shared access will be built on the footprint of an existing shared access currently in use by neighboring property owners that exceeds this maximum slope by approximately 1.5% to 2.5%. Maintaining a maximum grade of 12.5% results in a maximum cut of approximately 4.5 meters at the lot 2 building site tie in. Allowing for a maximum shared access slope of 15%, matching current CSRD bylaw maximum slope for private access driveways, reduces the maximum cut on lot 2 to approximately 2 meters. For further clarification please see attached

PO Box 2590, 416A 4th Street NE Salmon Arm, BC, V1E 4R5 Phone 250.832.8380

drawings showing the proposed shared access at 12.5% and 15% as well as proposed building site locations and their calculated average slopes.

Note 9) “Are there any restrictive covenants on the proposed site”

Restrictive covenants KH79240 and KJ086143 both restrict use of land for commercial purposes with the exception of home businesses as well as restricting the use of single wide manufactured homes or recreational vehicles.

Note 13) “Does the proposal have any potential to alter an archeological site?”

Because the development is located on currently undeveloped land there is a risk typical to development of any undeveloped lands, however, as per MOT PLR file 2019‐03788 note 12, provincial records indicate the area has limited potential to contain archeological sites protected by the heritage conservation act. Appropriate measures shall be taken during construction in the event that a potential archeological site is unearthed.

Note 14) “Will any excavation, removal or addition of soil (including gravel) be required within the development permit area?”

Grading will be required for lot and shared access development as well as import of material for road sub base and base courses.

We trust that the above clarifications address all requirements within the Preliminary Project Impact Assessment Check List. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact David Sonmor by phone at 250‐832‐8380, or by email at [email protected].

Written By: Reviewed By:

David Sonmor, P.Eng. Jayme Franklin, P.Eng. Franklin Engineering Ltd. Franklin Engineering Ltd.

WSP PROJECT NO. 201-03707-00 SHUSWAP COUNTRY ESTATES PROPOSED 4-LOT SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT, 1885 TAPPEN-NOTCH HILL ROAD, TAPPEN, BC GEOTECHNICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT

JULY 3, 2020

WSP 1631 DICKSON AVENUE, SUITE 700 KELOWNA, BC, V1Y 0B5 T: +1 250-980-5500 wsp.com

July 3, 2020 Shuswap Country Estates 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road PO Box 13 Tappen, BC Attn: Richard Hagglund email: [email protected]

WSP Ref. 201-03707-00 Attention: Mr. Richard Hagglund Dear Sir: Subject: Geotechnical Hazard Site Assessment, Shuswap Country Estates Proposed Subdivision Development, 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC As requested, WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) has prepared this geotechnical hazard assessment report for the proposed 4-lot conventional subdivision development located at 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road in Tappen, BC. Our scope of services for this project does not include assessment of the soil or groundwater with respect to environmental considerations, or assessment / recommendations for any off-site works required as part of the proposed development. This report has been prepared in general accordance with our original proposal P20-00012-EN dated March 11, 2020, and with our updated scope provided to Mr. Richard Hagglund of Shuswap Country Estates (the Client) via email on May 12, 2020. The original proposal outlined the proposed geotechnical hazard assessment for the 5-Lot Modular Homes currently under construction, however after discussions with the Client following the proposal acceptance, the scope of work has been adjusted to assess the four (4) lots located south of the existing Modular Home Park development - separate from the 5 Lot development. Authorization to proceed with the originally proposed scope of work discussed in the proposal and the updated scope of work discussed in the email was received from the Client on March 12, 2020 and May 12, 2020 respectively. This assessment is in general conformance to the Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia’s (EGBC) Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments of Proposed Residential Development in British Columbia (revised May 2010), and Legislated Flood Assessments in a Changing Climate in BC: Version 2.1 (August 28, 2018). Authorization to proceed with the scope of work discussed in the original proposal was received from Mr. Richard Hagglund of Shuswap Country Estates (the Client) on March 12, 2020. The amended scope of work was approved by the Client on May 12, 2020.

Yours sincerely,

Per: Nick Wodzianek, P.Eng. Per: Paul Ell, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

wsp.com

REVISION H ISTORY

FIRST ISSUE

July 3, 2020

Prepared by Reviewed/Approved by

Nick Wodzianek, P.Eng. Paul Ell, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

or decisions. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. WSP has provided services to the intended recipient in accordance with the professional services agreement between the parties and in a manner consistent with that degree of care, skill and diligence normally provided by members of the same profession performing the same or comparable services in respect of projects of a similar nature in similar circumstances. It is understood and agreed by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP provides no warranty, express or implied, of any kind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is agreed and understood by WSP and the recipient of this report that WSP makes no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the sufficiency of its scope of work for the purpose sought by the recipient of this report. In preparing this report, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the report. WSP has reasonably assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project and areas as described in the text and then only if constructed in accordance with the details stated in this report. The comments made in this report on potential construction issues and possible methods are intended only for the guidance of the designer. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time. The original of this digital file will be kept by WSP for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP, its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP does not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this report.

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

TABLE OF 1.1 Client-Provided Information ...... 1 CONTENTS 1.2 Site Description ...... 2 1.3 Past WSP Reports...... 2

2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4

2.1 Desktop Assessment ...... 4 2.2 Site Reconnaissance ...... 5

3 GEOHAZARD OBSERVATIONS ...... 6

3.1 Desktop Study ...... 6 3.1.1 Aerial Photograph Review ...... 6 3.1.2 Surficial and Bedrock Geology Review ...... 7 3.2 Site Reconnaissance Findings ...... 7 3.2.1 Overall Site ...... 7 3.2.2 Lot 1 ...... 8 3.2.3 Lot 2 ...... 9 3.2.4 Lot 3 ...... 10 3.2.5 Lot 4 Expansion ...... 10

4 SOIL, BEDROCK, AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ...... 13

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 14

5.1 General Geotechnical Considerations ...... 14 5.2 Geotechnical Hazards...... 14 5.2.1 Inundation by Flood Waters ...... 15 5.2.2 Mountain Stream Erosion, Debris Flows, Debris Floods, And Avulsion .... 15 5.2.3 Small-Scale Landslides ...... 16 5.2.4 Large-Scale Catastrophic Landslides ...... 16 5.2.5 Snow Avalanche ...... 17 5.2.6 Rock Fall ...... 17 5.2.7 Sinkhole Hazards ...... 18

6 CONCLUSION ...... 19

7 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ...... 20

8 CLOSURE ...... 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Historical Aerial Photograph Review, 1951-2007 ...... 6

APPENDICES APPENDIX A – TERMS OF REFERENCE APPENDIX B – FIGURES APPENDIX C – PHOTO LOG APPENDIX D – ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (EGBC) LANDSLIDE AND FLOODING ASSESSMENT ASSURANCE STATEMENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) has prepared this geotechnical hazard assessment report for the proposed 4-lot conventional residential subdivision development located at 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road in Tappen, BC. The purpose of the assessment was to obtain information pertaining to the potential geotechnical hazards (geohazards) present that may impact the proposed subdivision lots and other proposed structures, and based on our interpretation of that information, to provide geotechnical recommendations for initial designs of the proposed residential development. This geotechnical hazard assessment report includes the methodology of defining and assessing the potential geotechnical hazards and their impact on the proposed subdivision site. This report has been prepared in general accordance with our proposal P20-00012-EN dated March 11, 2020. The proposal outlined the proposed geotechnical hazard assessment for the 5-Lot Modular Homes currently under construction, however after discussions with the client during the site reconnaissance (see Sections 2.2 and 3.2 below), the scope of work has been adjusted to comprise of conducting a geohazard assessment for the proposed 4-Lot subdivision development described above, which is separate from the 5-Lot site currently under construction. The methodology and outline of the project scope is discussed in the report below. Our scope of services does not include the provision of geotechnical hazards and recommended mitigative measures for the existing Shuswap Country Estates Modular Home Park Development. These can be found in the past WSP reports (see Section 1.3 below for details). Our scope also does not include assessments of the environmental characteristics of soil or groundwater.

1.1 CLIENT-PROVIDED INFORMATION

The client provided WSP with a letter from the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) entitled “Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review” dated February 20, 2020. It is our understanding from the letter that several changes and additions need to be met by the client in order for development to occur, including an adequate geohazard assessment conducted by a Qualified Professional registered with Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia (EGBC). As requested in this legislative framework, the geohazard assessment was conducted to identify natural geotechnical hazards at the site including landslides, mountain stream erosion, avulsion, flooding, rock fall, debris flow, debris flood, avalanche, and other damaging and catastrophic events that could potentially impact the proposed 4-lot project site. As per stated in the letter, the potential for damaging landslide hazards will be assessed based on a minimum probability of occurrence of 1 in 475 years (10% probability in 50 years). The geohazard assessment also included flooding events with a minimum probability of occurrence of 1 in 200 years, an avalanche hazard with minimum of 1 in 300 years, and a catastrophic events assessment to the proposed building lots with a 1 in 10,000 years probability of occurrence. WSP has also been provided with two preliminary site plans: one titled “Proposed Building Plan” and the other “CSRD Review Lots 1,2,3 Shared Access”, from a set of design drawings produced by Franklin Engineering Ltd. dated March 17, 2020. The building plan shows the existing Shuswap Country Estates Residential Modular Home Park, with the proposed Lot 4 Expansion comprised of 55 individual building lots immediately south (upslope) of the park. It also shows Lots 1 to 3 along the southern part of the northeast-facing slope with proposed access roads, wells, and building platforms. The building platforms show a minimum area of 1,000 m² and contain a proposed septic system adjacent to each of them. It is our understanding these areas are proposed to be cleared, regraded and developed for the proposed construction of buildings (the purpose of the buildings is unknown to WSP at this time). The CSRD Review

