Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024 Logged By: AZ/AC
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
60.5 H-1
D-1
18 @ 5í: Mottled olive gray to olive brown clayey SILT, moist, stiff, iron staining, trace caliche, trace gravel, diatomaceous.
MH
D-4 @ 10í: Mottled pale olive gray and pale olive brown clayey SILT, moist, stiff, iron staining, trace caliche, trace gravel, debris, diatomaceous.
72.1 54.3
@ 15í: Mottled pale olive gray and pale olive brown clayey SILT, very moist, very stiff, iron staining, trace caliche, diatomaceous.
D-6 @ 20í: Mottled black and olive gray silty and fine sandy CLAY, very moist, very stiff to hard, trace organics.
10.9 116.2
14 17
38 D-5
47.1 74.1 DS
71.3 57.4 CN
D-7 @ 25í: Mottled black and bluish gray silty/fine sandy CLAY, very moist, hard, trace organics.
51 13.5 108.3
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
@ 2.5í: Mottled olive gray and olive brown clayey SILT, moist, medium stiff, iron staining, trace gravel, diatomaceous.
D-2
11 21 @ 7.5í: Mottled olive gray and bluish gray clayey SILT, moist, stiff, iron staining, trace gravel and debris, diatomaceous.
47.6 72.9
52.3 68.6 CN
MH
MH
CL
B-1 @ 1-5í
B-1 GS, AL, MD, EI, CC
MH
MH
CL
Artificial Fill (Af)
445
Surface: 4î AC, 6î AB
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
2184
D-12
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-1
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
30 Blows Per Foot
35 40
45 50
55 60
@ 30í: Mottled bluish gray and brownish gray clayey silty fine to medium SAND, very moist, dense, trace caliche
nodules.
D-8 56 SC 14.4 117.2
60.5 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
D-9 @ 35í: Bluish gray to black silty/sandy CLAY, very moist to wet, very stiff, trace coarse gravel, diatomaceous.
28 18.3 108.6
57.7 70.5
47.7 72.1
18.3 107.8
D-10 21 SC
D-11 27
@ 40í: Gray clayey SAND, very moist, medium dense.
@ 45í: Mottled gray and bluish gray clayey SAND, very
moist, medium dense.
24 @ 50í: Mottled olive gray and olive brown clayey/sandy SILTSTONE, very moist, very stiff, diatomaceous, minor
interbeds of fine sandstone, well bedded, thinly bedded to laminated.
MH
SC
CL
Monterey Formation (Tm)
D-13 22 @ 55í: Mottled olive gray and olive brown clayey/sandy 50.0 69.3 SILTSTONE, wet, very stiff, diatomaceous, minor interbeds of fine sandstone, well bedded, thinly bedded to
laminated, free water/seepage along bedding planes.
MH
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
445
2185
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-1
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
60 Blows Per Foot
65 70
75 80
85 90
@ 60í: Olive brown sandy SILTSTONE, wet, hard, moderately well bedded, thinly laminated, diatomaceous
D-14 66.7 59.2 50/
5.5î
MH
60.5 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
Notes:
Total Depth: 60.5 Feet.
Groundwater Not Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Asphalt Patched with Cold Patch AC.
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
445
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2186
D-3
Log Of Boring
DepthTypeNumberUSCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
0 Blows Per Foot
5 10
15 20
25 30
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
41.5 H-2
D-1
18 @ 5í: Mottled olive gray and light gray clayey SILT, very moist, stiff, bedrock fragments, iron staining, diatomaceous.
MH
D-4
@ 10í: UPPER: Olive gray clayey SILT, moist, very stiff, bedrock fragments, diatomaceous. 46.4 74.2
@ 15í: Light gray clayey SILT, very moist, very stiff,
diatomaceous.
D-6 @ 20í: Pale yellow clayey SILT, very moist, very stiff, diatomaceous.
67.6 55.5
33 33
35 D-5
50.5 70.5
77.5 60.3
D-7
@ 25í: Pale yellow to white clayey SILTSTONE, very moist, hard, fractured.
57 26.7 96.9
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
@ 2.5í: Mottled olive gray and light gray clayey SILT, very moist, stiff, bedrock fragments, iron staining, diatomaceous.
D-2
18 20 @ 7.5í: Mottled dark brown and olive gray clayey SILT, moist, stiff, bedrock fragments, diatomaceous.
58.6 65.8
59.3 63.7
MH
MH
MH
B-1 @ 1-5í
GS, AL B-1
MH
MH
ML
Artificial Fill (Af)
Surface: 4î AC, 6î AB
Monterey Formation (Tm)
SM @ 10í: LOWER: Pale yellowish brown silty fine to medium SAND, moist, medium dense.
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
442
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2187
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-2
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
30 Blows Per Foot
35 40
45 50
55 60
@ 30í: Pale yellow to yellowish brown clayey SILTSTONE, wet, very stiff, diatomaceous.
76.7 53.7 D-8 27 MH
41.5 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
D-9 @ 35í: Pale yellow to yellowish brown clayey SILTSTONE, wet, very stiff, diatomaceous.
24 86.7 51.1
77.7 52.4
D-10 23 MH @ 40í: Reddish brown to olive gray clayey SILTSTONE, wet, very stiff, iron staining, diatomaceous.
MH
Notes:
Total Depth: 41.5 Feet.
Groundwater Not Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Asphalt Patched with Cold Patch AC.
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
442
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2188
D-3
Log Of Boring
DepthTypeNumberUSCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
0 Blows Per Foot
5 10
15 20
25 30
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
81.5 H-3
D-1
16 @ 5í: Pale olive gray to white clayey SILT, very moist, stiff to very stiff, trace iron staining, diatomaceous.
MH
D-4 @ 10í: Mottled pale olive gray and black silty CLAY with fine sand, very moist to wet, very stiff to hard, diatomaceous.
37.7 86.0
@ 15í: Mottled olive gray and black silty CLAY with fine sand, very moist to wet, very stiff, diatomaceous.
D-6 @ 20í: Pale olive gray clayey SILT, very moist to wet, stiff, trace fine gravel, diatomaceous, bedrock fragments up to 3 inches in diameter.
75.8 54.0
26 23
22 D-5
80.3 51.9 CN
37.8 70.9
D-7 @ 25í: Mottled olive gray and black silty CLAY, very moist, very stiff, diatomaceous.
29 38.8 85.0
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
@ 2.5í: Pale olive gray to gray clayey SILT, moist, very stiff, trace coarse sand and fine gravel, diatomaceous.
D-2
24 15 @ 7.5í: Mottled olive gray and black clayey SILT with fine sand, very moist, stiff, diatomaceous.
67.3 66.0
51.4 71.4
CL
CL
MH
B-1 @ 1-5í
GS B-1
MH
MH
CL
Artificial Fill (Af)
Surface: 4î AC, 8î AB
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
441
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2189
D-12
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-3
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
30 Blows Per Foot
35 40
45 50
55 60
@ 30í: UPPER: Mottled pale olive gray and white silty CLAY, very moist, very stiff, diatomaceous.
D-8 39 CL 18.2 108.7
81.5 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
D-9 @ 35í: UPPER: Mottled pale bluish gray and black silty CLAY, very moist, hard, slightly diatomaceous, trace gravel.
35 58.2 65.1
28.5 96.5
14.9 117.0
15.1 110.8
D-10 32 MH
D-11 38
@ 40í: Mottled bluish gray and dark gray clayey SILT with fine sand, very moist to wet, very stiff, diatomaceous. @ 45í: Mottled bluish gray and black fine sandy CLAY, very moist, very stiff.
29 @ 50í: Mottled bluish gray and black fine sandy CLAY, wet, very stiff.
