REPORT ON

Submitted to:

Boss Creek Development Box 326

Canim Lake, BC V0J 1J0

DISTRIBUTION: 4 Copies - Boss Creek Development 1 Copy - Golder Associates Ltd. September 22, 2006 05-1440-251

PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED VERNON HILL

RANCH DEVELOPMENT VERNON, BC

Golder Associates Ltd.

#220 - 1755 Springfield Road Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada V1Y 5V5Telephone (250) 860-8424 Fax (250) 860-9874

OFFICES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA, EUROPE, AFRICA, ASIA AND AUSTRALIA

September 2006 - i - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) recently completed a preliminary soils investigation at the proposed Boss Creek Ranch development Site, located near Vernon, BC. The purpose of this work was to complete a preliminary investigation of the subsurface geologic conditions at the Site and assess the potential suitability of Site soils for in-ground effluent and/or storm water disposal. The scope of work for this investigation consisted of an information review and a field investigation, including the excavation of test pits and the conducting of percolation tests.

The Site consists of 272 hectares of undeveloped, predominantly forested land, located on an escarpment approximately 2 kilometres (km) east of Vernon, BC. It is understood that the proposed development will consist of approximately 140 residential lots of varying sizes within the 272 ha property.

The results of the investigation indicated that the majority of the Site is characterized as having limited soil cover or as having steep slopes. However, in the areas where soil cover was present, predominantly in the western portion of the Site, subsurface conditions consisted of up to 2 m of varying deposits of silt, sand and gravel.

Based on the information collected as part of this preliminary soils investigation, it is concluded that on-Site disposal of sewage effluent and storm water can be achieved for the proposed residential development with treatment (in the case of effluent) and/or proper, site specific engineering.

Additional investigations for disposal to ground will be necessary, and should be conducted prior to finalizing subdivision plans.

September 2006 - ii - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1 3.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE .................................................................................... 1

Information Review ................................................................................................ 1 Field Investigations................................................................................................. 2

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 2 5.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 3

5.1 Information Review .................................................................................... 3 5.2 Test Pit Excavation ..................................................................................... 4 5.3 Percolation Testing ..................................................................................... 4 5.4 Laboratory Soil Testing .............................................................................. 5

6.0 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................... 5 6.1 General Comments Regarding Sewage Disposal Systems ......................... 5 6.2 Feasibility of Disposal to Ground ............................................................... 6

6.2.1 Conventional Disposal Systems...................................................... 6 6.2.2 Alternate Disposal Systems ............................................................ 8

Mound Systems....................................................................................................... 8 Common Field Areas .............................................................................................. 8

6.2.3 Other Considerations ...................................................................... 8 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 9 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT ............................................................ 10 9.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................ 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Key Plan Figure 2 Study Area, Test Pits and Test Well Locations LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Test Pit Log Sheets Appendix 2 Grain Size Analyses

September 2006 - 1 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) is please to submit the following report, summarizing the findings of our preliminary soils investigation, conducted at the proposed Boss Creek Ranch development (hereafter referred to as the “Site”), located near Vernon, BC (Figure 1). The purpose of this work was to complete a preliminary investigation of the subsurface geologic conditions at the Site and assess the potential suitability of Site soils for in-ground effluent and/or storm water disposal. Authorization for this work was given by Mr. Jim Pitre in July 2006.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Site consists of 272 hectares (2 locations) of undeveloped, predominantly forested land, located on an escarpment approximately 2 kilometres (km) east of Vernon, BC. As shown in Figure 1, the Site is irregular in shape and currently accessible from the south via Galiano Road at Pottery Road, as well as from the west, where Phillips Road intersects Briggs Road. Properties to the north and east are primarily undeveloped, while the properties to the south and west are cleared and developed for rural, residential use.

It is understood that the proposed development will consist of approximately 140 residential lots of varying sizes within the 250 ha property. Specific residential lot dimensions and locations were not provided to Golder prior to the preliminary investigation.

Golder has completed other studies for the Site, including a groundwater development potential evaluation report and an environmental screening analysis, both of which were issued in June and July 2006, respectively. Information for the Site, as presented in the other Golder reports, is re-iterated in this report.