lots plan shows the proposed access road leading from Tappen Notch-Hill Road up towards the proposed Lots 3 and 2 with a section showing the elevation profile of the road in comparison to the existing ground surface. In addition to the provided site plans, WSP has been provided with LiDAR images of the site and surrounding area produced by Airborne Imaging dated July-September 2016. This imagery was used to help define the topological features observed at the site, as well as provide WSP with a greater understanding of the existing overall site conditions.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject site is the proposed 4-Lot conventional subdivision development located south of the existing Shuswap Country Estates Residential Modular Home Park Development, located on the northeast corner of the east end of Mount Hilliam in Tappen (referred to as Mount Hilliam East Hill in this report), west of Carlin, BC. The current site of the proposed lots consists of approximately 38.41 hectares located west of Tappen Notch Hill Road on a northeast and east-facing slope. To the north is the existing Shuswap Country Estates Modular Home Park Development. According to the client-provided site plan drawings, the proposed development site is divided into four Lots: Lot 1, 2, 3, and 4 Expansion. Lot 1 is the southeastern-most lot, elongated in shape with an area of 4.00 ha, and contains a proposed well, septic system, and building platform. Lot 2 is located immediately adjacent to the west (upslope) of Lot 1, has an area of 8.00 ha and also contains a proposed well, septic system, and building platform. Lot 3 is to the northwest of Lot 2 and is mainly situated on the hillside. It has an area of 12.31 ha and contains a proposed well and septic system. It is mainly rectangular in shape, however a small connection along the proposed access road leads downslope towards Tappen Notch Hill Road. Finally, Lot 4 Expansion is the largest and northernmost lot with an area of 14.10 ha. It contains the proposed subdivision expansion consisting of 55 individual lots grouped into three lanes and three cul-de-sacs, situated south of the existing Shuswap Country Estates Modular Home Park. Lot 4 contains the existing development, the expansion, and approximately 16 hectares of land on the north side of Tappen Notch Hill Road. At the toe of the mountain is Tappen-Notch Hill Road which runs along the east and north sides of Lots 1-4, as shown in the attached Figure 1 found in Appendix A. Several existing lots with residential buildings exist adjacent to the 4- lot site at the toe of the slope along Tappen-Notch Hill Road. The proposed shared driveway entrance to Lots 1-3 is at the current entrance to 1725 Tappen-Notch Hill Road. According to the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review letter by MOTI, the legal description of the overall property is as follows:

— Lot 1, Sec 33, TWP 21, R 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP55494 Except Plans KAP65068, KAP69965 AND KAP75073, PID: 023-187-468 — Lot 1, Sec 33, TWP 21, R 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan 34273, PID: 002-999-838

1.3 PAST WSP REPORTS

WSP has written two individual geotechnical hazard assessment reports for the existing Shuswap Country Estates Residential Modular Home Park Development: — “Shuswap Country Estates 5-Lot Subdivision, 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC” dated July 5, 2019; and — “Shuswap Country Estates Residential Modular Home Park Development, 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC” dated July 19, 2019.

These reports discuss the geohazards observed throughout the development and the surrounding areas, as well as provide recommendations for hazard mitigation, and recommendations for construction of future buildings within the existing development. This report is separate from the previous two reports stated above as the area assessed is outside of the existing development areas reviewed in the two earlier reports. There is, however, some content from the previous reports that have been referenced that are applicable to this report.

2 METHODOLOGY

The geotechnical assessment of the development consisted of an initial desktop study of available information pertaining to the property and surrounding area, followed by a site reconnaissance to identify natural geotechnical hazards that could affect the proposed development (e.g., rockfall, slope failure, debris flow, debris flood, avalanche, etc.), and to suggest appropriate concepts to mitigate the natural hazards. The likelihood of occurrence for each hazard is compared to that stated in the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review Letter by MOTI dated February 20, 2020, and as discussed in Section 5.2 below. The potential for damaging landslide hazards was assessed based on a minimum probability of occurrence of 1 in 475 years (10% probability in 50 years). The geohazard assessment also includes flooding events with a minimum probability of occurrence of 1 in 200 years, an avalanche hazard with minimum of 1 in 300 years, and a catastrophic events assessment to the proposed building lots with a 1 in 10,000 years probability of occurrence. The landslide geohazards were assessed in general accordance with the current version of the APEGBC (now EGBC) “Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for Residential Developments in BC”, revised May 2010. The flooding geohazards were assessed in general accordance with the current version of the EGBC “Legislated Flood Assessments in a Changing Climate in BC: Version 2.1”, revised August 2018. The Guidelines require engineers and geoscientists to estimate the probability of hazard occurrence and to relate that probability to a level of safety as mentioned in the MOTI letter. Assurance statements are appended to the landslide and flooding guidelines that provide statements regarding the geohazards and the suitability of the site for certain purposes. A copy of the assurance statements, titled “Appendix D: Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement” and “Appendix I: Flood Assurance Statement” has been completed and are found in Appendix C. In this context, geohazards affecting this site were evaluated on the following basis:

— Life-threatening or catastrophic events are interpreted to be of considerable size or scale and would normally be expected to result in loss of life. Small events or those that would likely require a combination of concurrent independent event(s) are not included in this interpretation. — Life-threatening or catastrophic slope instability (e.g., large landslides, debris slides, debris flows etc.) were evaluated based on evidence of past occurrence, or reasonable expectation that such events could occur under current site conditions. These events are interpreted in the context of current site conditions, to the extent that is possible given inevitable changes in climate and terrain that have occurred since glacial ice receded from the valley. — Property-damaging slope stability (e.g., poor slope performance that could result in excessive settlement, landslide runout impact, etc.) was evaluated using prescriptive inclinations that have been empirically observed to perform adequately (e.g., inclinations of 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V) for dry, granular slopes, or inclinations of 1H:1V for natural or cut rock faces). — Rolling rock and falling rock hazards (rock fragments greater than about 0.3 m in diameter) are considered potentially life-threatening. As such, rocks of this size present on the slopes is considered an indication of the hazard.

2.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT

WSP conducted an initial desktop study consisting of a historical aerial photo interpretation, a surficial geology, bedrock, and topographic map review of the site location and surrounding areas, a LiDAR imagery interpretation, and a review of the client-provided information pertaining to the proposed lot development and road configuration. The aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area were obtained from the University of British Columbia Geographic Information Centre and date back to 1951. Google Earth images were also reviewed for more recent information. The photograph analysis is taken partly from the original aerial photograph review conducted for the WSP July 2019 geotechnical hazard reports. The observations and results from the desktop study are described in Section 3.1 below.

The review of the surficial and bedrock geology conditions of the site was conducted using maps produced by the Geological Survey of Canada.

2.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

A site reconnaissance was carried out on May 8, 2020 by geotechnical engineering personnel from WSP experienced in terrain assessment. The site reconnaissance included a foot traverse of the lots and proposed development and adjacent slopes, including a review of the surficial conditions directly upslope of the proposed building development and roads. These areas were reviewed for evidence of previous and potential slope instabilities, soil and bedrock exposures, and any other indication of potential geohazards that may impact the project site such as evidence of rockfall, debris flow / debris flood, erosion, avalanche, and sinkholes. The slope angles and distances of the terrain and other features were measured using a hand-held slope clinometer and electronic range finder respectively. The summary of observations from the site reconnaissance are described in Section 3.2 below. Key features observed and the extents of the site reconnaissance relative to the property site are shown in the attached Figure 1 in Appendix A. Relevant site photographs were collected during the reconnaissance and are presented in the Photo Log in Appendix B.

3 GEOHAZARD OBSERVATIONS

3.1 DESKTOP STUDY

3.1.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW A summary of the changes to the overall site noted from the historical aerial photographs is summarized in Table 1 below:

Table 1 - Historical Aerial Photograph Review, 1951-2007 DATES NOTES 1951 • The present-day Shuswap Country Estates MHP is not constructed • Lots 1-4 and 4 Expansion appear to contain a greater degree of forest vegetation (fewer openings) • Tappen Notch Hill Road exists along the foot of Mt. Hilliam East Hill (same as present-day alignment) • White Lake Road exists running north-south to the east of the site (same as present-day alignment) • Trans Canada Highway (TCH) not present – a road of similar alignment exists • Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) exists: one track running south of Broderick Creek and north of Tappen Notch Hill Road. The present-day track running north of Broderick Creek is not present. • Carlin Road exists extending from the road (similar to present-day TCH) towards the west intersecting Tappen Notch Hill Road at the east edge of the site boundary • An agricultural facility is situated at the northern toe of Mt. Hilliam East Hill • Several agricultural fields exist at the north base of Mt. Hilliam East Hill • Surface of Mt. Hilliam East Hill mostly vegetated with trees, with some bedrock exposure • No construction or developments exist on the proposed Lots 1-4 1959 • Tappen Notch Hill Road is under an altered alignment near the entrance to 1671 Tappen Notch Hill Road • A transmission line right-of-way extends along the west side of Mt. Hilliam East Hill, west of the property boundaries • TCH constructed along present-day alignment • Potential circular slope movement west of the existing MHP at the toe of Mt. Hilliam East Hill, west of the existing MHP • South side of creek ravine bank vegetated with trees and bushes. North side partially vegetated. • No additional buildings or construction works • No change in vegetation on Lots 1-4 1967-1974 • Additional agricultural fields constructed immediately north of the Broderick Creek (Photos: 1967, • Expansion of agricultural fields to the east of Tappen Notch Hill Road 1974) • No additional buildings or construction works • Slight decrease in forest vegetation density on Lots 1-4 • Tappen Notch Hill Road alignment matches present-day 1980-1989 • Second CPR track constructed with the present-day alignment crossing Broderick Creek (Photos: 1980, • Gravel access road leading to Lot 4 Expansion from Tappen Notch Hill Road constructed on east and 1989) south faces of Mt. Hilliam East Hill, running through proposed Lots 3 and 4 • Agricultural facilities along Tappen Notch Hill Road (north of Carlin Road) added vehicle paths within the property boundaries • Decrease in vegetation on the east face of Mt. Hilliam East Hill 1993 • Additional walking trails along Mt. Hilliam East Hill have been built • Slight decrease in vegetation on the face of Mt. Hilliam East Hill • No change in agricultural field extents • Potentially first constructed access paths throughout the site have been constructed

1997-2001 • Present-day Shuswap Country Estates under construction (Photos: 1997, • Construction of a present-day sewage treatment plant within the agricultural facility to the north of the 2001) intersection of Carlin Road and Tappen Notch Hill Road • Properties at 1725 and 1747 Tappen Notch Hill Road have been constructed 2004-2005 • Construction access path network throughout the entire site (Lots 1-4 Expansion). More visible than (Google Earth seen from today due to present-day overgrowth Pro) 2007 • Agricultural facilities and residence constructed east of Tappen Notch Hill Road • Existing Mobile Home Park constructed • Additional gravel access paths constructed throughout the site • Slight decrease in vegetation density • No evidence of any slope movement or significant change to overall layout of the site • Ongoing construction of present-day Shuswap Country Estates 2019-Present • Decrease in access path visibility in satellite photos due to increased overgrowth of the paths, likely due (Google Earth to lack of use Pro) • Slight decrease in vegetation density

No evidence of slope instabilities within the property could be observed based on the aerial photograph interpretation.