CL
CL
CL
D-13 45 @ 55í: Mottled bluish gray, yellowish brown, and black fine 24.9 103.6 sandy CLAY, wet, hard, bedrock fragments.
CL
@ 30í: LOWER: Yellowish brown silty fine SAND, very moist, medium dense, bedrock fragments.
SM
@ 35í: LOWER: Dark brown silty SAND, very moist, medium dense.
SM
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
441
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2190
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-3
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
60 Blows Per Foot
65 70
75 80
85 90
@ 60í: Mottled olive gray and gray clayey SILT, very moist, very stiff, diatomaceous.
D-14 27 MH 54.0 66.2
81.5 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: Groundwater Not Encountered.
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
Notes:
Total Depth: 81.5 Feet.
Groundwater Not Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Asphalt Patched with Cold Patch AC.
@ 65í: Mottled olive gray and gray clayey SILT, very moist to wet, very stiff, diatomaceous.
D-15 25 MH 51.2 66.1
@ 70í: UPPER: Mottled olive gray and gray clayey SILT, wet to saturated, stiff, diatomaceous.
D-16 13 MH 65.7 66.5
@ 75í: Dark olive brown to dark gray clayey SILTSTONE, wet, hard, laminated, diatomaceous.
D-17 88/ 68.0 55.8
11î
MH
@ 80í: Dark olive brown to dark gray clayey SILTSTONE, wet, hard, laminated, trace fine sand, diatomaceous.
D-18 94/ 63.6 58.8
11î
MH
Monterey Formation (Tm)
ML @ 70í: LOWER: Dark brown to black SILT, very moist, stiff.
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
441
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2191
D-3
Log Of Boring
DepthTypeNumberUSCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
0 Blows Per Foot
5 10
15 20
25 30
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: 55 feet.
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
76 H-4
D-1
17 @ 5í: Mottled pale olive gray and white clayey SILT, moist, stiff, trace caliche, diatomaceous.
MH
D-4 @ 10í: Mottled olive gray and white clayey SILT, very moist to wet, medium stiff, diatomaceous.
63.1 56.1 CN
@ 15í: Mottled dark brown and olive gray silty/fine sandy CLAY, very moist, very stiff.
D-6 @ 20í: Olive gray clayey fine SAND, very moist, dense, trace fine gravel.
14.9 114.1
10 40
66 D-5
84.2 50.6
14.5 110.7
D-7 @ 25í: Dark olive gray clayey fine to medium SAND, very moist, medium dense, trace fine gravel.
31 17.1 109.5
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
@ 2.5í: Mottled olive gray and pale gray clayey SILT, moist, stiff, trace caliche, diatomaceous.
D-2
18 13 @ 7.5í: Mottled pale olive gray and white clayey SILT, very moist, stiff, trace caliche, diatomaceous.
77.1 51.4
61.4 62.3 DS
MH
CL
SC
B-1 @ 1-4í
AL, EI, CC B-1
MH
MH
SC
Artificial Fill (Af)
Surface: 4î AC, 6î AB.
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
443
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2192
D-12
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-4
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
30 Blows Per Foot
35 40
45 50
55 60
@ 30í: Mottled dark olive gray and black clayey fine SAND, very moist, medium dense.
D-8 33 SC 13.8 115.3
76 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: 55 feet.
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
D-9 @ 35í: Mottled dark olive gray and black clayey fine SAND, very moist, dense.
42 17.1 113.1
21.5 103.1
13.4 117.9
16.1 108.3
D-10 24 SC
D-11 32
@ 40í: Mottled dark olive gray and black clayey fine SAND, very moist, medium dense, trace claystone fragments.
@ 45í: Bluish gray clayey fine to medium SAND, very
moist, medium dense, minor clean sand interbeds up to
0.25-inch thick.
20 @ 50í: Black fine sandy CLAY, very moist to wet, stiff, minor clean sand interbeds up to 0.5-inch thick, grass/vegetation fragments.
CL
SC
SC
D-13 50/ Niguel Formation (Tn) 19.8 101.9
6î @ 55í: Yellowish brown fine to coarse SANDSTONE,
saturated, very dense, micaceous, weakly indurated.
SP
@ 55í: Groundwater
443
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2193
Log Of Boring
Total Depth
Drilled (ft)
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
H-4
Depth
TypeNumber
USCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
60 Blows Per Foot
65 70
75 80
85 90
@ 60í: Yellowish brown fine to coarse SANDSTONE,
saturated, very dense, micaceous, weakly indurated.
D-14 90/ 18.3 109.8
9î
SP
76 Hammer Type: Auto (140lbs @ 30î)
Logged By: AZ/AC
Drill Bit Size/Type: 10î
Sampling Method(s): Modified California, Bulk
Comments:
Approximate Groundwater Depth: 55 feet.
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig Type: CME 75
Project Number: 24059-01
Appendix B
Notes:
Total Depth: 76.0 Feet.
Groundwater Not Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
Asphalt Patched with Cold Patch AC.
@ 65í: Yellowish brown medium to coarse SANDSTONE,
saturated, very dense, micaceous, weakly indurated.
D-15 50/ 15.4 115.2
6î
SP
@ 75í: Yellowish brown to yellowish gray fine to coarse SANDSTONE with silt, saturated, very dense, micaceous,
shell fragments, weakly indurated.
D-16 50/ 23.8 96.6
3.5î
SPSM
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
443
Date(s)Drilled: 4-22-2024
2194
Appendix!C!