3.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

The objective of the investigation was to collect information on subsurface conditions at the Site, such that a preliminary determination of the soils to accept discharge from residential sewage and storm disposal systems could be made. The scope of work for this investigation consisted of an information review and a field investigation, as follows:

Information Review

Golder completed a review of the following existing information;

• Topographic, bedrock geology and surficial geology maps. • A slope classification map created by Kerr Wood Liedal (KWL).

September 2006 - 2 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

• Stereo-paired aerial photographs. • A preliminary landform/terrain classification map previously prepared by Golder,

and • Driller’s information logs for water wells drilled as part of the hydrogeological

assessment completed by Golder, as well as water well logs available from the BC Ministry of Environment (MoE) water well Database (WELLS). Field Investigations

Based on the information reviewed, along with a general familiarity with the Site, locations were selected for subsurface investigations, consisting of test pit excavations and percolation testing. Test pits and percolation tests were positioned in locations where the ground surface was gently to moderately sloping, where rock outcrops were observed to be minimal and in areas that were accessible by existing roads and/or former logging access trails (Figure 2).

4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

Golder completed the subsurface investigations at the Site on July 4 and 5, 2006, and included the excavation of 20 test pits (see Figure 2 for test pit locations). The test pits were used to log subsoil and shallow groundwater seepage conditions across the Site and to obtain soil samples for laboratory testing. Test pits were excavated using an on-Site, track-mounted excavator. Soil conditions were recorded during excavation of the test pits. Samples of the various soil units encountered were retained from each test pit and selected samples were submitted to Golder’s materials testing laboratory for grain size analysis. The grain size analysis was subsequently used to estimate hydraulic conductivity for comparison against infiltration rates determined by percolation testing. Detailed soil descriptions from the test pit excavation are provided in Appendix I. Grain size analysis results are presented in Appendix II.

On July 12, 2006, Golder completed four percolation tests (Figure 2) to assess infiltration rates of surficial soils at the Site. Golder followed the standard methodology for conducting percolation tests, as outlined within the BC Sewerage System Regulation (2004) and the accompanying Sewerage System Standard Practice Manual (2005), both documents produced by the BC Ministry of Health and Health Services. Percolation testing results are presented in Table 1.

September 2006 - 3 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 Information Review

The Site varies in elevation, from approximately 625 metres above sea level (masl) near the west and southwest corner, to approximately 1,100 masl along the eastern limits of the Site. The western edge of the property lies along a bedrock escarpment that has developed as a result of faulting in the area. The elevation of the Valley floor, immediately adjacent to the escarpment is approximately 530 masl.

Surface drainage in the area generally flows from the Shuswap Highlands in the east towards the base of the Okanagan Valley in the west. Bate Creek is located at the northernmost part of the Site and can be primarily characterized as a dry gulch, occasionally channelling storm water runoff. Other minor drainage channels exist on Site. These are predominantly oriented in an east-west direction, and direct surface runoff towards the west from the higher elevation portion of the Site in the east. Some isolated benches occur on the Site, generally where bedrock outcrops are lacking. These relatively flat areas generally drain from north to south. The existing network of trails and roads generally follow the relatively flat areas.

Thick vegetation covers most of the Site, including mixed pine, fir, and trembling aspen forests at the lower elevations, with a mixed conifer forest at the upper elevations. Small clearings occur throughout the Site, which is reported to be the result of selective logging that has occurred on Site in the past.

According to Nasmith (1962), the surficial geology of the Okanagan Valley is dominated by glacial till, as well as outwash and glaciolacustrine sediments. While bedrock outcrops dominate the Site, the terrain classification mapping completed by Golder indicates that surficial soils generally consist of glaciolacustrine deposits, glacial till and colluvium in mantles and veneers overlying bedrock. The bedrock generally consists of metamorphic and volcanic rocks belonging to the Nicola Group and the Shuswap Complex.

Based on the review of available well logs, including the test wells drilled by Golder as part of the groundwater development potential assessment, the soils above bedrock typically range from 2.4 m to 5.5 m thick and are described as till or sand and gravel. All four of the test wells completed by Golder were completed in bedrock at depths ranging from approximately 122 meters below ground surface (mbgs) to 140 mbgs in a fractured bedrock aquifer, associated with contraction faulting in the area.