3.1.2 SURFICIAL AND BEDROCK GEOLOGY REVIEW A review of the surficial and bedrock geology conditions of the site was conducted using maps produced by the Geological Survey of Canada234. According to the maps, the site consists of the following soil and bedrock units:

— Glacial Environment – Morainal Deposits: undifferentiated till with minor sand, gravel, and silt; — Jurassic and/or Cretaceous Coast Intrusions comprised of granite, granodiorite, and allied rocks; and — Shuswap Terrane – Mara Formation: Metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks including argillite, slate, sericite and chlorite schist, limestone.

3.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE FINDINGS

3.2.1 OVERALL SITE The overall development site is located on the northeast side of the east end of Mount Hilliam in Tappen. The site is divided into four lots as earlier described in Section 1.2. The mountainside typically slopes downhill towards the east and northeast. The southern portion of the sloped property (i.e. near Lots 1 and 2) typically slopes at an overall angle of approximately 23° from the horizontal and contains several slope benches and plateaus with a hummocky surface. The middle portion of the property (i.e. Lots 3 and southern corner of Lot 4 Expansion) typically slopes at an overall angle of approximately 21°, and the northern portion (i.e. Lot 4 Expansion) typically slopes at an overall angle of approximately 16°. The lots contain several bedrock outcrops throughout, including rock wall exposures measuring greater than approximately 20 m high. The hillside is relatively hummocky with hills, valleys, ravines, and steep

2 Geological Survey of Canada; Department of Mines and Technical Surveys; Geology Map: Map 1059A, “Vernon, Kamloops, Osoyoos, and Kootenay Districts, British Columbia”, 1960. 3 Geological Survey of Canada; Department of Mines and Technical Surveys; Map 1059A Supplemental, “Figure 2. Tectonic map of Vernon- area, British Columbia, showing also distribution of Shuswap rocks and thin contact relations with younger rocks”, 1959. 4 Geological Survey of Canada; Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; Surficial Geology: Map 1391A, “Shuswap Lake – West of Sixth Meridian”, 1974. 7

slopes observed throughout. Several access paths were found throughout the site. The access paths were constructed in the past and have been overgrown with vegetation and appeared to be generally inaccessible to wheeled vehicles. The general site conditions observed are broken down into the four Lots as shown in the provided proposed building plan by Franklin Engineering (i.e. Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, and Lot 4 Expansion) and are described below. The layout of the Lots relative to the entire site are shown in the attached Figure 1 in Appendix A. Relevant photographs of the site at each of the lots are presented in the Photo Log in Appendix B and are grouped as follows:

— Lot 1: Photos 1 to 9; — Lot 2: Photos 10 to 19; — Lot 3: Photos 20 to 23; and — Lot 4: Photos 24 to 41

3.2.2 LOT 1 WSP traversed the slopes along the northern half of Lot 1. During the site reconnaissance, Lot 1 was accessed via a former access road located approximately 30 m north of the driveway entrance to 1671 Tappen Notch Hill Road (see Photo 1 in the attached Photo Log). The access road had been overgrown with grass and was unattainable by vehicle. Leading up the access road, several bedrock exposures were visible, either naturally occurring as outcrops or from a rock cut slope during construction of the access road (Photo 2). The bedrock observed throughout Lot 1 consisted mainly of the Mara Formation type rock as discussed in Section 3.1.2 above. The access road has an incline of approximately 15° from the horizontal, and the overall slope measured along Lot 1 from the access road is approximately 32° (measured using a hand-held clinometer). At the top of the access road is a partial clearing where the ground levels out to a small plateau (Photo 3). This plateau is the location for the proposed building platform and septic system illustrated in the Franklin Engineering proposed building plan and outlined in the attached Figure 1. The plateau measures approximately 30 m long by 20 m wide, is relatively flat with a thin deposit of granular soil overlying bedrock. Based on aerial photographs, LiDAR imagery from 2016, and the presence of the slope cuts along the access path, the plateau in Lot 1 is likely to have been cleared in the past. Along the east edge of the plateau is a crest to a slope declining towards the east at approximately 41°, and to the west is a slope cut with exposed soil cut up to approximately 4 m high and sloped at 35° (Photo 4). At the northwest corner of Lot 1, near the border of the adjacent Lot 2, is a linear bedrock outcrop exposure along the ground leading down from the proposed building platform in Lot 2 (Photo 5). The top of the exposure is relatively flat, with patches of shallow colluvial and till-like deposits, and vegetated with grass and shrubs, while remainder slopes downwards towards the northeast at approximately 13° and contains a greater area of bedrock outcrops. According to the Franklin Engineering drawings a portion of the proposed driveway access to Lot 1 crosses this linear exposure (Photo 6). Along the east edge of the linear bedrock exposure is a combination of steep slopes containing angular rockfall debris and occasional bedrock outcrops sloped at approximately 41° (Photo 7) and near vertical rock walls leading from the edge of the exposure to the slopes below to the east (Photo 8). The rock walls along the crest of the upper linear bedrock exposure measured up to approximately 5 m high and are located more towards the south, whereas the slopes are towards the north of the eastern edge of the exposure. Continuing down the linear exposure towards the northeast, the slopes leading down from the east edge towards the east declines between approximately 36° to 45° (Photo 9). The southern half of Lot 1 was not visually reviewed during the site reconnaissance due to the degree of vegetation, difficulty of terrain, and absence of any proposed structure according to the Franklin Engineering drawings. According to available topographical maps, aerial photographs, and LiDAR imagery, the southern half of Lot 1 slopes towards the east in the direction of Tappen-Notch Hill Road at approximately 23° and appears to contain a significant coverage of exposed bedrock outcrops, similar to the remaining of Lot 1.

3.2.3 LOT 2 WSP traversed the slopes along northern half of Lot 2. During the site reconnaissance, Lot 2 was accessed via the same former access road used to assess Lot 1 (north of 1671 Tappen Notch Hill Road). At the border between Lots 1 and 2, between each of the two respective proposed building platforms, the slope inclines towards the west (towards Lot 2) at an angle of approximately 36°. The slope is partially vegetated with trees and grasses, and some angular rockfall debris and bedrock outcrops observed along the slope face (Photo 10). An old access path was found leading up from Lot 1 (Photo 11). This path lead towards a plateau opening gently declining towards the northeast at approximately 11° with a grassy surface, sparse tree vegetation, a thin granular colluvial/till- like deposit overlying bedrock and measuring approximately 60 m wide by 80 m long (Photo 12). This opening is the location for the proposed building platform and septic system illustrated in the Franklin Engineering proposed building plan and outlined in the attached Figure 1. The plateau is also the top of the linear bedrock exposure leading towards the northeast as described above in Lot 1 (Section 3.2.2). Leading up from the southwest corner of the plateau opening is a north-south trending cut/fill embankment slope access path that has been grown over with grass and tree vegetation (Photo 13). The path embankment fill slope measured approximately 3 m high and sloped at 40°, and the cut slope measured up to approximately 1.5 m high and sloped at approximately 42°. The exposed soils in the slope cut were visually observed to consist of colluvial deposits comprised of silty, sandy, angular gravel and cobbles. Along the bottom of the access path was an erosion feature likely to have been caused by surface water erosion during heavy precipitation or snowmelt events. The natural ground slope to the west of the access path (upslope) is approximately 28°, is partially covered with angular rockfall debris measuring up to 2 m in diameter and contains tree stumps. Further upslope, approximately 40 m west of the western edge of the proposed building platform (i.e. plateau opening) is an exposed rock wall running in a north-south direction (Photo 14). The rock wall is slightly weathered, comprises of blocky igneous rock, and measures approximately 20 m tall. The terminations of the rock wall ends were not visually observed; however it appears to be approximately 250 m long based on LiDAR imagery and topographical maps. Leading from the northwest corner of the Lot 2 proposed building platform area is a past constructed access path trending northwest-southeast and inclining towards the northwest at approximately 15° (Photo 15). The path is a cut/fill embankment slope path, partially covered with grasses and shrubs, and with the fill slope measuring approximately 1 m high and sloped at 18° downhill towards the east. The fill and cut slopes increase in height and angle to approximately 2 m and 50° respectively as the path approaches the north into Lot 3 (Photo 16). The slope uphill of the access path measures between approximately 27° and 32°. According to the conceptual building plan drawings by Franklin Engineering, this access path is along the alignment for the proposed driveway access lane for Lot 2 building platform. At the northeast corner of Lot 2 where the borders of Lots 1 and 3 are the narrowest is the proposed junction of the Lots 1,2,3 shared driveway (see Figure 1). The location of the proposed junction consists of a grassy opening leading towards an access path to the north, declining at approximately 11° and bounded by trees on either side (Photo 17). Along the western side of the access path is an erosion ditch showing partially exposed granular soils, likely to have been caused by surficial water flowing during snowmelt and heavy rainfall events (Photo 18). The access path leads down towards the property at 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road in Lot 3 and is the proposed shared driveway access for Lots 1, 2, and 3. It also contains several access paths branching out towards the northwest (Photo 19). The southern half of Lot 2 was not visually reviewed during the site reconnaissance due to the degree of vegetation, difficulty of terrain, and absence of any proposed structure according to the Franklin Engineering drawings. According to available topographical maps and aerial photographs, the southern half of Lot 2 slopes towards the east

in the direction of Tappen-Notch Hill Road at approximately 22° and appears to contain a significant coverage of exposed bedrock outcrops, similar to that of Lot 1 and the reviewed portion of Lot 2.