2195
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project: 95 Argonaut Performed by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Date: 5/6/2024
Dry Soil
before
Wash
+
WContainer
Dry Soil
after #200
Wash
+
WContainer
WContainer
Wt of soil
retained on
# 200
sieve
Initial wt of
dry soil
Soil % passing
200 sieve
g g g g g %
H-1 B-1 0-5 Olive, Sandy Elastic Silt (MH) 520.19 329.13 221.19 107.94 299.00 63.90 H-2 B-1 0-5 Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand
(MH) 533.02 305.89 220.07 85.82 312.95 72.58
H-3 B-1 0-5 Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand
(MH) 466.67 288.21 222.20 66.01 244.47 73.00
MATERIALS FINER THAN 75-μm (No. 200) SIEVE by WASHING
ASTM D1140
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Sample Description
(USCS)
Depth
(ft)
2196
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Boring No.: H-1 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: B-1
Depth (ft): 0-5
Soil Description: Olive, Sandy Elastic Silt (MH)
LL LL LL PL PL
- 33 27 20 - -
(g) 25.83 25.43 25.6 12.89 12.84
(g) 19.78 19.41 19.23 10.37 10.32
(g) 11.17 11.21 10.72 4.28 4.31
(%) 70.3 73.4 74.9 41.4 41.9
73 42
31 MH
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4318
Test
Water content
Wt. of Container
Wt. of Dry soil + Container
Wt. of Wet Soil + Container
No. of blows
Plastic Limit (PL)
Liquid Limit (LL)
Remarks:
- Fine Sample is Less than 50% of Passing
#200)
USCS
Plasticity Index (PI)
0 10
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI (%)
LIQUID LIMIT, LL (%)
CL - ML
CL or OL
CH or OH
ML or OL
MH or OH
Plasticity (Clays) or Compressibility (Silts)
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
70 71
72 73
74 75
10 100
Moisture content (%)
Number of blows
25 2197
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Boring No.: H-2 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: B-1
Depth (ft): 0-5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH)
LL LL LL PL PL
- 32 26 19 - -
(g) 26.3 26.4 26.47 12.6 12.96
(g) 20.2 20.1 19.97 10.29 10.57
(g) 11.27 11.2 10.98 4.25 4.18
(%) 68.3 70.8 72.3 38.2 37.4
70 38
32 MH
- Fine Sample is Less than 50% of Passing
#200)
Plasticity Index (PI)
USCS
Remarks:
Plastic Limit (PL)
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4318
Test
No. of blows
Wt. of Wet Soil + Container
Wt. of Dry soil + Container
Wt. of Container
Water content
Liquid Limit (LL)
0 10
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI (%)
LIQUID LIMIT, LL (%)
CL - ML
CL or OL
CH or OH
ML or OL
MH or OH
Plasticity (Clays) or Compressibility (Silts)
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
68 69
70 71
72 73
10 100
Moisture content (%)
Number of blows
25 2198
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Boring No.: H-4 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: B-1
Depth (ft): 0-5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH)
LL LL LL PL PL
- 31 25 18 - -
(g) 26.92 26.3 26.43 12.92 12.79
(g) 20.03 19.27 19.5 10.18 10.12
(g) 11.53 10.9 11.34 4.22 4.33
(%) 81.1 84.0 84.9 46.0 46.1
83 46
37 MH
- Fine Sample is Less than 50% of Passing
#200)
Plasticity Index (PI)
USCS
Remarks:
Plastic Limit (PL)
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4318
Test
No. of blows
Wt. of Wet Soil + Container
Wt. of Dry soil + Container
Wt. of Container
Water content
Liquid Limit (LL)
0 10
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI (%)
LIQUID LIMIT, LL (%)
CL - ML
CL or OL
CH or OH
ML or OL
MH or OH
Plasticity (Clays) or Compressibility (Silts)
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
81 82
83 84
85 10 100
Moisture content (%)
Number of blows
25 2199
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project: 95 Argonaut Tested by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Boring Number: H-1 Date: 05/06/24
Sample Number: B-1
Depth (ft) : 0-5
Soil Description: Olive, Sandy Elastic Silt (MH)
Mold size (in) 4" 91.1
Procedure B 11.7
Weight Retained on: 7.7 94.1
Remarks: 10.8
Compaction Characteristics of Soils Using Modified Effort ASTM D1557
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Corrected Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Corrected Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
70 80
90 100
110
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Gs= 2.80
Gs= 2.70
2200
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Boring No.: H-1 Date:
Sample No.: B-1
Depth (ft): 0-5 Apparatus No.: 1
Soil Description: Olive, Sandy Elastic Silt (MH)
184.51 g 594.84 g
156.08 g 472.51 g
11.29 g 206.54 g
28.43 g 122.33 g
144.79 g 265.97 g
19.6 % 46.0 %
528.85 g
206.54 g
322.31 g
98.8 pcf 5/17/2024 10:25 0 0
82.6 pcf 5/17/2024 10:35 10 0.0000
2.68 -
51.4 % 5/18/2024 10:25 1440 0.0909
Wt. of water
Wt. of container
High
∆h, Expansion
0 0
Moisture Content
Final Specimen Info
Wt. of wet soil + cont.
Wt. of dry soil + cont.
Wt. of container
EXPANSION INDEX
ASTM D4829
5/6/2024
Wt. of wet soil + cont.
Initial Specimen Info
Wt. of water
Wt. of ring
Wt. of wet soil + ring
Wt. of wet soil
Wt. of dry soil + cont.
Wet density of soil
Wt. of dry soil
Expansion Index =
Dial
Reading
Saturation
Moisture Content
Add Distilled Water to Sample
Date & Time
Elapsed
Time
(min)
0.0909
91 Specific gravity of soil
Dry density of soil
Wt. of dry soil
2201
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: GA
Project No.: 24059-01 Checked by: KL
Boring No.: H-4 Date:
Sample No.: B-1
Depth (ft): 0-5 Apparatus No.: 2
Soil Description: Olive, Sandy Elastic Silt (MH)
163.33 g 582.98 g
138.46 g 45395.00 g
23.29 g 206.33 g
24.87 g -44812.02 g
115.17 g 45188.67 g
21.6 % -99.2 %
511.95 g
206.33 g
305.62 g
95.2 pcf 5/17/2024 11:00 0 0
78.3 pcf 5/17/2024 11:10 10 0.0000
2.68 -
50.9 % 5/18/2024 11:00 1440 0.1036
Wt. of water
Wt. of container
High
∆h, Expansion
0 0
Moisture Content
Final Specimen Info
Wt. of wet soil + cont.
Wt. of dry soil + cont.
Wt. of container
EXPANSION INDEX
ASTM D4829
5/6/2024
Wt. of wet soil + cont.
Initial Specimen Info
Wt. of water
Wt. of ring
Wt. of wet soil + ring
Wt. of wet soil
Wt. of dry soil + cont.
Wet density of soil
Wt. of dry soil
Expansion Index =
Dial
Reading
Saturation
Moisture Content
Add Distilled Water to Sample
Date & Time
Elapsed
Time
(min)
0.1036
104
Specific gravity of soil
Dry density of soil
Wt. of dry soil
2202
SAG-24-018-2
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc GA
Project Name: 95 Argonaut KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Date:
Boring No.: H-1
Sample No.: D-2
Sample Type:
Depth (ft): 5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH) Type of test: Consolidated, Drained
1 2 3
1 2 4
0.002 0.002 0.002
#REF! #REF!
O 1.32 1.85 2.94
X 0.96 1.34 2.36
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.9998 0.9936 0.9883
2.416 2.416 2.416
43.8 43.8 43.8
54.3 52.5 50.4
71.1 71.4 72.3
Undisturbed Ring
Test No.
Symbol
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
HAI Project No.:
Tested by:
Checked by:
5/6/2024
ASTM D3080
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf)
Initial Height of Sample (in)
Diameter of Sample (in)
Height of Sample before Shear (in)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
0 1
2 3
4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak
Ultimate
0 1
2 3
4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in)
2203
SAG-24-018-2
Client: SA Geotechnical, Inc GA
Project Name: 95 Argonaut KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Date:
Boring No.: H-4
Sample No.: D-1
Sample Type:
Depth (ft): 2.5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH) Type of test: Consolidated, Drained
1 2 3
1 2 4
0.002 0.002 0.002
#REF! #REF!
O 0.88 1.66 2.52
X 0.79 1.38 2.16
1.000 1.000 1.000
1.0004 0.9954 0.9909
2.416 2.416 2.416
56.4 56.4 56.4
68.8 61.8 52.6
61.0 62.8 65.8
Undisturbed Ring
Test No.
Symbol
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
HAI Project No.:
Tested by:
Checked by:
5/6/2024
ASTM D3080
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf)
Initial Height of Sample (in)
Diameter of Sample (in)
Height of Sample before Shear (in)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
0 1
2 3
4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak
Ultimate
0 1
2 3
4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in)
2204
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-1 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-1
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 2.5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH) H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calculated based on Gs= 2.74
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)
0.01 ------- 1.0000 0.676 2.085
0.2 0.0011 0.9990 0.675 2.081 1.7E-02 5.5E-03
0.4 0.0033 0.9967 0.673 2.075 3.5E-02 1.1E-02
0.8 0.0060 0.9940 0.670 2.066 2.1E-02 6.8E-03
1.6 0.0132 0.9869 0.663 2.044 2.8E-02 9.1E-03
3.2 0.0244 0.9757 0.651 2.010 2.2E-02 7.2E-03
3.2 0.0269 0.9731 0.649 2.002
6.4 0.0430 0.9571 0.633 1.952 1.5E-02 5.2E-03
12.8 0.0793 0.9208 0.597 1.840 1.7E-02 6.2E-03
25.6 0.1369 0.8632 0.539 1.663 1.4E-02 5.2E-03
6.4 0.1262 0.8739 0.550 1.696
1.6 0.1117 0.8884 0.564 1.740
0.4 0.1001 0.8999 0.576 1.776
e Comment
(%)
10.0 1.3
2.7 2.4
11.2 Water Added
Unloaded
12.6 13.7
7.9 4.3
0.6 0.3
0.1 0
Consol.