The capacity of water wells completed in bedrock in the area varies considerably, as a function of the fracturing encountered and water production from fractures. The static

September 2006 - 4 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

water level in the wells that encountered water-producing fractures is variable, ranging between approximately 5 m bgs and 50 m bgs.

5.2 Test Pit Excavation

Based on the results of the information review and brief reconnaissance of the Site, locations were selected for assessment of soil conditions by test pitting. Twenty test pits were excavated at selected locations across the Site as indicated in Figure 2. Excavation depths ranged from 0.3 mbgs in TP06-7 to 4.5 mbgs in TP06-18, with most test pits generally in the range of 1.0 m to 2.5 m depth. Test pits were typically terminated due to refusal on bedrock or on very dense glacial till.

Soils encountered in the test pits generally included a loose to compact, dry, brown to dark brown silt, with some gravel that was typically underlain by varying thicknesses of dry, brown, well-graded silt, sand and gravel. The natural compaction of these soils varied from compact to very dense. This soil unit varied in thickness from about 0.3 m to 2.4 m. Bedrock was typically encountered below this unit.

Testpits TP06-1 through TP06-4, located primarily in the western part of the Site, typically encountered bedrock between 2 m bgs and 2.9 m bgs. TP06-5, also excavated in the western portion of the Site, encountered till at a depth of 4.2 mbgs. Testpits TP06-06 to TP06-14, located in the eastern part of the Site, typically encountered bedrock or till at depths ranging from 0.1 mbgs to 0.8 mbgs. The test pits completed on the southern portion of the Site, TP06-15 to TP06-20, generally encountered bedrock at approximately 0.6 to 1.9 mbgs, with the exception of TP06-16, which did not encounter bedrock.

Groundwater seepage was only noted within two test pits at the time of the investigation. TP06-8 encountered groundwater seepage at a depth between approximately 1.3 to 1.5 mbgs, while groundwater seepage was noted within TP06-15 at a depth between 0.8 to 1.9 mbgs. Groundwater was not observed within any other test pits at the time of this investigation.

5.3 Percolation Testing

Percolation testing was carried out at locations immediately adjacent to test pits TP06-4, TP06-5, TP06-16, and TP06-17. The results are summarized in Table 1 (below). The measured percolation rates were ranged from approximately 3 minutes/25 mm at TP06-5, to 16 minutes/25 mm in TP06-17. Soil types at the percolation test locations varied from dry, sand and gravel (TP06-5) to dry, silt and fine sand, some gravel and boulders (TP06-17). Equivalent hydraulic conductivity was estimated from the percolation rates by assuming that approximately 50% of the flow in the percolation test is out the bottom of

September 2006 - 5 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

the test hole (the remainder being out the sides). Based on this approximation, the hydraulic conductivity estimates to range from 1.3 x 10-5 m/s to 7 x 10-5 m/s.

Table 1: Percolation Test Results

Test Pit ID Average Percolation Rate (minutes/25 mm)

Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

TP06-04 7 3 x 10-5 m/s

TP06-05 3 7 x 10-5 m/s

TP06-16 13 1.6 x 10-5 m/s

TP06-17 16 1.3 x 10-5 m/s

5.4 Laboratory Soil Testing

Grain size analysis was conducted on six of the samples collected during the test pit excavation program. The grain size analyses indicated that soils ranged from well graded silt, sand and gravel, to silt and sand deposits with a trace of gravel. The percentage of fines ranged from 31% by mass in TP06-03 Sa 2, to 53% in TP06-5 Sa 2.