3.2.4 LOT 3 According to the Franklin Engineering drawings, the switchback to the driveway access lane to the proposed Lot 2 building platform runs through the eastern (downslope) part of Lot 3 and contains a proposed well location along the side of the lane. Also, along the northeast corner of the Lot is a proposed building platform adjacent to the proposed shared driveway, immediately south of the existing property at 1747 Tappen Notch Hill Road (see Figure 1). WSP traversed these areas along the northeastern portion of Lot 3, upslope of 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road, as well as the northwest portion of Lot 3, near the boundary of Lot 4 Expansion. The portions reviewed near Lot 4 Expansion were accessed from an access road leading up towards the lot, along the crest of the slope above the existing Shuswap Country Estates Development (see Figure 1). The areas reviewed near Lot 2 were accessed via the access road leading from 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road. At the area of the proposed driveway access lane switchback is an old constructed cut/fill embankment access path (Photo 20). It is approximately 3.5 m wide, with a cut slope 0.5 m high and sloped at approximately 45°, and a fill slope 2 m high and sloped at approximately 42°. This access path is accessible from both the main access path leading from the proposed building platform in Lot 2 to 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road, and from the northwest-southeast trending access path reviewed and discussed in Lot 2 (Section 3.2.3) above. WSP reviewed the upslope portions of Lot 3, near the border of Lot 4 Expansion. Approximately halfway along the northeast-southwest trending border between Lots 3 and 4 is a linear bedrock exposure partially covered with vegetation and a thin colluvial deposit with bedrock outcrops throughout, similar to that seen in Lot 1 (Photo 21). The linear exposure is oriented towards Lot 4 to the north and declines at approximately 18° to 24°. Along the eastern edge of the linear exposure is a slope declining towards the east at 32° to 34°, partially vegetated with grasses, bushes and trees, as well as bedrock outcrops and granular soil exposures (Photo 22). WSP proceeded to traverse down the slope towards the east where another cut/fill embankment access path was constructed running parallel with the linear bedrock exposure upslope (Photo 23). The access path’s cut and fill embankments slopes measured approximately 2 m and 1.5 m high respectively, and both sloped at approximately 35°. Downslope of the access path the ground sloped at approximately 17° towards the east and was heavily vegetated with trees. The southern half of Lot 3 was not visually reviewed during the site reconnaissance due to the degree of vegetation, difficulty of terrain, and absence of any proposed structure according to the Franklin Engineering drawings. According to available topographical maps and aerial photographs, the southern half of Lot 3 slopes towards the east and northeast in the direction of Tappen-Notch Hill Road at approximately 20° and appears to contain a significant coverage of exposed bedrock outcrops and previously constructed access paths, similar to that of Lots 1 and 2 and the reviewed portion of Lot 3.

3.2.5 LOT 4 EXPANSION According to the Franklin Engineering drawings, the proposed subdivision development expansion is located immediately upslope of the existing Shuswap Country Estates Modular Home Park (see Figure 1), along the northern half of Lot 4 Expansion. The proposed development expansion consists of 55 individual building lots built around 3 cul-de-sac lanes with a lane connecting them together. The lanes are unlabelled, so for the purpose of the report, they will be referred to as the “West Lane”, the “Central Lane”, and the “East Lane”. These are shown on the attached Figure 1 in Appendix A. WSP traversed through the proposed development expansion area and upslope of the expansion near the border of Lot 3, as well as along the existing access path along the northern edge of the Lot 4 Expansion.

The access road to Lot 4 expansion initiates from the existing entrances to 1725 and 1747 Tappen Notch Hill Road initially heading south, then meanders upslope towards the north and west at the northeast corner of the lot expansion. The eastern portion of Lot 4 expansion declines towards the southeast, where a northeast-southwest trending slope crest runs at along the southeast corner of Lot 4 and into Lot 3, as seen by the Lot 4 entrance access path. The remainder of Lot 4 expansion slopes down towards the northeast, with a typical slope angle of approximately 23° along the upper slope, and approximately 15° along the lower slope, where the topography flattens to a plateau where the proposed subdivision development is to be constructed. RESERVOIR ACCESS PATH Along the northern edge of the lot is an access path running in an east-west orientation along the crest of the slope above the existing Shuswap Country Estates development (Photo 24), which according to historical aerial photographs has been in place since the construction of the modular home park development in 2007. This access path has embankment fill slopes approximately 1.4 m high and sloped at 37°, with a drainage ditch along the southern embankment toe (Photo 25). At the western end of the access path is an existing concrete water reservoir tank measuring approximately 11 m in diameter and a nearby facilities shed (Photo 26). CENTRAL LANE At the northern end of the Central Lane is an existing blue wooden bench, presumably used for recreational purposes (Photo 27 and Figure 1). The land containing the proposed Central Lane and buildings is mainly an open field inclined towards the south at approximately 10° and 14° and contains a thin layer of granular colluvial soil approximately less than 0.5 m thick with occasional bedrock outcrops and vegetated mainly with grasses and sparse bushes and trees (Photo 28). The Central Lane open field inclines towards the south at approximately 22°. Leading up from the centre of the Central Lane is an access path inclining towards the west at approximately 14° (Photo 29). Along the lower parts of the access path was evidence of surficial erosion as seen by linear depressions and small gullies. The erosional features have been grown over with grass and weeds. Towards the south end of the Central Lane (i.e. proposed Central Lane cul-de-sac) is an access path oriented and inclined towards the south at approximately 16°. At the top of the access path is an opening sloping at approximately 10° containing several bedrock outcrops along the ground, angular fractured rocks, a thin granular colluvial or till-like veneer, and partial grass, bush, shrub and tree vegetation (Photos 30 and 31). To the east of the cul-de-sac at the edge of the proposed Central Lane is a crest of a slope declining towards the east at approximately 40° to 45° and heavily vegetated with trees and ferns. EAST LANE According to the provided drawings, at the northeast end of the East Lane is the entrance to the proposed subdivision development. The existing site comprises of an open site containing an access road to the Lot 4 Expansion, bedrock outcrops and poor vegetation, sloped gently towards the east at approximately 10° (Photo 32). Further south is the proposed lane connecting the East Lane and the Central Lane. At this location, the slope declines towards the north typically at approximately 15°, and is vegetated with trees, bushes and grass, and contains angular rock fragment scattered throughout (Photo 33). These rocks were likely scattered from the construction of the access paths, and from natural frost wedging events from the outcrops during freezing seasons. Heading south from the entrance to the proposed subdivision development is the proposed alignment of the East Lane. The existing terrain of the route consists of a constructed cut/fill slope access path leading towards an opening (Photo 34). The cut slope has a maximum height of approximately 1.5 m and slope of approximately 45°, and the fill slope is approximately 2 m high and slopes at 40°. The opening is a plateau, gently sloping towards the north and east, containing many bedrock outcrops along the surface with a thin deposit of colluvial material and fill near the access path. The opening area is partially vegetated with grass, trees and bushes, and is the proposed location for the East Lane cul-de-sac (Photo 35). Along the eastern edge of the opening (i.e. cul-de-sac) is the crest of a slope measuring between 32° and 39° (Photo 36).

Immediately beyond the East Lane cul-de-sac (to the south) is the adjacent Lot 3. An access path declines toward the north from Lot 3 to the proposed East Lane cul-de-sac at approximately 10° (Photo 37). The slopes immediately upslope (west) and downslope (east) of the access path are sloped at 29° and 45° respectively and contain a larger area of bedrock outcrop exposures and angular rockfall debris along the slope face. WEST LANE According to the site plan by Franklin Engineering, the West Lane and its proposed rows of buildings are aligned in an east-west orientation (as opposed to the East and Central Lanes which are aligned in a more-or-less north-south orientation), and parallel the access road leading towards the existing concrete reservoir and utility building (Figure 1). The majority of the West Lane consists of an open slope declining towards the north between 18° and 22°. The slope face contains occasional bedrock outcrops and a thin deposit of granular colluvium, and is partially vegetated with bushes, grasses and trees (Photo 38). To the east where the proposed West Lane cul-de-sac and surrounding buildings are located is a patch of dense forestation (Photo 39). The slope inside this patch of forest declined towards the northwest at approximately 20° and continued towards the western boundary of Lot 4 Expansion area. The opening continues upslope of West Lane to the southwest at approximately 23°. UPSLOPE OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Through the remainder of Lot 4 Expansion, upslope to the south and southwest of the proposed residential subdivision development, the overall slope contains similar vegetation growth and bedrock outcroppings, as well as access roads extending throughout the site. Upslope to the southwest of the Central Lane, near the bottom of the existing access path leading towards the cul-de- sac is the access path leading down from the west upslope area, as discussed earlier in the Central Lane portion of this section (see Photo 29). According to topographical maps and satellite imagery, to the southeast, alongside this access path leading upslope is a dry ravine leading from near the southwest corner of the Lot 4 Expansion boundary downslope towards the northeast, terminating at the existing Shuswap Country Estates development. The maximum ravine depth is approximately 10 m at its headwall location approximately 100 m west of the terminus of the Central Lane (see Figure 1). The ravine was dry at the time of the site reconnaissance and was heavily vegetated with trees – it did not appear to contain any evidence of surface erosion or slope instability. Further upslope along the ravine, the access path leading up from the Central Lane continues upslope at 14°, with slopes inclining towards the southwest at approximately 20° and declining towards the northeast at approximately 24° (Photo 40). Upslope of the ravine, near the centre of the northeast-southwest running boundary of Lot 3, an embankment cut slope access path was observed along a southeast alignment. This cut slope was approximately 0.7 m high and sloped at approximately 50° (Photo 41). The cut face contained a mixture of soil and bedrock exposures, and the access path contained several bedrock outcrop exposures along the surface. The westernmost portion of Lot 4 Expansion was not visually reviewed during the site reconnaissance due to the degree of vegetation, difficulty of terrain, and absence of any proposed structure according to the Franklin Engineering drawings. According to available topographical maps and aerial photographs, this portion of Lot 4 slopes towards the east and northeast at approximately 17°-19°, with smaller slopes up to approximately 45°, and appears to contain a significant coverage of exposed bedrock outcrops and previously constructed access paths, similar to that of the reviewed Lot 4 Expansion and remaining Lots.