0.613
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
108.29
Height
0.553
0.324
0.900
112.80
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
66.73 1.000
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight
0.324
Final Conditions
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
96.1 Height of Air
62.3 90.7
69.0 0.063
55.4 68.4
0.023
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
2205
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-1 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-1
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 2.5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH)
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
-2.0
1.6 5.2
8.8 12.4
16.0 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
1.65 1.75
1.85 1.95
2.05 2.15
0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
2206
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-1 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-5
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 15
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH) H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calculated based on Gs= 2.74
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)
0.01 ------- 1.0000 0.659 1.928
0.2 0.0025 0.9975 0.656 1.921 3.9E-02 1.3E-02
0.4 0.0075 0.9925 0.651 1.907 7.2E-02 2.5E-02
0.8 0.0103 0.9897 0.648 1.898 2.0E-02 7.1E-03
1.6 0.0172 0.9828 0.641 1.878 2.5E-02 8.8E-03
3.2 0.0283 0.9717 0.630 1.846 2.0E-02 7.1E-03
3.2 0.0304 0.9696 0.628 1.839
6.4 0.0479 0.9522 0.611 1.788 1.6E-02 5.7E-03
12.8 0.0818 0.9183 0.577 1.689 1.6E-02 5.8E-03
25.6 0.1261 0.8740 0.532 1.559 1.0E-02 4.0E-03
6.4 0.1156 0.8845 0.543 1.590
1.6 0.1001 0.8999 0.558 1.635
0.4 0.0852 0.9148 0.573 1.679
e Comment
(%)
8.5 1.7
3.0 2.8
10.0 Water Added
Unloaded
11.6 12.6
8.2 4.8
1.0 0.8
0.3 0
Consol.
0.627
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
112.21
Height
0.558
0.341
0.915
117.41
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
70.29 1.000
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight
0.341
Final Conditions
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
97.3 Height of Air
59.6 95.2
67.0 0.031
58.4 69.8
0.015
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
2207
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-1 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-5
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 15
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH)
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
-2.0
1.6 5.2
8.8 12.4
16.0 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
1.50 1.60
1.70 1.80
1.90 2.00
0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
2208
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-3 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-2
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH) H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calculated based on Gs= 2.74
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)
0.01 ------- 1.0000 0.716 2.517
0.2 0.0028 0.9972 0.713 2.508 5.2E-02 1.5E-02
0.4 0.0068 0.9932 0.709 2.494 7.0E-02 2.0E-02
0.8 0.0115 0.9885 0.704 2.477 4.1E-02 1.2E-02
1.6 0.0219 0.9781 0.694 2.440 4.6E-02 1.3E-02
3.2 0.0338 0.9663 0.682 2.399 2.6E-02 7.7E-03
3.2 0.0359 0.9641 0.680 2.391
6.4 0.0522 0.9479 0.664 2.334 1.8E-02 5.4E-03
12.8 0.0878 0.9123 0.628 2.209 2.0E-02 6.1E-03
25.6 0.1434 0.8566 0.572 2.013 1.5E-02 5.1E-03
6.4 0.1326 0.8675 0.583 2.051
1.6 0.1168 0.8832 0.599 2.107
0.4 0.0997 0.9003 0.616 2.167
e Comment
(%)
10.0 2.2
3.6 3.4
11.7 Water Added
Unloaded
13.3 14.3
8.8 5.2
1.1 0.7
0.3 0
Consol.
0.661
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
103.32
Height
0.596
0.284
0.900
108.17
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
58.52 1.000
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight
0.284
Final Conditions
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
96.8 Height of Air
76.6 92.3
84.8 0.055
48.6 60.0
0.020
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
2209
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-3 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-2
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 5
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH)
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
-4.0
0.0 4.0
8.0 12.0
16.0 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
1.90 2.04
2.18 2.32
2.46 2.60
0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
2210
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-4 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-4
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 10
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH) H (in)
Hs (in)
Hw (in)
Ha (in)
(pcf)
(%)
(%)
* Saturation is calculated based on Gs= 2.74
Load δH H Voids av Mv
(ksf) (in) (in) (in) (ksf-1) (ksf-1)
0.01 ------- 1.0000 0.710 2.451
0.2 0.0038 0.9963 0.707 2.438 6.8E-02 2.0E-02
0.4 0.0099 0.9901 0.700 2.417 1.1E-01 3.1E-02
0.8 0.0166 0.9834 0.694 2.394 5.8E-02 1.7E-02
1.6 0.0311 0.9689 0.679 2.344 6.3E-02 1.9E-02
3.2 0.0492 0.9508 0.661 2.282 3.9E-02 1.2E-02
3.2 0.0517 0.9483 0.659 2.273
6.4 0.0729 0.9271 0.637 2.200 2.3E-02 7.1E-03
12.8 0.1117 0.8883 0.599 2.066 2.1E-02 6.8E-03
25.6 0.1643 0.8358 0.546 1.885 1.4E-02 4.9E-03
6.4 0.1536 0.8464 0.557 1.921
1.6 0.1382 0.8618 0.572 1.974
0.4 0.1201 0.8799 0.590 2.037
e Comment
(%)
12.0 3.1
5.2 4.9
13.8 Water Added
Unloaded
15.4 16.4
11.2 7.3
1.7 1.0
0.4 0
Consol.
0.689
Initial Conditions
(g) (g) (g)
103.94
Height
0.590
0.290
0.880
111.40
Height of Water
Height of Solids
Initial Total Weight
59.64 1.000
Final Total Weight Final Dry Weight
0.290
Final Conditions
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
99.9 Height of Air
74.3 97.0
86.8 0.021
49.5 64.0
0.000
Saturation
Water Content
Dry Density
2211
Client : SA Geotechnical, Inc HAI Project No.: SAG-24-018-2 Project Name: 95 Argonaut Tested by: KL
Project Number: 24059-01 Checked by: MV
Boring No.: H-4 Date: 05/06/24
Sample No.: D-4
Type of Sample: Undisturbed ring
Depth (ft): 10
Soil Description: Olive Gray, Elastic Silt with Sand (MH)
CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D2435
-2.0
2.0 6.0
10.0 14.0
18.0 0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
1.85 1.99
2.13 2.27
2.41 2.55
0.1 1 10 100
Void Ratio, e
Pressure, p (ksf)
Water added
2212
Project X REPORT S240515F
Corrosion Engineering Page 2
Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
Soil Analysis Lab Results
Client: HAI
Job Name: 95 Argonaut
Client Job Number: SAG-24-018-2 / 24059-01
Project X Job Number: S240515F
May 17, 2024
Method
Bore# /
Description
Depth
(ft) (mg/kg) (wt%) (mg/kg) (wt%)
H-1 B-1 0-5 768.4 0.0768 156.2 0.0156
H-4 B-1 0-5 713.1 0.0713 82.9 0.0083
ASTM
D4327
ASTM
D4327
Sulfates
SO4
2-
Chlorides
ClCations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid)
Note: Sometimes a bad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers are Potassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is another reason why testing full corrosion series is good because we then have the data to see if those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fertilizercontaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops. This is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also notorious for these items.
If one sample pops up much more corrosive than all others, we would recommend collecting more samples surrounding the problem sample location to determine if the peak is isolated to it. This allows us to conclude it was a contaminated sample and able to declare it an outlier.
Try out our new online forms: SOIL CORROSIVITY & THERMAL RESISTIVITY LAB REQUEST FORM & IN-SITU WENNER 4 PIN QUOTE REQUEST FORM 2213
Appendix!D!