6.0 DISCUSSION

6.1 General Comments Regarding Sewage Disposal Systems

Conventional on-Site sewage disposal systems typically consist of three major components including a septic tank for settlement of solids, a distribution box or header for directing overflow effluent from the tank and the disposal field. The tank and distribution box are standard and do not vary significantly. The disposal field generally consists of a series of perforated pipe drainage laterals laid out horizontally in shallow trenches excavated into native soils. The disposal field may be constructed in a covenanted area established on each residential lot. The total length of perforated pipe required for a disposal field and lateral spacing within the field are directly related to the soil type encountered and the existence of possible limiting conditions, such as shallow groundwater, till, clay or bedrock and the proximity to either a water well, open body of water, or a slope where surfacing of seepage could occur. Sandy soils, which typically have higher hydraulic conductivity, or ability to transmit water, require less pipe length

September 2006 - 6 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

than finer-grained soils with greater silt and clay content, which have a lower hydraulic conductivity rate and require more pipe. Reserve areas may also be determine

Sewage disposal fields typically will fail when;

1. The soil hydraulic conductivity rate is reduced and insufficient renovation of the effluent is accomplished prior to reaching groundwater. Hydraulic conductivity can be reduced when the soil becomes clogged as a result of several factors including mineral precipitation in the soil, the growth of a bacterial slime mat and solids flowing from a full septic tank into the field.

2. The system is constructed in an inappropriate geological setting, such that the depth to a limiting condition (such as bedrock, till, clay or groundwater) is shallow, generally less than 1.5 m. For example, high groundwater reduces the thickness of the soil column above the water table where the majority of renovation occurs. The suitability of an area for effluent disposal to ground is based on having a sufficient thickness of suitable soil through which the effluent can percolate, and assessing the potential for a “limiting condition” which can restrict downward migration of infiltrating effluent, thus promoting potential mounding to surface or daylighting of seepage in downgradient areas.

However, often a reserve disposal field area will be designated during development to address failed disposal fields. It is understood that reserve disposal areas may be determined for lots with individual disposal systems, and that for lots under 1 hectare, this reserve area would be covenanted.

6.2 Feasibility of Disposal to Ground

The following section discusses the suitability of the Site for in-ground disposal of effluent or storm water, based on the results of the preliminary soils investigation, as well as provides a preliminary assessment of several options available for effluent disposal on-Site. It is understood that Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) of Vernon, is currently completing preliminary engineering design for storm water disposal systems for the Site. According to conversations with Mr. Craig Kipkie of KWL, the storm water disposal plan is not complete; however, it is understood that the storm water disposal system will likely consist of a pond storage system to contain runoff from roads and a roof leader system to discharge rainwater into the ground at individual residential lots.

6.2.1 Conventional Disposal Systems

Typical design input parameters for septic disposal fields and storm water disposal include soil characteristics, depth to limiting condition, the slope of the ground surface in

September 2006 - 7 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

the disposal area and areas downgradient and, in the case of effluent, levels of proposed wastewater treatment. As individual lot locations and boundaries were not specifically considered as part of this investigation, only generally comments regarding various sewage disposal field options can be made.

In addition, it should be noted that, although irrigation return flows (from lawn irrigation), fugitive drainage, and stormwater infiltration and/or concentration are currently unknown, they will be considered in assessing potential disposal options during the design stage, as they will have an impact on the Site.

Percolation rates in shallow soils were as much as 16 min/25 mm, although faster percolation rates (3 to 7 minutes/25 mm) were obtained. The slow percolation rates are due to a high silt content within the Site soils. It can be inferred that additional percolation tests across the Site would likely also result in varying percolation rates. Based on the inferred low hydraulic conductivity of the soils, and a depth to a limiting condition across the Site of generally less than 1.5 m, the areas of the Site that were investigated are not considered suitable for disposal of large volumes of stormwater or sewage effluent by conventional methods. However, subsurface conditions in isolated areas, mainly in the western portion of the Site, appear to have potential for in-ground disposal of sewage effluent and/or storm water.

Test pits TP06-1 through TP06-5, excavated in the western portion of the Site, indicate a sufficient thickness of suitable soil for disposal of effluent or storm water, with a depth to a limiting condition (generally bedrock) ranging from 2 m to 4.2 m. Soils overlying the bedrock consisted of varying deposits of silt, sand and/or sand and gravel, the latter two of which are generally more favourable for effluent or storm water disposal. However, hydraulic conductivity values are generally very low due to the high silt content within the soils. In addition, surficial soils in the area of TP06-16 and TP06-17 were also greater than 1.5 m in thickness, with reported thicknesses of 3.2 m and 1.6 m, respectively. However, these deposits both contained approximately 30% (by mass) silt. Marginal thickness of surficial soils were also noted at TP06-6, TP06-8 and TP06-10, of 1.3 m, 1.3 m and 1.2 m respectively.