4 SOIL, BEDROCK, AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The general soil conditions observed on site through soil exposures consisted of either granular colluvium or till-like deposits comprised of compact to dense angular sand and gravel with varying fines and occasional pockets of cobbles and boulders broken off from nearby bedrock outcrops. Soil exposures typically containing a greater thickness, fines content, and relative density were interpreted to be that of the Morainal deposits (i.e. glacial till), whereas the relatively more granular, angular, and looser material was interpreted to be colluvial deposits sourced from upslope locations. The typical overburden thickness observed throughout the site from soil exposures and access path slope cuts was estimated to range between approximately 0.1 m to greater than 2 m (the tallest exposed slope cut observed). Areas such as in the ravine valley, shallower slopes, and plateaus contained thicker overburden, whereas areas immediately downslope of outcrops and steeper slopes contained overburden less than approximately 0.3 m thick. Underlying the overburden soil deposits, as observed through outcrop exposures, was bedrock comprising of light grey, strong, crystalline igneous rock such as granite and granodiorite, with occasional outcrops of metamorphosized sedimentary rocks. The bedrock faces along the outcrops and rock walls were intact, slightly weathered, lightly fractured and massive in texture. The overall slopes observed during the site reconnaissance was predominately bedrock-controlled, meaning that the topography mainly followed the bedrock features (i.e. outcrops, ravine, etc.) rather than the soil deposits from glacial activity or colluvium. The observed soil and bedrock conditions were consistent with the Geological Survey of Canada Geology Maps discussed above in Section 3.1.2. No evidence of surface groundwater seepage was observed during our site visit. Some areas contained relatively greener and lusher vegetation, indicating potential isolated pockets of water seepage or preferential paths. The site reconnaissance was conducted on a dry, warm day with little to no precipitation in the previous 72 hours. Seepage and groundwater levels are anticipated to increase during the spring freshet during snowmelt events, as well as following periods of sustained precipitation. We anticipate potential perched groundwater conditions may develop atop the till-like soil and bedrock during and following these events.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The provided site plan drawing from Franklin Engineering shows a conceptual layout of the proposed shared driveway lanes, building platforms, and 55-lot subdivision development in Lot 4 Expansion. No additional information was provided as to the design of the buildings, including sections, site plans, grading plans, or design of structural components such as footings, size, load, etc. In addition, WSP did not conduct and test holes to collect subsurface geotechnical data within the site area, nor have any other geotechnical investigations been conducted by others to our understanding. We therefore cannot provide detailed comments and recommendations on construction of the proposed residential development from a constructability and/or geotechnical soil characteristic standpoint. Such comments and recommendations can be provided in a geotechnical assessment report at request from the client. The proposed development is not anticipated to have a negative impact or reduce the overall stability of the site or surrounding areas. It is our opinion that there will not be significant new or increased risks of landslide, debris flows, debris flood, snow avalanche or other geotechnical hazards because of the proposed development, and that rockfall hazard from existing and proposed rock cuts can be mitigated by use of appropriate control measures such as rockfall catchment ditches and suitable offsets of buildings, roadways and sidewalks from the top of cuts. It is our opinion that the site is considered safe for the use intended (development of a single-family residential subdivision and access lanes and utilities). We define “safe” based on the probabilities of failures occurring mentioned in the provided Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review letter from the BC MOTI dated February 20, 2020. Based on the available information and our interpretations from our site reconnaissance findings, and as per required by the BC MOTI according to the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review letter, it is our opinion that the land may be used “safely” for the intention of the construction of a multi-lot conventional subdivision on Lot 4 Expansion, and a shared driveway and building platforms on Lots 1, 2, and 3 as shown in the Franklin Engineering conceptual drawings dated March 17, 2020, provided the buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report with appropriate rockfall mitigative measures. As an initial recommendation, based on the preliminary information provided to WSP at the time of this report, the buildings can be supported on strip, or pad footings bearing on the native compact to dense granular deposits, dense till-like or colluvial soil, bedrock, or on compacted engineered fill atop these deposits. Suitable setbacks should be developed from the crest of fill slopes and from the toe of cut slopes. Also, settlement sensitive features such as buildings, roads, slab-on-grade and utilities should be set back beyond a 2H:1V line drawn up from the toe of existing and proposed slopes developed in the granular soil deposits and engineered fill for stability purposes as well as at least 3 m back from the toe and crest of slopes. Further review by a geotechnical engineer is recommended on a lot-by-lot basis to provide more detailed recommendations as more information on the future development becomes available.

5.2 GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS

The following natural hazards that may or may not impact the existing and proposed development that were assessed included:

— Inundation by flood waters; — Mountain stream erosion, debris flows/floods, and avulsion;

— Small-scale landslides; — Large-scale catastrophic landslides; — Snow avalanches; — Rock fall; and — Sinkhole development. The geotechnical hazard assessment opinions provided herein are specific to the proposed building platforms in Lots 1 to 3, and the proposed subdivision site in Lot 4 Expansion as indicated on the attached Figure 1. They do not incorporate potential geotechnical hazards to nearby existing property, developments or infrastructure. Any changes to the intended location and configuration of proposed buildings should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to approval.

5.2.1 INUNDATION BY FLOOD WATERS The site is situated on the face of mountain slope above Tappen Notch Hill Road. According to the Columbia Shuswap Regional District, the BC Flood Hazard Map (2004) shows the project site is not located on a floodplain, and the site does not contain suspected high hazard locations for flooding. The proposed developments are located upslope of the nearest watercourses (i.e. Broderick Creek to the north). According to the Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (EGBC) flood hazard guidebook5, an indicator of potential flooding hazard is the presence of alluvial fans, which are conical accumulations of stream-borne sediments deposited where a steep channel flows onto a much lower gradient. During the site reconnaissance, no alluvial fans were observed throughout any of the four Lots. Based on our interpretation of the existing site conditions and the conceptual proposed subdivision design plans, it is our opinion that the inundation of flood waters is not considered to be of significant hazard, and the probability of occurrence for flooding hazards to cause property damage is less than 10% in a 20-year period (1 in 200-year event) as defined in the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review letter by the BC MOTI. The land may be used ‘safely’ for the use intended for the construction of a residential subdivision and infrastructure. The EGBC Flood Assurance Statement is included Appendix C.

5.2.2 MOUNTAIN STREAM EROSION, DEBRIS FLOWS, DEBRIS FLOODS, AND AVULSION During the site reconnaissance, a number of erosional features were observed on the ground surface along previously constructed access paths throughout the reviewed site. Examples include at the bottom of the access path leading up from the Central Lane (Photo 29), and on the access path leading down from the proposed building platform in Lot 2 towards the property at 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road (Photo 18). These erosional features appear to have been created by surficial water runoff along the lower elevation portions of the paths (i.e. ditches). Evidence of surficial erosion was not observed at the proposed building platforms or the proposed subdivision development in Lot 4 Expansion. As mentioned in Section 3.2.5, the ravine was observed to continue downslope through the Central Lane and East Lane and terminate at the existing Shuswap Country Estates Modular Home Park. From the site reconnaissance and aerial photograph review, no indications of historic debris flow paths or debris fans were evident. According to topographic maps, the ravine slopes down towards the northeast at a maximum of approximately 27° near the

5 Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia, Professional Practice Guidelines: Natural Hazards “Legislated Flood Assessments in a Changing Climate in BC”, Version 2.1 (August 28, 2018). 15

headwall, decreasing heading downslope. The headwalls surrounding the ravine were typically sloped at approximately 35°. The headwalls were difficult to visually assess during the site reconnaissance due to the relative slope and heavy vegetation, however they appeared dry and without evidence of rockfall debris was observed within the ravine headwall floor. Given that an existing ravine runs through the proposed development sites, it is our opinion that the Central Lane and East Lane portions of the proposed subdivision development in Lot 4 expansion are considered to be susceptible to debris flows and debris floods during periods of heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, however we did not see any evidence of debris flow/flooding damage during the site reconnaissance or in any of the historical aerial photographs. It is recommended that the design of the proposed development at the location of potential debris flow/flood hazards (i.e. Central and East Lane) consider implementing a drainage measure such as culvert systems to control the flow of surficial water runoff and allow for adequate drainage during flow events. This will reduce the potential of debris floods and flows to impact the proposed development by causing erosion and other damage to buildings and infrastructure. This consideration should be undertaken during the design stages of the development and implemented by certified professionals following future subsequent site visits. The site is not considered to be susceptible to mountain stream erosion or avulsion hazards.

5.2.3 SMALL-SCALE LANDSLIDES Small-scale (shallow-seated) slope failures impacting the proposed subdivision development or other proposed structures throughout Lots 1-4 were not observed during the site reconnaissance throughout the site. Much of the terrain is bedrock-controlled, meaning the topographical features are governed by the bedrock surface and its proximity to the ground surface. Based on our interpretation of the site conditions, it is our opinion that the probability of occurrence for small-scale to cause potential property damage is less than 10% in a 50-year period (1 in 475-year event) as defined in the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review letter by the BC MOTI. We consider the development site is ‘safe’ from small-scale landslides for the use intended for the construction of a residential subdivision and infrastructure. Although the site is not considered to be susceptible to landslides, the potential for future small-scale landslide cannot be ruled out, particularly during seismic events, however appropriate mitigative measures such as building set backs from crest and slope toes can be utilized to limit the potential for impact to proposed buildings and mitigate the risk. The EGBC Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement is included Appendix C.

5.2.4 LARGE-SCALE CATASTROPHIC LANDSLIDES For the purposes of the geotechnical hazard assessment, with respect to the construction of the proposed development and other structures in Lots 1-4, a large-scale catastrophic landslide is defined as a mass of earth and/or debris of significant area and volume moving at high speeds and far distances with the potential to cause a violent consequence to numerous lives or properties downslope of the event. It is not deemed as an event whereas a relatively small volume of rock, soil, or debris cause potential injury or death. No evidence was observed of any large-scale, catastrophic landslides on the site or on upslope of the Lots from the site reconnaissance or preliminary aerial photograph analysis. Slope inclinations of 27° for dry, granular slopes, and 45° for natural or cut rock slopes have been empirically observed to perform adequately and have a low probability of slope failure. The large-scale slope inclination of the hillside is less than 27° and is predominantly comprised of shallow, dry, granular soil overlying competent bedrock. The bedrock is located at relative shallow depths, with no indication of deep soil deposits along the hillside.

It is our opinion that the probability of occurrence for large-scale, catastrophic landslides is less than 0.5% in a 50- year period (1 in 10,000-year event). We consider the development site is ‘safe’ from large-scale catastrophic landslide events for the use intended for the construction of a residential subdivision and infrastructure.

5.2.5 SNOW AVALANCHE No evidence of a snow avalanche hazards was observed during the site reconnaissance; the hillslope contains a significant degree of tree and vegetation to reduce the likelihood of development avalanche paths. Consequently, it is our opinion that the probability of occurrence for snow avalanches to cause property damage is less than 10% in a 30-year period (1 in 300-year event) as defined in the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review letter by the BC MOTI.