2214
!
!
"##$
#
"#%&'()*%
##"# +
,
-./012345678/09:;3/<:=>38/?0/[email protected]/BC0 D57:76E=8/D342:76E=F/GGH.-I.-JG8/KLLJHJ@I@-GJ M57= NO M=;:24/?3E=/P=Q=1=4R=/M3R6S=47 T UVWX
P:;Y/?57=231Z [[ C:7=/?95;; X
!!
# \Z]= <596= M=;R1:]7:34
^ UV_"
`!N
a
N
^ UV_"
`!
N
a
X !
#
#
#"
"##X
^
N
^ b"
#"
N
T
"##X
^ b"
#"
N
T \Z]= <596= M=;R1:]7:34
U "##X
^
c d
N
#!!N
"##X
^
#!!
N
T N
e
e UV
+"
#
d
T
#!!
T
T N
e
!
+"
#
fg ^ gX
_f
^
#+X
"
`N
a
h
N d
"!Xi `j
#c!
,
eNc
a
#
#
^O d
#
#"
`N
a
_f N
^
#+X
"
`
N
a
h N
^ d
"!Xi `j
#c!
,
eNc
a
#
#
N
^ d
#
#"
`
N
a
T
N
W d
#
#"
`
+
" T
#
a 2215
!"# $ %&'(
)(*+ ,-
. /
010
234567889:2
;
5
0/:
<
=,>5-
9 ?@
/
A
5B9>
2
=
22
5 @1
5B9>
2
=
22
521 C 1
C
9
22
2216
! "#
$
%
&
&
#
'
%&
(
(
)%%&**
&#+ #&#+$*+
,
#
%
&#*#%&
*
%
#
%*$+
$#*
- %'
$$*+*&#+%#&#+&+
#
%$
#
(
(
)%
%
*
$ $
#
*%.*%
$*
$
#'
-
%/#
%
$
#%$
*&*
$
%%$
0*
%$*$
#
%#+
*#$
%'%
%&+
&
$
$$
&
*
###&#+$**
$
**$
&
%
#+'#&+
'
&*#%%
&%
&#
$&*#%%
'#%
$
&*#%
%
&
%&+#*%
#*%
#
*#$
&
2217
!
"
#$%&'()*+,+-().//0
1 23456
7898:;<=>=?@AB>:95CD<E:F:GBC6HI5BJ<:KBLBCMN:OC=?CBP O><BN<:M=:3=6:5N<:6H@N:6==>:6=:=Q6B@3:?C=53M:P=6@=3:4BCBP<6<C:DB>5<N:R=C:6H<:M<N@?3:A=M< C<R<C<3A<:M=A5P<36N:A=D<C<M:QE:6H<:7898:9<@NP@A:S<N@?3:TB4N:U<Q:6==>N:V<8?8W:6H< 236<C3B6@=3B>:X5@>M@3?:Y=M<:B3M:6H<:Z9YG:[:=C:\]:96B3MBCM^8:_H<:DB>5<N:C<65C3<M:QE:6H<:6U= B44>@AB6@=3N:BC<:3=6:@M<36@AB>8 O><BN<:B>N=:N<<:6H<:3<U:79;9:GBC6HI5BJ<:KBLBCM:_==>Q=`:R=C:BAA<NN:6=:6H<:P=N6:C<A<36:a9KTN R=C:6H<:A=36<CP@3=5N:7898:B3M:KBUB@@8 GM@6@=3 SE3BP@Ab:Y=36<CP@3=5N:7898:cd]\:V5e fB6@65M< S<A@PB>:M<?C<<N gg8hi\hi[g f=3?@65M< S<A@PB>:M<?C<<NW:3<?B6@D<:DB>5<N:R=C:U<N6<C3:>=3?@65M<N F]][8[c\cig[ 9@6<:Y>BNN chi:PjN:V9@6<:A>BNN:S^ 94<A6CB>:O<C@=M O<BJ:;C=53M:ZAA<><CB6@=3 _@P<:K=C@L=3 k<65C3:4<C@=M:@3:E<BCN c\[h 2218
!
" #$%&&'$&%()*+ ,*-.*+$+( /*(%0 123245627725879: 1232;5879277258: 1232;5827725<79: 1232;5<7927725<: 1232;5<27725=79: 1232;5=792772=: 1232;=2772=79: 1232;=792772<: 1232;<2772<79: 1232;<7927728: 1232;82772879: 1232;8792772>6: 9 89 ?9 ,0*@$@(2#)@(%+A$B2'CD
F9
.24E-:
G9 <=9 H G79 G I79
J%&+)(DK$24JL:
I F79 F 97 9 ?79
9M2,*+(')ND()*+2(*2O%P%'K <= <9 8=
9 89 ?9 F9
,0*@$@(2#)@(%+A$B2'CD.24E-:
G9 <=9
H G79 G I79 I F79
J%&+)(DK$24JL:
F 979 9 ?79
2219
!
"#$$%&'()*%*+)*+,)(-.&/(01%22&12%*+.34(5.*%6 01%22&12%*+.3(*%&21*) 789:;<=>8;?@ABCDEFGHIJ KLM88AN<M8=;N98BOPOOODODODODGHIQR STU=V;@:<A=W@9?@<BOPXYZ[CC[FG\ ]1,.^1&1_(*%&21*) 789:;<=>8;?@ABC``OPD[YDGHIJ KLM88AN<M8=;N98BOPOOOZDEYXC[`GHIQR 5.*%6) a?<<8ABYOOGb 78c?A:NdBOGb e;NM8BOPOEGb f1%3(g.^1&(%66().#&,1)h WBXPXZ ;BYCPCZGij klBYPCCGm f._1(g6%&21)*($n&(o+3h WBXP`[ ;BDPFYGij klBOPDYGm p@<9;?q:9?@<BYOPOCGb f._1(g6%&21)*($n&nrl(o+3h WBXP`[ ;BZPD`Gij klBOPCGm p@<9;?q:9?@<BEPO`Gb 0+),&1*+s%*+.3 ;BjtuGvGOPOwGjxyGvGYOOOPOwGzGvGCOPOGij WBjtuGvGDPDwGjxyGvG[PDwGzGvGOPC kBjtuGvG{ZPOwGjxyGvGZPOwGzGvGOPFGm |})+6.3(~1') kB{GPPG{CPF kB{CPFGPPG{CPO kB{CPOGPPG{YPF k B{YPFGPPG{YPO kB{YPOGPPG{OPF kB{OPFGPPGOPO kBOPOGPPGOPF kBOPFGPPGYPO kBYPOGPPGYPF kBYPFGPPGCPO kBCPOGPPGCPF kBCPFGPPG 2220
!