Test pits in which surficial soil thicknesses of at least 1.5 m were encountered are indicated on Figure 2. These are generally located in relatively flat areas of the Site, where natural drainage collection for runoff occurs. It should be noted that although these areas appear to have some potential for in-ground disposal, there is also the potential for the water table to rise in the area as a result of effluent disposal to ground in upgradient areas.

September 2006 - 8 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

6.2.2 Alternate Disposal Systems

Based on i) the preliminary review of Site geological conditions, ii) several available areas of low to moderately sloping ground, and iii) the relatively thin surficial soils, it can be inferred that a selected number of areas are likely to be suitable for in-ground disposal of sewage effluent and/or storm water. It is understood that storm water disposal design systems are currently being assessed and engineered by KWL. As such, the following section discusses alternate sewage disposal options available to the Site.

Hydraulic loading (i.e., the volume of effluent that can be discharged to the subsurface) can generally be increased with increased levels of treatment of effluent prior to discharge. A smaller disposal field area is also possible as the level of effluent treatment is increased. For example, treated effluent in a Type 2 system (treated to consistently having a 5 day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) concentration of 45 mg/L and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration of 45 mg/L) can be discharged into a smaller disposal field than effluent from a Type 1 system (i.e., treatment by septic tank only). Increasing the level of treatment prior to discharge can reduce the allowable setback of sewage disposal fields from breakout points and surface water resources (e.g., streams).

Mound Systems

Unsaturated materials less than approximately 1.2 m in thickness were noted to be present in the areas of test pits TP06-11 through TP06-20. Disposal fields in these areas would likely require additional granular materials to be imported for construction of sand mound systems. Sand mounds provide additional discharge capacity in areas where native, permeable soils are not adequately thick, or where seasonal high water table conditions reduce the available unsaturated soil thickness.

Common Field Areas

Communal disposal fields can be utilized to service more than one lot. In the event that common field areas are constructed, it is likely they would be limited in capacity and may only be sufficient to support in the order of 5 to 10 lots. Common disposal areas could be constructed beneath sports fields, open parks, and trail networks, where depth to a limiting condition is sufficient or where engineered granular fill is placed to build sports fields or trails. The above comments are subject to restrictions and considerations under the Sewerage System Regulation (B.C. Reg. 326/2004).

6.2.3 Other Considerations

Sewage disposal designs will need to consider setback requirements, as indicated in the Sewerage System Regulation and Standard Practice Manual. Setbacks at residential lots

September 2006 - 9 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

will have to be compliant with respect to property lines, drinking water sources, potential breakout locations and freshwater resources.

Five groundwater wells were constructed on the Site in 2006. The locations of the groundwater wells are noted to be in topographic areas were the ground surface is gently to moderately sloping. These locations, which are more flat than other areas of the Site are also noted to be appropriate locations for residential construction Sites. Sewage effluent, if disposed within close proximity to the groundwater wells, may contribute to recharge of local groundwater systems, including surficial and bedrock aquifers. Although information required to determine the minimal distance of a septic tank from a water well at the Site (based on Site conditions) is limited, according to the Sewerage System Standard Practice Manual, all sewerage systems must be a minimum of 30 m from a water well. Note, the potential for impact to drinking water quality associated with the on-Site wells has not been investigated in this study and should be considered when future residential lot locations are being considered.

In addition to careful assessment of sewage disposal field locations in these areas, consideration could be given to treat effluent to 10 mg/L for BOD and 10 mg/L for TSS at properties located within close proximity to these, or any other wells constructed on the Site.