5.2.6 ROCK FALL Bedrock was observed during our site reconnaissance along several outcrop exposures scattered throughout the site: at the proposed building platforms, upslope of proposed structures, and at the proposed development in Lot 4 Expansion. The bedrock comprised mainly of crystalline volcanic rock (i.e. granite and granodiorite), with occasional metamorphosed sedimentary rock. Bedrock was also observed along rock walls and slope crests throughout the site, including the 250+ m long rock wall running north-south in Lots 2 and 3 (see Figure 1 and Photo 14), and the rock wall at the crest of the steep slope running through Lot 1 and parts of Lots 2 and 3 (Photo 8). The rock walls appeared to be competent with light to moderate fracturing and weathering, however the bases of the rock walls along the slopes contained a significant amount of angular rock fall debris. This rock fall debris was likely caused by the repetitive freeze-thaw cycles inducing frost wedge action of the rock mass. Based on a simplified principle based on Heim Theory6 and modified by various contributors such as Evans and Hungr 7, rockfall behaviour with respect to the runout distance of rockfall debris provides empirical evidence of a minimum rockfall shadow angle of 27.5° from the source of the rock fall (“i.e., the angle between the distal limit of the shadow and the top of the talus slope”), and is commonly used to estimate the rockfall shadow limits. Although the slope of some outcrop faces observed were greater than 60° from the horizontal, the overall slope of the hillside is less than approximately 25° and is vegetated with grasses, bushes and trees, which provide a degree of impedance for potential rockfall debris to transport down the slope towards the property. No evidence of damage was observed on the tree trunks near the rock walls inflicted by rock fall collision. In terms of the location of the proposed structures, rock fall debris was only observed along the proposed shared driveway to Lot 1 at the base of the rock wall (Photo 8). The driveway runs from the bedrock opening in the northern part of Lot 1 down at an angle along the rock wall and slope towards the proposed building platform. Rock fall debris was not encountered throughout any other proposed structure locations, however the potential for rock fall hazard among other areas cannot be ruled out. The rock wall observed in Lot 2 (and partly in Lot 3) measured approximately 20 m tall and was located approximately no less than 40 m laterally from the nearest proposed structure (i.e. shared driveway lane leading towards the proposed Lot 2 building platform and septic system). This results in a slope of approximately 37° from the structure to the top of the rock wall. A significant degree of angular rock fall debris (i.e. talus) up to 1 m in diameter was located at the

6 M. Jaboyedoff and V. Labiouse, Technical Note: Preliminary estimation of rockfall runout zones, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11, 819–828, 2011, doi:10.5194/nhess-11-819-2011 Heim, A.: Bergsturz und Menschenleben, Fretz und Wasmuth, Zurich, 218 pp., 1932 (in German) 7 Evans, S. and Hungr, O.: The assessment of rockfall hazard at the base of talus slopes, Can. Geotech. J., 30, 620–636, doi:10.1139/t93-054, 1993. 17

base of the rock wall along the slope surface. Given this, it is recommended to impose a minimum setback distance from the base of the rock wall (top of talus slope) at a slope of no less than 2H:1V. It is our opinion that the proposed driveway lane to the Lot 1 building platform, the Lot 2 building platform, and potentially other proposed structures in Lots 1 and 2 are in an area of potential hazard to rock fall damage. Rockfall hazard can be mitigated with suitable set back distances, use of appropriately sized rockfall control ditches, use of scaling, rock bolts, or rockfall control mesh on future development lots. The requirement for and design of these measures can be determined once more detailed information is available for the proposed development on the remaining Lots. For rockfall catchments along proposed rock cuts as an initial guideline we provide the following:

— Construct a catchment ditch at least 0.75 m deep and 3 m wide at toe of rock cut for rock cuts up to 8 m in height; — Construct a catchment ditch at least 1 m deep and 4 m wide for rock cuts of 8 to 16 m or less in height; and — Construct a catchment ditch at least 1.25 m deep and 5 m wide for rock cuts greater than 16 m in height. Where the rockfall catchments will not conform to the recommendations above, walkways and other areas which will be accessed by the public should be located on the opposite side of the rock cut on the access lanes and driveways where feasible. In addition, exposed rock cuts will require long-term maintenance such as rock scaling conducted every few years along with removal of material from the catchment ditches. Where rockfall ditches are undersized more frequent maintenance and rock removal along roads will be required. Any proposed rock cut walls for the construction of the development or other structures should be developed at a slope no greater than approximately 63° (or 0.5H:1V). This is considered to be acceptable from a geotechnical perspective, however this is subject to change following review of further detailed design drawings when made available. Depending upon the height of potential rock cut walls of the development during construction (if intended), the potential for rockfall and rolling rock may be considered a hazard and the probability of occurrence may exceed the accepted levels of safety according to the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD). These hazards will need to be addressed and rockfall and rolling rock control measures, such as rock bolts and anchors, use of scaling and/or blasting, or rockfall control mesh may need to be implemented depending on the hazard. The requirement for and design of these measures can be determined once site grading and excavation works have commenced and when detailed drawings are available.

5.2.7 SINKHOLE HAZARDS Fine-grained soils that could be susceptible to sinkhole development were not evident on the site, and no indications of sinkholes on or near the site were observed during our site reconnaissance. In addition, we are not aware of historical information indicating the presence of sinkholes within exiting adjacent residential developments and city roads. Consequently, it is our opinion that the probability of occurrence for natural sinkhole hazards to occur within the site property is less than 10% in a 50-year period (1 in 475-year event).

6 CONCLUSION

The site contained within the Lot boundaries shown on the provided site plan produced by Franklin Engineering dated March 17, 2020 were reviewed and assessed for the potential geotechnical hazards that may impact the proposed platforms and road structures, and residential subdivision development. These hazards were listed and discussed in Section 5.2 above. Based on the observations and interpretations made during the desktop analysis and site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the probability of occurrence of the hazards observed is no greater than the accepted level of safety as indicated in the Proposed Subdivision Preliminary Layout Review written by the BC MOTI for the client (dated February 20, 2020), and that “the site may be safely used for the use intended (construction of a 4-Lot conventional subdivision), provided the buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report.

7 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

WSP have not received design drawings relating to cut and fill depth, site grading, retaining walls, or detailed construction drawings showing the exact property boundaries relative to adjacent buildings or structures. At this time it is our opinion the proposed development is not anticipated to result in the development of geohazards impacting the existing adjacent and downslope properties, but this should be confirmed when detailed grading drawings are available. Further comments pertaining to these items can be addressed in subsequent reports at the request of the client provided adequate drawings and documents are provided to WSP for review beforehand.

8 CLOSURE

This geotechnical engineering assessment report has been prepared by WSP Canada Inc. exclusively for Shuswap Country Estates and their appointed agents and is not intended for use by others. This report may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of WSP. The opinions and recommendations provided in this report reflect our judgement in light of the information provided to us at the time it was prepared. We acknowledge that the Columbia Shuswap Regional District and the BC MOTI may use and rely upon the information in this report for permitting purposes. Any use of this report by third parties, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Contractors undertaking the work must draw their own interpretations of the factual information provided in this report as they affect the construction costs, procedures, and scheduling. WSP does not accept responsibility for damages suffered, if any, by a third party as a result of their use of this report. If conditions encountered at the site vary significantly from that reported herein, WSP should be notified immediately so that our interpretation and recommendations can be reviewed. The attached Terms of Reference located in Appendix D form an integral part of this geotechnical report. We trust that the information presented in this report meets with your immediate requirements. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contract our office.

APPENDIX

FIGURES A

ENTRANCE TO 1671 NORTH Lots 1,2,3 SHARED TAPPEN NOTCH DRIVEWAY HILL ROAD

1 TAPPEN NOTCH HILL ROAD 2

9 1747 TAPPEN NOTCH HILL ROAD 8 6 3 7 11 4 19 5 10 20 18 17 LOT 1 PROPOSED BUILDING PLATFORM 1747 TAPPEN NOTCH HILL ROAD 15 12 16 13 LOT 1 14

LOT 3 PROPOSED BUILDING PLATFORM ROCK WALL EXISTING SHUSWAP 35 COUNTRY ESTATES EAST LANE MODULAR HOME PARK 34 36 33 31 LOT 2 LOT 2 PROPOSED BUILDING PLATFORM 32 29

28 30 23 24 22 27 21 LOT 3 CENTRAL LANE

25 39 37 LOT 4 (EXISTING) 40

EXISTING UTILITY BUILDING

EXISTING RESERVOIR BUILDING WEST LANE LOT 4 (EXPANSION)

*LOCATION OF LOT BOUNDARIES AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE APPROXIMATE

LEGEND ADAPTED FROM: TITLE: SEAL: DESIGN: DATE: BLUE BENCH Google Earth N/A July 2, 2020 PROPOSED STRUCTURE PROJECT/DWG. NO: Site Plan CHECK: SCALE: N/A NW 1:4000 DATE: PROJECT: DRAWN: FILE NO: LOT BOUNDARY June 17, 2020 Shuswap Country Estates 4-Lot Subdivision Geohazard Assessment MP 201-03707-00 EXTENTS OF RAVINE ADDRESS: DWG NO: This drawing is the sole property of WSP Canada Inc. 700 - 1631 Dickson Avenue and cannot be used or duplicated in any way without the Tappen, BC Kelowna, BC V1Y 0B5 PHOTO LOG NUMBER AND DIRECTION OF expressed written consent of WSP. The general CLIENT: p: 250-980-5500 f: 250-980-5511 # VIEW contractor shall verify all dimensions and report any Figure 1 discrepancies to WSP Canada Inc. Shuswap Country Estates www.wsp.com APPENDIX

PHOTO LOG B

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 1 ______

Photo 1:

View of access road leading up towards Lot 1 from Tappen Notch Hill Road.

Viewing Southwest.

Photo 2:

Rock cut slope along access road leading up from Tappen Notch Hill Road towards Lot 1.

Viewing East.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 2 ______

Photo 3:

Small plateau at top of access road in Lot 1 – the location for the proposed building platform and septic system.

Viewing North.

Photo 4:

Slope cut along proposed building platform in Lot 1.

Viewing West.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 3 ______

Photo 5:

Top of clearing at northwest corner of Lot 1.

Viewing Northeast.

Photo 6:

Sloping clearing along northwest corner of Lot 1, with partial crossing of proposed Lot 1 driveway access.

Viewing Northeast.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 4 ______

Photo 7:

East slope of linear bedrock exposure in Lot 1.

Viewing East.

Photo 8:

East edge of linear bedrock exposure in Lot 1 showing the rock walls leading down towards the slope.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 5 ______

Photo 9:

East slope of linear exposure near the bottom of the hill at the north end of Lot 1.

Viewing Southwest.

Photo 10:

View of slope between Lots 1 and 2 proposed building platforms.

Viewing East towards Lot 1.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 6 ______

Photo 11:

Access path leading from Lot 1 towards the opening in Lot 2.

Viewing Northwest.

Photo 12:

Panorama view of the opening in Lot 2 of the proposed building platform.