"#$%%&#%$'()*+,)*'&(-.')&/ 01234560576 6012345 89:5 3 ; <= >1? >@7 @A B CDEEFGHIJKLMEN OPQRST NUVWX OYZ[\]Y^_`Z[a`bbQ[cNd EVNe fVgg WVNE ggfVfgEhi EEVeWWhj eWVNE gXVkk jSlm]GRnoZJbSl]]p[qrsQt]GSu[cNd ggVkv fVEg gVNg ggfVkWehi EEVvgEhj NgUVkN XVfU wbQ`Z]GS[qxbSZ[oIPu[GSI[cgd NkVkE fVNk NVgg ggfVvWUhi EEVfkNhj XEVeN NVvf CDEEFGHIJKLMEg OPQRST NvVvN OYZ[\]Y^_`Z[a`bbQ[cNd EVNe fVvN WVgk ggfVfgEhi EEVeWWhj eWVNE UVNk jSlm]GRnoZJbSl]]p[qrsQt]GSu[cNd ggVkv fVEg gVNg ggfVkWehi EEVvgEhj NgUVkN vVWX rySYZQ`pS[YbRg[ced kVgN fVWW WVeN ggfVkWNhi EEVvgXhj NgkVUf EVWe wbQ`Z]GS[qxbSZ[oIPu[GSI[cgd NkVkE fVNe NVgN ggfVvWUhi EEVfkNhj XEVeN NVvN CDEEFGHIJKLMEg[q]mRu xG`p NNVkg z]`ZRO]_GySL`Z`RS{[nggfVfNX|[EEVegf vVeE vVee gVWe ggfVfNXhi EEVegfhj WVWW XVgX z]`ZRO]_GySL`Z`RS{[nggfVfNX|[EEVeUk gWVkU eVWf gVeN ggfVfNXhi EEVeUkhj WVWW NVWg z]`ZRO]_GySL`Z`RS{[nggfVfNX|[EEVeeN kVkE vVek gVvv ggfVfNXhi EEVeeNhj WVWW gVfU CDEEFGHIJKLMEN[q]mRu xG`p NNVeE z]`ZRO]_GySL`Z`RS{[nggfVfNX|[EEVegf vVeE vVee gVWe ggfVfNXhi EEVegfhj WVWW XVgg z]`ZRO]_GySL`Z`RS{[nggfVfNX|[EEVeUk gWVkU eVWf gVeN ggfVfNXhi EEVeUkhj WVWW NVWg z]`ZRO]_GySL`Z`RS{[nggfVfNX|[EEVeeN kVkE vVek gVvv ggfVfNXhi EEVeeNhj WVWW gVfe 2221
Appendix!E!
2222
Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Filename Description Factor of Safety (FS)
Static Pseudostatic
01, 01p Global Stability of 25-foot High Fill Slope 2.38 1.46 Project No.: 24059-01
Project Name: Meritage/ 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo
2223
95 Argonaut. Aliso Viejo
Global Stability of 25' High Slopes
SA Geotechnical, Inc. C:\Users\Reza Saberi\SA Geotechnical, Inc\SA Geotechnical - Projects\2024\24059-01 Meritage - 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo\Engineering\Sted\General Slope\01.gsd Spencer Method
PLATE C.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500
GEOSTASEÆ v4.30.32 by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE
GEOSTASE FS = 2.381
B 1
B 2
B 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500 No. FS
1 2.381
2 2.381
3 2.387
4 2.387
5 2.390
6 2.391
7 2.394
8 2.394
9 2.395
10 2.396
Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru -Uw Fact Piez Surf Soil
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (unsat) No. Options 1 Fill 110.0 110.0 400.0 24.0 0.000 0.0 1
2224
95 Argonaut. Aliso Viejo
Global Stability of 25' High Slopes
SA Geotechnical, Inc. C:\Users\Reza Saberi\SA Geotechnical, Inc\SA Geotechnical - Projects\2024\24059-01 Meritage - 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo\Engineering\Sted\General Slope\01.gsd Spencer Method
PLATE C.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500
GEOSTASEÆ v4.30.32 by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE
GEOSTASE FS = 2.381
B 1
B 2
B 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500 No. FS
1 2.381
2 2.381
3 2.387
4 2.387
5 2.390
6 2.391
7 2.394
8 2.394
9 2.395
10 2.396
Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru -Uw Fact Piez Surf Soil
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (unsat) No. Options 1 Fill 110.0 110.0 400.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 1
2225
*** GEOSTASE(R) ***
** GEOSTASE(R) (c)Copyright by Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,S.E.,BC.GE ** ** Current Version 4.30.32‐Double Precision, Sept 2023 ** (All Rights Reserved‐Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOFTWARE (2D & 3D)
Simplified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or General Equilibrium (GE) Options. (Spencer, Morgenstern‐Price, USACE, and Lowe & Karafiath) Including Pier/Pile, Planar Reinf, Nail, Tieback, Line Loads Applied Forces, Fiber‐Reinforced Soil (FRS), Distributed Loads Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Strength Envelope, Anisotropic Strengths, Water Surfaces, 3‐Stage Rapid Drawdown 2‐ or 3‐Stage Pseudo‐Static & Simplified Newmark Seismic Analyses. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Date: 5/ 28/ 2024
Analysis Time:
Analysis By: SA Geotechnical, Inc.
Input File Name: C:\Users\Reza Saberi\SA Geotechnical, Inc\SA Geotechnical ‐ Projects\2024\24059‐01 Meritage ‐ 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo\Engineering\Sted\General Slope\01.gsd
Output File Name: C:\Users\Reza Saberi\SA Geotechnical, Inc\SA Geotechnical ‐ Projects\2024\24059‐01 Meritage ‐ 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo\Engineering\Sted\General Slope\01.OUT
Unit System: English
PROJECT: 95 Argonaut. Aliso Viejo
DESCRIPTION: Global Stability of 25' High Slopes
2226
PROFILE BOUNDARY DATA
3 Surface Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X ‐ 1 Y ‐ 1 X ‐ 2 Y ‐ 2 Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.000 422.000 60.000 422.000 1 2 60.000 422.000 110.000 447.000 1 3 110.000 447.000 160.000 447.000 1 User Specified X‐Origin = 0.000(ft)
User Specified Y‐Origin = 400.000(ft)
SURFACE BOUNDARY POINT COORDINATES
(Information Only‐Not Used Directly)
Point No. X‐COORD Y‐COORD
1 0.000 422.000
2 60.000 422.000
3 110.000 447.000
4 160.000 447.000
SUBSURFACE BOUNDARY POINT COORDINATES
(Information Only‐Not Used Directly)
Point No. X‐COORD Y‐COORD
PROFILE BOUNDARY SLOPES AND ANGLES
BND No. Slope Angle(Deg.)
1 0.000 0.000
2 0.500 26.565
3 0.000 0.000
MOHR‐COULOMB SOIL PARAMETERS
1 Type(s) of Soil Defined
2227
Soil Number Moist Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore (‐Uw) Water Water and Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Fact. Surface Option Description (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ratio(ru) No. 1 Fill 110.0 110.0 400.00 24.00 0.000 0.0 1 0
TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE DATA
Circular Trial Failure Surfaces Have Been Generated Using A Random Procedure.
2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
2000 Surfaces Generated at Increments of 0.0600(in) Equally Spaced Within the Start Range Along The Specified Surface Between X = 55.00(ft)
and X = 65.00(ft)
Each Surface ends within a Range Between X = 110.00(ft) and X = 140.00(ft)
All surfaces are generated left to right for both a left and right sliding slope.
Unless XCLUDE Lines Were Specified, The Minimum Elevation To Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 400.00(ft)
Specified Maximum Radius = 100000.000(ft)
3.000(ft) Line Segments Were Used For Each Trial Failure Surface.
The Spencer Method Was Selected for FS Analysis.
Selected fx function = Constant (1.0)
2228
SELECTED CONVERGENCE PARAMETERS FOR SPENCER METHOD:
Initial estimate of FS = 1.500
FS tolerance = 0.000001000
Initial estimate of theta(deg) = 15.00
Theta tolerance(radians) = 0.0001000
Minimum theta(deg) = ‐45.00 ; Maximum theta(deg) = 45.00 Theta convergence Step Factor = 5000.00
Maximum number of iterations = 50
Allowable negative side force = ‐1000.0(lbs)
Maximum force imbalance = 100.000000(lbs)
Maximum moment imbalance = 100.000000 (ft/lbs)
Selected Lambda Coefficient = 1.00
Specified Tension Crack Water Depth Factor = 0.000
Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 2000
WARNING! The Factor of Safety Calculation for one or More Trial Surfaces Did Not Converge in 50 Iterations.