Due to the rocky and steep topography of the Site, it can be inferred that particular consideration will need to be given when considering the potential breakout points in the areas considered for effluent disposal. Breakout points, where effluent discharged to the subsurface breaks out onto the ground surface, typically occurs when effluent comes in contact with an exposed impermeable unit, such as bedrock or till outcrop. In areas where breakout may be a concern, a Type 3 treatment system (10 mg/L BOD and 10 mg/L TSS), and/or importing of granular fill could be considered.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the information collected, it is concluded that, although limited in extent, some areas of the Site have potential for storm water and/or sewage disposal to ground. These locations are predominantly on the western portion of the Site. The majority of the Site, which is characterized as having limited soil cover or as having steep slopes, will require engineered sewage disposal systems including treatment, to dispose of effluent on Site, as well as engineered storm water disposal systems, currently being addressed by KWL. Additional investigations for disposal to ground will be necessary, and would be conducted once the zoning of the Site is ensured and the engineering plans, outlining the lot sizes, location and terrain have been prepared. These additional investigations would consist of test pits and percolation testing or double ring infiltrometer testing on each lot and will identify specific lots which will require engineered disposal fields versus

September 2006 - 10 - 05-1440-251

Golder Associates

conventional disposal fields, and the likelihood of effluent breakout in areas downgradient of the disposal fields.

The surface drainage on the Site is controlled predominantly by bedrock and as such, localized concentrations of runoff are expected. Temporary storage and routing of runoff to reduce peak flows and minimize recharge to areas were sewage disposal fields are proposed will be necessary.

8.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Boss Creek Development Ltd. In evaluating the current geological conditions on the Site, Golder Associates Ltd. has relied in good faith on information provided by sources noted in this report and on information collected at discrete locations on the Site. We accept no responsibility for any deficiency, misstatements or inaccuracy contained in this report as a result of omissions, misstatements or fraudulent acts of others.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Golder Associates Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

September 2006 - i -

Golder Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) recently completed a preliminary soils investigation at the proposed Boss Creek Ranch development Site, located near Vernon, BC. The purpose of this work was to complete a preliminary investigation of the subsurface geologic conditions at the Site and assess the potential suitability of Site soils for in-ground effluent and/or storm water disposal. The scope of work for this investigation consisted of an information review and a field investigation, including the excavation of test pits and the conducting of percolation tests.

The Site consists of 250 hectares of undeveloped, predominantly forested land, located on an escarpment approximately 2 kilometres (km) east of Vernon, BC. It is understood that the proposed development will consist of approximately 120 to 150 residential lots of varying sizes within the 250 ha property.

The results of the investigation indicated that the majority of the Site is characterized as having limited soil cover or as having steep slopes. However, in the areas where soil cover was present, predominantly in the western portion of the Site, subsurface conditions consisted of up to 2 m of varying deposits of silt, sand and gravel.

Based on the information collected as part of this preliminary soils investigation, it is concluded that on-Site disposal of sewage effluent and storm water can be achieved for the proposed residential development with treatment (in the case of effluent) and/or proper, site specific engineering.

Additional investigations for disposal to ground will be necessary, and should be conducted prior to finalizing subdivision plans.

September 7006 - 11 -

9.0 CLOSURE

We trust we have provided you with the information you require at this time. Should you have any questions or require clarification, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at your earliest convenience.

Yours very truly,

COLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

- * \ ! &+

Hayley Shearer, GIT Geoscientist

& Remi J.P. Allard, M. Eng., P. Eng Senlor Hydrogeologist, Associate

Reviewed By: Jeffrey Fillipone, Ph.D., P.Geo Senior Geologist, Associate

Attachments: information and Limitations of this Report

N~ACTIVE~2005\l440- K L O W N A O j l i l l l - 2 5 1 VEUNON (PITRE)GU POTENTIALIFINALWP'VASKIOW PVIRE SFWAGEDISPOSAL AUO 30 W C

Golder Associates

APPENDIX I

TEST PIT LOG SHEETS

RECORD OF TEST PITS

July 4 and 5, 2006 05-1440-251 (2000)

Test

Pit No.