Viewing East.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 7 ______

Photo 13:

Access path leading up from the southwest corner of the proposed building platform in Lot 2.

Viewing south.

Photo 14:

Rock wall running north-south in Lot 2.

Viewing West.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 8 ______

Photo 15:

Access path leading from the proposed building platform in Lot 2 towards the northwest.

Viewing Northwest.

Photo 16:

Cut slope of access path constructed leading from the northwest corner of the proposed building platform in Lot 2.

Viewing North.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 9 ______

Photo 17:

Location of proposed junction of Lots 1,2,3 shared driveway according to the Franklin Engineering building site plan.

Viewing South.

Photo 18:

Erosion ditch alongside access path running north-south from proposed Lots 1,2,3 shared driveway access.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 10 ______

Photo 19:

Access path to 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road on the right, and the offshoot access path on the left in Lot 3.

Viewing Northwest.

Photo 20:

Access path along proposed driveway lane switchback, leading from main access path towards 1725 Tappen Notch Hill Road property.

Viewing Northwest.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 11 ______

Photo 21:

Linear bedrock outcrop exposure towards Lot 4 as seen from Lot 3.

Viewing North.

Photo 22:

Slope leading from linear bedrock exposure in Lots 3 and 4.

Viewing Northeast.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 12 ______

Photo 23:

Access path downslope of linear bedrock exposure in Lot 3.

Viewing North.

Photo 24:

Access path along north edge of Lot 4 along the crest of slope above existing development.

Viewing West.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 13 ______

Photo 25:

Drainage ditch and embankment slope along southern half of an access path along the northern edge of Lot 4 above existing development slope crest.

Viewing West.

Photo 26:

Existing concrete water reservoir tank.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 14 ______

Photo 27:

Blue wooden bench at the northern end of the Central Lane.

Viewing South.

Photo 28:

Proposed location of the Lot 4 Expansion “Central Lane” subdivision development.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 15 ______

Photo 29:

Access path leading up from the centre of the central lane in Lot 4 Expansion.

Viewing Southwest.

Photo 30:

Access path leading up central lane of Lot 4 expansion.

Viewing North.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 16 ______

Photo 31:

Proposed location of central lane cul-de- sac in opening in Lot 4.

Viewing Southwest.

Photo 32:

Entrance to Lot 4 Expansion and proposed subdivision development.

Viewing East.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 17 ______

Photo 33:

Proposed lane connecting East Lane and Central Lane.

Viewing West.

Photo 34:

Existing access path along proposed East Lane development site.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 18 ______

Photo 35:

Panorama of opening area in Lot 4 Expansion of the proposed East Lane cul-de-sac development.

Viewing Southwest.

Photo 36:

Panorama view of the slopes along side the proposed East Lane cul-de-sac.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 19 ______

Photo 37:

Access path leading from Lot 3 towards the East Lane cul-de- sac in Lot 4 Expansion to the North.

Viewing South.

Photo 38:

Panorama view of the proposed West Lane gong right-left along the photograph.

Viewing North.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 20 ______

Photo 39:

Forested area at the western portion of the West Lane and cul-de- sac.

Viewing North.

Photo 40:

Access path along ravine in Lot 4 Expansion.

Viewing South.

Geohazard Assessment – 4-Lot Subdivision Expansion Shuswap Country Estates; 1885 Tappen-Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC July 3, 2020 201-03707-00 Photo Page 21 ______

Photo 41:

Cut slope access path near the top of Lot 4 Expansion.

Viewing Southeast.

APPENDIX

EGBC LANDSLIDE C AND FLOODING ASSESSMENT ASSURANCE

STATEMENTS APPENDIX D: LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT ASSURANCE STATEMENT Note: This Statement is to be read and completed in conjunction with the “APEGBC Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for Proposed Residential Development in British Columbia”, March 2006/Revised September 2008 (“APEGBC Guidelines”) and the “2006 BC Building Code (BCBC 2006)” and is to be provided for landslide assessments (not floods or flood controls) for the purposes of the Land Title Act, Community Charter or the Local Government Act. Italicized words are defined in the APEGBC Guidelines.

To: The Approving Authority Date: ___July______3, 2020 ______Salmon Arm Office Area - Bag 100, 850C 16th Street NE Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4S4, Canada Jurisdiction and address

With reference to (check one): □ Land Title Act (Section 86) – Subdivision Approval □ Local Government Act (Sections 919.1 and 920) – Development Permit □ Community Charter (Section 56) – Building Permit □ Local Government Act (Section 910) – Flood Plain Bylaw Variance □ Local Government Act (Section 910) – Flood Plain Bylaw Exemption □ British Columbia Building Code 2006 sentences 4.1.8.16 (8) and 9.4 4.4.(2) (Refer to BC Building and Safety Policy Branch Information Bulletin B10-01 issued January 18, 2010)

PID: 023-187-468, Lot 1, Sec 33, Tp 21, Rg 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP55494, Except Plans KAP65068, KAP69965 AND KAP75073 For the Property: PID: 002-999-838, Lot 1, Sec 33, Tp 21, Rg 10, W6M, KDYD, PLAN 34273 [1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC, Canada] Legal description and civic address of the Property

The undersigned hereby gives assurance that he/she is a Qualified Professional and is a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist.

I have signed, sealed and dated, and thereby certified, the attached landslide assessment report on the Property in accordance with the APEGBC Guidelines. That report must be read in conjunction with this Statement. In preparing that report I have: Check to the left of applicable items ___1. Collected and reviewed appropriate background information ___2. Reviewed the proposed residential development on the Property ___3. Conducted field work on and, if required, beyond the Property ___4. Reported on the results of the field work on and, if required, beyond the Property ___5. Considered any changed conditions on and, if required, beyond the Property 6. For a landslide hazard analysis or landslide risk analysis I have: ___6.1 reviewed and characterized, if appropriate, any landslide that may affect the Property ___6.2 estimated the landslide hazard ___6.3 identified existing and anticipated future elements at risk on and, if required, beyond the Property ___6.4 estimated the potential consequences to those elements at risk 7. Where the Approving Authority has adopted a level of landslide safety I have: ___7.1 compared the level of landslide safety adopted by the Approving Authority with the findings of my investigation ___7.2 made a finding on the level of landslide safety on the Property based on the comparison ___7.3 made recommendations to reduce landslide hazards and/or landslide risks

8. Where the Approving Authority has not adopted a level of landslide safety I have:

Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments 55 APEGBC z Revised May 2010 for Proposed Residential Development in British Columbia ___8.1 described the method of landslide hazard analysis or landslide risk analysis used ___8.2 referred to an appropriate and identified provincial, national or international guideline for level of landslide safety ___8.3 compared this guideline with the findings of my investigation ___8.4 made a finding on the level of landslide safety on the Property based on the comparison ___8.5 made recommendations to reduce landslide hazards and/or landslide risks ___9. Reported on the requirements for future inspections of the Property and recommended who should conduct those inspections.

Based on my comparison between

Check one □ the findings from the investigation and the adopted level of landslide safety (item 7.2 above) □ the appropriate and identified provincial, national or international guideline for level of landslide safety (item 8.4 above)

I hereby give my assurance that, based on the conditions[1] contained in the attached landslide assessment report,

Check one □ for subdivision approval, as required by the Land Title Act (Section 86), “that the land may be used safely for the use intended” Check one □ with one or more recommended registered covenants. □ without any registered covenant. □ for a development permit, as required by the Local Government Act (Sections 919.1 and 920), my report will “assist the local government in determining what conditions or requirements under [Section 920] subsection (7.1) it will impose in the permit”. □ for a building permit, as required by the Community Charter (Section 56), “the land may be used safely for the use intended” Check one □ with one or more recommended registered covenants. □ without any registered covenant. □ for flood plain bylaw variance, as required by the “Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines” associated with the Local Government Act (Section 910), “the development may occur safely”. □ for flood plain bylaw exemption, as required by the Local Government Act (Section 910), “the land may be used safely for the use intended”.

______Nick Wodzianek, P.Eng. ______July 3, 2020 Name (print) Date

______Signature

[1] When seismic slope stability assessments are involved, level of landslide safety is considered to be a “life safety” criteria as described in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2005), Commentary on Design for Seismic Effects in the User’s Guide, Structural Commentaries, Part 4 of Division B. This states: “The primary objective of seismic design is to provide an acceptable level of safety for building occupants and the general public as the building responds to strong ground motion; in other words, to minimize loss of life. This implies that, although there will likely be extensive structural and non-structural damage, during the DGM (design ground motion), there is a reasonable degree of confidence that the building will not collapse nor will its attachments break off and fall on people near the building. This performance level is termed ‘extensive damage’ because, although the structure may be heavily damaged and may have lost a substantial amount of its initial strength and stiffness, it retains some margin of resistance against collapse”. Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments 56 APEGBC z Revised May 2010 for Proposed Residential Development in British Columbia

FLOOD ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Note: This statement is to be read and completed in conjunction with the current Engineers and Geoscientists BC Professional Practice Guidelines – Legislated Flood Assessments in a Changing Climate in BC (“the guidelines”) and is to be provided for flood assessments for the purposes of the Land Title Act, Community Charter, or the Local Government Act. Defined terms are capitalized; see the Defined Terms section of the guidelines for definitions.