Number of Trial Surfaces with Non‐Converged FS = 242
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 1758
Percentage of Trial Surfaces With Non‐Converged and/or
Non‐Valid FS Solutions of the Total Attempted = 12.1 % Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 7.876 FS Min = 2.381 FS Ave = 2.890
Standard Deviation = 0.400 Coefficient of Variation = 13.85 % Critical Surface is Sequence Number 860 of Those Analyzed. *****BEGINNING OF DETAILED GEOSTASE OUTPUT FOR CRITICAL SURFACE FROM A SEARCH***** 2229
BACK‐CALCULATED CIRCULAR SURFACE PARAMETERS:
Circle Center At X = 73.583338(ft) ; Y = 471.872496(ft); and Radius = 51.705663(ft) Circular Trial Failure Surface Generated With 25 Coordinate Points Point X‐Coord. Y‐Coord.
No. (ft) (ft)
1 59.93747 422.00000
2 62.85286 421.29254
3 65.80437 420.75534
4 68.78207 420.39023
5 71.77593 420.19843
6 74.77588 420.18059
7 77.77181 420.33676
8 80.75364 420.66642
9 83.71134 421.16846
10 86.63494 421.84119
11 89.51460 422.68235
12 92.34063 423.68910
13 95.10352 424.85806
14 97.79396 426.18528
15 100.40290 427.66631
16 102.92155 429.29615
17 105.34144 431.06933
18 107.65441 432.97986
19 109.85270 435.02132
20 111.92888 437.18684
21 113.87598 439.46912
22 115.68743 441.86048
23 117.35715 444.35288
24 118.87950 446.93792
25 118.91136 447.00000
Iter. Theta FS FS
No. (deg) (Moment) (Force)
2230
(fx=1.0) Lambda Delta FS 1 15.0000 2.446791 2.358132 0.268 0.8865890E‐01 2 19.9500 2.277947 2.410070 0.363 0.1321227E+00 3 16.9874 2.389777 2.378405 0.305 0.1137135E‐01 4 17.2227 2.382173 2.380855 0.310 0.1318158E‐02 5 17.2535 2.381161 2.381176 0.311 0.1509128E‐04 6 17.2532 2.381173 2.381173 0.311 0.2018040E‐07 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 2.381 Theta (fx = 1.0) = 17.25 Deg Lambda = 0.311
The Spencer Method Has Been Selected For Analysis.
Selected fx function = Constant (1.0)
SELECTED CONVERGENCE PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS METHOD:
Initial estimate of FS = 1.500
FS tolerance = 0.000001000
Initial estimate of theta(deg) = 15.00
Theta tolerance(radians) = 0.0001000
Minimum theta(deg) = ‐45.00 ; Maximum theta(deg) = 45.00 Theta convergence Step Factor = 5000.00
Maximum number of iterations = 50
Maximum force imbalance = 100.000000(lbs)
Maximum moment imbalance(if Applicable) = 100.000000 (ft/lbs) Selected Lambda Coefficient = 1.00
Tension Crack Water Force = 0.00(lbs)
Specified Tension Crack Water Depth Factor = 0.000 ( 0.00% Filled ) Depth of Tension Crack (zo) at Side of Last Slice = 0.000(ft) Depth of Water in Tension Crack = 0.000(ft)
2231
Theoretical Tension Crack Depth = 11.199(ft)
NOTE: In Table 1 following, when a tension crack with water is present on the first slice (right facing slope) or on the last slice (left facing slope), the "side force" in the tension crack is set equal to the water pressure resultant. *** Table 1 ‐ Line of Thrust(if applicable) and Slice Force Data *** Slice X Y Side Force fx Force Angle Vert. Shear No. Coord. Coord. h/H (lbs) (Deg) Force(lbs) 1 60.00 422.00 1.000+ 14.21 1.000 17.25 4.2 2 62.85 422.10 0.376 846.01 1.000 17.25 250.9 3 65.80 422.15 0.336 1938.72 1.000 17.25 575.0 4 68.78 422.29 0.316 3153.82 1.000 17.25 935.4 5 71.78 422.53 0.303 4386.02 1.000 17.25 1300.9 6 74.78 422.87 0.292 5547.84 1.000 17.25 1645.5 7 77.77 423.32 0.283 6568.74 1.000 17.25 1948.3 8 80.75 423.88 0.275 7394.31 1.000 17.25 2193.1 9 83.71 424.55 0.266 7985.59 1.000 17.25 2368.5 10 86.63 425.32 0.258 8318.33 1.000 17.25 2467.2 11 89.51 426.18 0.249 8382.18 1.000 17.25 2486.1 12 92.34 427.15 0.239 8179.80 1.000 17.25 2426.1 13 95.10 428.20 0.227 7725.88 1.000 17.25 2291.5 14 97.79 429.33 0.214 7045.96 1.000 17.25 2089.8 15 100.40 430.54 0.198 6175.20 1.000 17.25 1831.5 16 102.92 431.81 0.177 5156.95 1.000 17.25 1529.5 17 105.34 433.11 0.150 4041.22 1.000 17.25 1198.6 18 107.65 434.41 0.111 2883.00 1.000 17.25 855.1 19 109.85 435.58 0.047 1740.49 1.000 17.25 516.2 20 110.00 435.65 0.040 1659.55 1.000 17.25 492.2 21 111.93 435.96 0.000‐ 735.94 1.000 17.25 218.3 22 113.88 319.35 0.000‐ 12.72 1.000 17.25 3.8 23 115.69 445.03 0.616 ‐377.52 1.000 17.25 ‐112.0 24 117.36 445.45 0.413 ‐395.07 1.000 17.25 ‐117.2 25 118.88 446.96 0.419 ‐13.96 1.000 17.25 ‐4.1 2232
26 118.91 447.00 0.000 0.00 1.000 17.25 0.0 NOTE: A value of 0.000‐ for h/H indicates that the line of thrust is at or below the lower boundary of the sliding mass. A value of 1.000+ for h/H indicates that the line of thrust is at or above the upper boundary of the sliding mass.