Depth

(m)

Description

Sample/

Depth (m bgs)

Golder Associates

TP06-01 0.0 – 2.0

2.0-2.5

2.5

Loose, dry, light to dark brown SILT and GRAVEL, some fine sand and clay, trace boulders. Roots and rootlets present. Fractured and weathered BEDROCK. BEDROCK. End of testpit

Sa1 @ 0.0 – 0.5

TP06-2 0.0 – 0.1

0.1 – 2.5

2.5

Loose, dry, dark brown organic SILT trace sand. Roots present. Compact, dry, light brown SILT and fine to medium SAND and BOULDERS with trace gravel. BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.25 – 0.5 Sa2 @ 2.2 – 2.5

TP06-3 0.0 – 0.8

0.8 – 0.9

0.9 – 2.9

2.9

Loose, dry to moist, SILT and fine SAND, some gravel and boulders. Roots present. Rooty organic mat. Compact, dry to moist, well graded SAND and GRAVEL with trace to some silt and boulders. Some fractured bedrock on red and grey BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.2 – 0.3 Sa2 @ 1.2 – 1.5

TP06-4 0.0 – 0.1

0.1 – 2.0

2.0 – 2.2

Loose, organic SILT with roots. Compact, dry, light brown SILT and fine SAND with trace to some gravel, trace boulders. White calcium deposit present in test pit. Roots and rootlets throughout. Fracture bedrock and BEDROCK. End of testpit. Note: Percolation test completed at approximately 45 cm below ground surface.

Sa1 @ 0.0 – 0.3

RECORD OF TEST PITS

July 4 and 5, 2006 05-1440-251 (2000)

Test

Pit No.

Depth

(m)

Description

Sample/

Depth (m bgs)

Golder Associates

TP06-5 0.0 – 1.0

1.0 – 1.8

1.8 – 4.2

4.2 – 4.3

Loose, dry to moist, black organic SILT. Roots and rootlets present. Compact, dry, brown, fine SAND and SILT, trace gravel. Roots present. Compact, dry, brown, SILT and fine SAND, trace to some sand. Grey clay lenses approximately 1 to 5 cm in size. Very dense, grey, well graded SILT TO GRAVEL. (TILL) End of testpit. Note: Percolation rate test completed at approximately 65 cm below ground surface.

Sa1 @ 0.0 – 0.5 Sa2 @ 1.2 – 1.5 Sa3 @ 1.8 – 2.2 Sa4 @ 4.2 – 4.3

TP06-6 0.0 – 0.25

0.25 – 1.0

1.0 – 1.25

1.25

Loose, dry, black organic SILT. Roots present. Compact, dry to moist, brown SILT with trace gravel. Compact to dense orange oxidized, medium SAND with silt lenses. Fractured bedrock and BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa 1 @ 0.2 – 0.6

TP06-7 0.0 – 0.3

Brown to black organic SILT overlying fractured bedrock and BEDROCK. End of testpit.

No sample.

TP06-8 0.0 – 1.2 Loose, wet, grey-brown, medium to coarse SAND with silt, gravel and boulders. Roots present. Water seeping in all sides throughout the entire depth of test pit particularly at approximately 1.3 – 1.5 m bgs.

Sa1 @ 0.9 – 1.2

RECORD OF TEST PITS

July 4 and 5, 2006 05-1440-251 (2000)

Test

Pit No.

Depth

(m)

Description

Sample/

Depth (m bgs)

Golder Associates

TP06-9 0.0 - 0.25

0.25 – 1.0

1.0 – 3.5

3.5 – 3.7

Loose, light brown, well graded organic SILT and GRAVEL. Compact, dry, light brown SAND with trace silt, gravel and boulder. Moist, grey brown, well graded, SILT, SAND and GRAVEL. Fractured bedrock and BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.3 – 0.5 Sa2 @ 1.5 – 2.0 Sa3 @ 3.3 – 3.5

TP06-10 0.0 – 0.15

0.15 – 1.2

1.2 – 1.4

Loose, dry, light brown, well graded SILT to GRAVEL. Roots and organics. Compact, moist, red-brown SILT and fine SAND some gravel and firm dry clay lenses, trace boulders. Very dense moist, grey, well graded SILT to GRAVEL with some boulders (TILL). End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.6 – 0.8

TP06-11 0.0 – 0.1

0.1 – 1.2

Loose, dry, brown SILT with organics and roots. Very weathered fractured BEDROCK. End of testpit.