To: The Approving Authority Date: July 3, 2020 Salmon Arm Area Office - Bag 100, 850C 16th Street NE Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4S4, Canada Jurisdiction and address

With reference to (CHECK ONE):

□ Land Title Act (Section 86) – Subdivision Approval □ Local Government Act (Part 14, Division 7) – Development Permit □ Community Charter (Section 56) – Building Permit □ Local Government Act (Section 524) – Flood Plain Bylaw Variance □ Local Government Act (Section 524) – Flood Plain Bylaw Exemption

For the following property (“the Property”): PID: 023-187-468, Lot 1, Sec 33, Tp 21, Rg 10, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP55494, Except Plans KAP65068, KAP69965 AND KAP75073 PID: 002-999-838, Lot 1, Sec 33, Tp 21, Rg 10, W6M, KDYD, PLAN 34273 [1885 Tappen Notch Hill Road, Tappen, BC, Canada] Legal description and civic address of the Property

The undersigned hereby gives assurance that he/she is a Qualified Professional and is a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist who fulfils the education, training, and experience requirements as outlined in the guidelines. I have signed, sealed, and dated, and thereby certified, the attached Flood Assessment Report on the Property in accordance with the guidelines. That report and this statement must be read in conjunction with each other. In preparing that Flood Assessment Report I have:

[CHECK TO THE LEFT OF APPLICABLE ITEMS] ___ 1. Consulted with representatives of the following government organizations:

___ 2. Collected and reviewed appropriate background information ___ 3. Reviewed the Proposed Development on the Property ___ 4. Investigated the presence of Covenants on the Property, and reported any relevant information ___ 5. Conducted field work on and, if required, beyond the Property ___ 6. Reported on the results of the field work on and, if required, beyond the Property ___ 7. Considered any changed conditions on and, if required, beyond the Property 8. For a Flood Hazard analysis I have: ___ 8.1 Reviewed and characterized, if appropriate, Flood Hazard that may affect the Property ___ 8.2 Estimated the Flood Hazard on the Property ___ 8.3 Considered (if appropriate) the effects of climate change and land use change ___ 8.4 Relied on a previous Flood Hazard Assessment (FHA) by others ___ 8.5 Identified any potential hazards that are not addressed by the Flood Assessment Report 9. For a Flood Risk analysis I have: ___ 9.1 Estimated the Flood Risk on the Property ___ 9.2 Identified existing and anticipated future Elements at Risk on and, if required, beyond the Property ___ 9.3 Estimated the Consequences to those Elements at Risk

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES LEGISLATED FLOOD ASSESSMENTS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE IN BC ___ VERSION 2.1 165 FLOOD ASSURANCE STATEMENT

10. In order to mitigate the estimated Flood Hazard for the Property, the following approach is taken: ___ 10.1 A standard-based approach ___ 10.2 A Risk-based approach ___ 10.3 The approach outlined in the guidelines, Appendix F: Flood Assessment Considerations for Development Approvals ___ 10.4 No mitigation is required because the completed flood assessment determined that the site is not subject to a Flood Hazard 11. Where the Approving Authority has adopted a specific level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk tolerance, I have: ___ 11.1 Made a finding on the level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk on the Property ___ 11.2 Compared the level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk tolerance adopted by the Approving Authority with my findings ___ 11.3 Made recommendations to reduce the Flood Hazard or Flood Risk on the Property 12. Where the Approving Authority has not adopted a level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk tolerance, I have: ___ 12.1 Described the method of Flood Hazard analysis or Flood Risk analysis used ___ 12.2 Referred to an appropriate and identified provincial or national guideline for level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk ___ 12.3 Made a finding on the level of Flood Hazard of Flood Risk tolerance on the Property ___ 12.4 Compared the guidelines with the findings of my flood assessment ___ 12.5 Made recommendations to reduce the Flood Hazard or Flood Risk ___ 13. Considered the potential for transfer of Flood Risk and the potential impacts to adjacent properties ___ 14. Reported on the requirements for implementation of the mitigation recommendations, including the need for subsequent professional certifications and future inspections. Based on my comparison between:

[CHECK ONE] □ The findings from the flood assessment and the adopted level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk tolerance (item 11.2 above) □ The findings from the flood assessment and the appropriate and identified provincial or national guideline for level of Flood Hazard or Flood Risk tolerance (item 12.4 above) I hereby give my assurance that, based on the conditions contained in the attached Flood Assessment Report:

[CHECK ONE] □ For subdivision approval, as required by the Land Title Act (Section 86), “that the land may be used safely for the use intended”: [CHECK ONE] □ With one or more recommended registered Covenants. □ Without any registered Covenant. □ For a development permit, as required by the Local Government Act (Part 14, Division 7), my Flood Assessment Report will “assist the local government in determining what conditions or requirements it will impose under subsection (2) of this section [Section 491 (4)]”. □ For a building permit, as required by the Community Charter (Section 56), “the land may be used safely for the use intended”: [CHECK ONE] □ With one or more recommended registered Covenants. □ Without any registered Covenant. □ For flood plain bylaw variance, as required by the Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines and the Amendment Section 3.5 and 3.6 associated with the Local Government Act (Section 524), “the development may occur safely”. □ For flood plain bylaw exemption, as required by the Local Government Act (Section 524), “the land may be used safely for the use intended”.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES LEGISLATED FLOOD ASSESSMENTS IN A CHANGING CLIMATE IN BC ___ VERSION 2.1 166

APPENDIX

D TERMS OF

REFERENCE

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ISSUED BY WSP CANADA INC.

1 STANDARD OF CARE WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) prepared and issued this geotechnical report (the “Report”) for its client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally-accepted engineering consulting practices for the geotechnical discipline. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Unless specifically stated in the Report, the Report does not address environmental issues. The terms of reference for geotechnical reports issued by WSP (the “Terms of Reference”) contained in the present document provide additional information and caution related to standard of care and the use of the Report. The Client should read and familiarize itself with these Terms of Reference. 2 COMPLETENESS OF THE REPORT All documents, records, drawings, correspondence, data, files and deliverables, whether hard copy, electronic or otherwise, generated as part of the services for the Client are inherent components of the Report and, collectively, form the instruments of professional services (the “Instruments of Professional Services”). The Report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to WSP by the Client, the communications between WSP and the Client, and to any other reports, writings, proposals or documents prepared by WSP for the Client relative to the specific site described in the Report, all of which constitute the Report. TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE INFORMATION, OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. WSP CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE REPORT AND ITS VARIOUS COMPONENTS. 3 BASIS OF THE REPORT WSP prepared the Report for the Client for the specific site, development, building, design or building assessment objectives and purpose that the Client described to WSP. The applicability and reliability of any of the information, observations, findings, suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in the Report are only valid to the extent that there was no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided by the Client to WSP unless the Client specifically requested WSP to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation. 4 USE OF THE REPORT The information, observations, findings, suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in the Report, or any component forming the Report, are for the sole use and benefit of the Client and the team of consultants selected by the Client for the specific project that the Report was provided. NO OTHER PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION OR COMPONENT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF WSP. WSP will consent to any reasonable request by the Client to approve the use of this Report by other parties designated by the Client as the “Approved Users”. As a condition for the consent of WSP to approve the use of the Report by an Approved User, the Client must provide a copy of these Terms of Reference to that Approved User and the Client must obtain written confirmation from that Approved User that the Approved User will comply with these Terms of Reference, such written confirmation to be provided separately by each Approved User prior to beginning use of the Report. The Client will provide WSP with a copy of the written confirmation from an Approved User when it becomes available to the Client, and in any case, within two weeks of the Client receiving such written confirmation. The Report and all its components remain the copyright property of WSP and WSP authorises only the Client and the Approved Users to make copies of the Report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the Report by the Client and the Approved Users. The Client and the Approved Users may not give, lend, sell or otherwise disseminate or make the Report, or any portion thereof, available to any party without the written permission of WSP. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, or any portion of the Report, is the sole responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages suffered by any third party resulting from the use of the Report. The Client and the Approved Users acknowledge and agree to indemnify and hold harmless WSP, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives or sub-consultants, or any or all of them, against any claim of any nature whatsoever brought against WSP by any third parties, whether in contract or in tort, arising or related to the use of contents of the Report. 5 INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT a. Nature and Exactness of Descriptions: The classification and identification of soils, rocks and geological units, as well as engineering assessments and estimates have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1 above. The classification and identification of these items are judgmental in nature and even comprehensive sampling and testing programs, implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel,

may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations or assessments utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 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 all persons making use of such documents or records should be aware of, and accept, this risk. Some conditions are subject to changes over time and the parties 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 when the Client has special considerations or requirements, the Client must disclose them to WSP so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken, which would not otherwise be within the scope of investigations made by WSP or the purposes of the Report. b. Reliance on information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in evidence at the time of site investigation and field review and on the basis of information provided to WSP. WSP has relied in good faith upon representations, information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, WSP cannot accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations or fraudulent acts of persons providing information. c. Additional Involvement by WSP: To avoid misunderstandings, WSP should be retained to assist other professionals to explain relevant engineering findings and to review the geotechnical aspects of the plans, drawings and specifications of other professionals relative to the engineering issues pertaining to the geotechnical consulting services provided by WSP. To ensure compliance and consistency with the applicable building codes, legislation, regulations, guidelines and generally-accepted practices, WSP should also be retained to provide field review services during the performance of any related work. Where applicable, it is understood that such field review services must meet or exceed the minimum necessary requirements to ascertain that the work being carried out is in general conformity with the recommendations made by WSP. Any reduction from the level of services recommended by WSP will result in WSP providing qualified opinions regarding adequacy of the work. 6 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT When WSP submits both electronic and hard copy versions of the Instruments of Professional Services, the Client agrees that only the signed and sealed hard copy versions shall be considered final and legally binding upon WSP. The hard copy versions submitted by WSP shall be the original documents for record and working purposes, and, in the event of a dispute or discrepancy, the hard copy versions shall govern over the electronic versions; furthermore, the Client agrees and waives all future right of dispute that the original hard copy signed and sealed versions of the Instruments of Professional Services maintained or retained, or both, by WSP shall be deemed to be the overall originals for the Project. The Client agrees that the electronic file and hard copy versions of Instruments of Professional Services shall not, under any circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except WSP. The Client warrants that the Instruments of Professional Services will be used only and exactly as submitted by WSP. The Client recognizes and agrees that WSP prepared and submitted electronic files using specific software or hardware systems, or both. WSP makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the current or future software and hardware systems of the Client, the Approved Users or any other party. The Client further agrees that WSP is under no obligation, unless otherwise expressly specified, to provide the Client, the Approved Users and any other party, or any or all of them, with specific software and hardware systems that are compatible with any electronic submitted by WSP. The Client further agrees that should the Client, an Approved User or a third party require WSP to provide specific software or hardware systems, or both, compatible with the electronic files prepared and submitted by WSP, for any reason whatsoever included but not restricted to an order from a court, then the Client will pay WSP for all reasonable costs related to the provision of the specific software or hardware systems, or both. The Client further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless WSP, its officers, directors, employees, agents, representative or sub-consultant, or any or all of them, against any claim or any nature whatsoever brought against WSP, whether in contract or in tort, arising or related to the provision or use or any specific software or hardware provided by WSP.

Subject Properties Subject Properties Electoral Area C Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 725

SH South Shuswap Zoning Bylaw No. 701

Bylaw No. 701 No Administrative Zoning Boundary ALR Slope Satellite Imagery Satellite Imagery: 1885 Tappen Notch Hill Rd Satellite Imagery - Subject Property Proposed Subdivision

1 2 3 4

1885 Tappen- Subject Property Notch Hill Rd

Requested Variance: 15% maximum slope for a shared access driveway