No sample taken

TP06-12 0.0 – 0.1

0.1 – 0.7

0.7 – 1.2

1.2

Loose, dry, brown, SILT with roots and organics Compact, moist, brown, well graded fine SAND, SILT and GRAVEL, some boulders. Piece of burnt wood. Roots. Fractured and weathered BEDROCK BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.2 – 0.4

TP06-13 0.0 – 0.1

0.1 – 0.6

0.6 – 1.1

Loose, dry, brown, organic SILT with roots. Fractured, weathered BEDROCK. Some moist red brown silty sand in fractures. BEDROCK. End of testpit.

No sample taken

RECORD OF TEST PITS

July 4 and 5, 2006 05-1440-251 (2000)

Test

Pit No.

Depth

(m)

Description

Sample/

Depth (m bgs)

Golder Associates

TP06-14

0.0 – 0.1

0.1 – 0.4

0.4 – 1.0

Loose, dry, brown, silty ORGANICS with roots. Compact to dense, moist, brown, well graded, silty SAND with gravel and boulders. Weathered, fractured BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.2 – 0.5

TP06-15 0.0 – 0.8

0.8 – 1.9

1.9

Loose, moist, black organic SILT with roots. Compact, wet, light brown-grey well graded SAND with silt and gravel and boulders BEDROCK. End of testpit. Sloughing noted at 0.8 – 1.9 mbgs. Water pooled in based of testpit. No seepage location identified.

Sa1 @ 0.2 to 0.5 Sa2 @ 0.8 – 1.2

TP06-16 0.0 – 0.2

0.2 – 3.2

3.2

Loose, dry, brown, organic SILT with roots. Compact, dry to moist, fine sandy SILT with some gravel and boulders trace to some medium sand. Very dense, moist, brown silty SAND with gravel and boulders. (TILL) End of testpit. Note: Percolation test completed at approximately 45 cm below ground surface.

Sa1 @ 0.8 – 1.0

TP06-17 0.0 – 1.0

1.0 – 1.6

1.6

Loose, dry, black organic SILT with roots. Compact, dry to moist, orange-brown SAND with some silt and gravel, trace boulder. BEDROCK. End of testpit. Note: Percolation test completed at approximately 65 cm below ground surface.

Sa1 @ 0.2 -0.5 Sa2 @ 1.0 – 1.2

RECORD OF TEST PITS

July 4 and 5, 2006 05-1440-251 (2000)

Test

Pit No.

Depth

(m)

Description

Sample/

Depth (m bgs)

Golder Associates

TP06-18 0.0 – 0.8

0.8 – 4.0

4.0 – 4.5

Loose, dark moist organic SILT. Loose, very weathered and fractured, oxidized BEDROCK. Weathered BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.0 – 0.5 Sa2 @ 0.9 – 1.3

TP06-19 0.0 – 0.6

0.6 – 0.7

0.7 – 1.3

1.3

Loose, dry, black, organic SILT. Roots present. Very weathered and fractured BEDROCK. Fractured BEDROCK. BEDROCK. End of testpit.

Sa1 @ 0.0 – 0.3 Sa2 @ 0.6 – 0.9

TP06-20 0.0 – 0.25

0.25 – 0.6

0.6 -1.0

1.0 – 3.0

3.0 – 3.3

Loose, dry, black, organic SILT and SAND. Compact, dry, brown, medium to fine SAND, trace silt. Dense, moist, brown, SILT and CLAY. Very weathered BEDROCK. BEDROCK. End of testpit

Sa1 @ 0.3 – 0.6 Sa2 @ 0.6 – 0.8

APPENDIX II

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES

Grain Size Analysis

Golder Associates

Sieve Sizes (USS)

3/4"

#43/8"

6" 3" 2" 1 1/

2 "

1" 1/2"

#10

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.11101001000

Grain Size (mm)

Per

cent

Fin

er T

han

TP06-3 Sa2 @ 1.4mTP06-5 Sa2 @ 1.4mTP06-9 Sa2 @ 1.8m

Project No.: 05-1440-251(2000)Client: Boss Creek DevelopmentLocation: VernonDate Sampled: July 4th and 5th

Boulders

SIEVE INFORMATION

Cobbles GravelCoarse Medium Fine

SandCoarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine

Silt Clay