***Table 2 ‐ Geometry Data on the 26 Slices***
Slice Width Height X‐Cntr Y‐Cntr‐Base Y‐Cntr‐Top Alpha Beta Base Length No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) 1 0.06 0.01 59.97 421.99 422.00 ‐13.64 0.00 0.06 2 2.85 1.07 61.43 421.64 422.71 ‐13.64 26.57 2.94 3 2.95 3.14 64.33 421.02 424.16 ‐10.32 26.57 3.00 4 2.98 5.07 67.29 420.57 425.65 ‐6.99 26.57 3.00 5 2.99 6.85 70.28 420.29 427.14 ‐3.67 26.57 3.00 6 3.00 8.45 73.28 420.19 428.64 ‐0.34 26.57 3.00 7 3.00 9.88 76.27 420.26 430.14 2.98 26.57 3.00 8 2.98 11.13 79.26 420.50 431.63 6.31 26.57 3.00 9 2.96 12.20 82.23 420.92 433.12 9.63 26.57 3.00 10 2.92 13.08 85.17 421.50 434.59 12.96 26.57 3.00 11 2.88 13.78 88.07 422.26 436.04 16.28 26.57 3.00 12 2.83 14.28 90.93 423.19 437.46 19.61 26.57 3.00 13 2.76 14.59 93.72 424.27 438.86 22.93 26.57 3.00 14 2.69 14.70 96.45 425.52 440.22 26.26 26.57 3.00 15 2.61 14.62 99.10 426.93 441.55 29.58 26.57 3.00 16 2.52 14.35 101.66 428.48 442.83 32.91 26.57 3.00 17 2.42 13.88 104.13 430.18 444.07 36.23 26.57 3.00 18 2.31 13.22 106.50 432.02 445.25 39.56 26.57 3.00 19 2.20 12.38 108.75 434.00 446.38 42.88 26.57 3.00 20 0.15 11.87 109.93 435.10 446.96 46.21 26.57 0.21 21 1.93 10.82 110.96 436.18 447.00 46.21 0.00 2.79 22 1.95 8.67 112.90 438.33 447.00 49.53 0.00 3.00 23 1.81 6.34 114.78 440.66 447.00 52.86 0.00 3.00 24 1.67 3.89 116.52 443.11 447.00 56.18 0.00 3.00 25 1.52 1.35 118.12 445.65 447.00 59.51 0.00 3.00 2233
26 0.03 0.03 118.90 446.97 447.00 62.83 0.00 0.07
***Table 2A ‐ Coordinates of Slice Points Defining the Slip Surface*** Point X‐Pt Y‐Pt
No. (ft) (ft)
1 59.937469 422.000000
2 60.000000 421.984826
3 62.852858 421.292536
4 65.804370 420.755344
5 68.782070 420.390233
6 71.775932 420.198432
7 74.775879 420.180587
8 77.771811 420.336758
9 80.753644 420.666419
10 83.711338 421.168461
11 86.634937 421.841192
12 89.514599 422.682350
13 92.340630 423.689101
14 95.103517 424.858057
15 97.793958 426.185283
16 100.402896 427.666310
17 102.921548 429.296153
18 105.341437 431.069325
19 107.654415 432.979858
20 109.852695 435.021318
21 110.000000 435.174961
22 111.928879 437.186835
23 113.875975 439.469118
24 115.687431 441.860483
25 117.357147 444.352881
26 118.879503 446.937922
27 118.911365 447.000000
2234
***Table 3 ‐ Force and Pore Pressure Data On The 26 Slices (Excluding Reinforcement)*** Ubeta Ubeta Ualpha Earthquake Force Stress Force Pore Force Distributed Slice Weight Top Top Bot Pressure ‐Uw Horiz Vert Load No. (lbs) (lbs) (psf) (lbs) (psf) (psf) (lbs) (lbs) (psf) 1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 2 337.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 3 1019.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 4 1661.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 5 2254.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 6 2787.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 7 3255.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 8 3650.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 9 3968.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 10 4207.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 11 4363.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 12 4438.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 13 4433.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 14 4351.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 15 4196.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 16 3975.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 17 3695.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 18 3364.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 19 2992.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 20 192.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 21 2295.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 22 1857.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 23 1262.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 24 715.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 25 226.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 26 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 65504.32(lbs)
EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 65504.32(lbs)
TOTAL AREA OF SLIDING MASS = 595.49(ft2)
2235
***TABLE 4 ‐ SOIL STRENGTH & SOIL OPTIONS DATA ON THE 26 SLICES*** Slice Soil Cohesion Phi(Deg) Options
No. Type (psf)
1 1 400.00 24.00
2 1 400.00 24.00
3 1 400.00 24.00
4 1 400.00 24.00
5 1 400.00 24.00
6 1 400.00 24.00
7 1 400.00 24.00
8 1 400.00 24.00
9 1 400.00 24.00
10 1 400.00 24.00
11 1 400.00 24.00
12 1 400.00 24.00
13 1 400.00 24.00
14 1 400.00 24.00
15 1 400.00 24.00
16 1 400.00 24.00
17 1 400.00 24.00
18 1 400.00 24.00
19 1 400.00 24.00
20 1 400.00 24.00
21 1 400.00 24.00
22 1 400.00 24.00
23 1 400.00 24.00
24 1 400.00 24.00
25 1 400.00 24.00
26 1 400.00 24.00
SOIL OPTIONS:
A = ANISOTROPIC SHEAR STRENGTH
C = CURVED STRENGTH ENVELOPE (TANGENT PHI & C)
F = FIBER‐REINFORCED SOIL (FRS)
M = INDEPENDENT MULTI‐STAGE SHEAR STRENGTH
2236
N = NONLINEAR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
R = RAPID DRAWDOWN OR RAPID LOADING (SEISMIC) SHEAR STRENGTH S = SHANSEP UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
NOTE: Phi and C in Table 4 are modified values based on specified Soil Options (if any).
***TABLE 5 ‐ Total Base Stress Data on the 26 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Total Total Total No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Vert. Stress Normal/Vert. * (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) Stress Ratio 1 ‐13.64 59.97 0.06 114.19 0.83 136.820 2 ‐13.64 61.43 2.94 257.11 118.20 2.175 3 ‐10.32 64.33 3.00 502.93 345.44 1.456 4 ‐6.99 67.29 3.00 716.17 558.12 1.283 5 ‐3.67 70.28 3.00 896.54 752.97 1.191 6 ‐0.34 73.28 3.00 1046.36 929.33 1.126 7 2.98 76.27 3.00 1167.54 1086.61 1.074 8 6.31 79.26 3.00 1261.74 1224.28 1.031 9 9.63 82.23 3.00 1330.42 1341.87 0.991 10 12.96 85.17 3.00 1374.94 1438.99 0.955 11 16.28 88.07 3.00 1396.55 1515.32 0.922 12 19.61 90.93 3.00 1396.49 1570.59 0.889 13 22.93 93.72 3.00 1375.97 1604.62 0.858 14 26.26 96.45 3.00 1336.22 1617.30 0.826 15 29.58 99.10 3.00 1278.52 1608.58 0.795 16 32.91 101.66 3.00 1204.17 1578.49 0.763 17 36.23 104.13 3.00 1114.58 1527.13 0.730 18 39.56 106.50 3.00 1011.23 1454.68 0.695 19 42.88 108.75 3.00 895.70 1361.38 0.658 20 46.21 109.93 0.21 809.17 1305.15 0.620 21 46.21 110.96 2.79 730.42 1190.10 0.614 22 49.53 112.90 3.00 530.57 953.92 0.556 23 52.86 114.78 3.00 329.81 696.87 0.473 24 56.18 116.52 3.00 136.34 428.26 0.318 2237
25 59.51 118.12 3.00 ‐47.05 149.01 ‐0.316 26 62.83 118.90 0.07 ‐142.16 3.41 ‐41.635
***TABLE 5A ‐ Total Base Force Data on the 26 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Total Total Total No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force Vert. Force Normal/Vert. * (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs) Force Ratio 1 ‐13.64 59.97 0.06 7.35 0.05 140.790 2 ‐13.64 61.43 2.94 754.77 337.20 2.238 3 ‐10.32 64.33 3.00 1508.80 1019.57 1.480 4 ‐6.99 67.29 3.00 2148.50 1661.91 1.293 5 ‐3.67 70.28 3.00 2689.62 2254.28 1.193 6 ‐0.34 73.28 3.00 3139.07 2787.94 1.126 7 2.98 76.27 3.00 3502.62 3255.40 1.076 8 6.31 79.26 3.00 3785.22 3650.58 1.037 9 9.63 82.23 3.00 3991.27 3968.84 1.006 10 12.96 85.17 3.00 4124.81 4207.03 0.980 11 16.28 88.07 3.00 4189.65 4363.60 0.960 12 19.61 90.93 3.00 4189.46 4438.53 0.944 13 22.93 93.72 3.00 4127.90 4433.38 0.931 14 26.26 96.45 3.00 4008.67 4351.24 0.921 15 29.58 99.10 3.00 3835.55 4196.67 0.914 16 32.91 101.66 3.00 3612.52 3975.66 0.909 17 36.23 104.13 3.00 3343.75 3695.49 0.905 18 39.56 106.50 3.00 3033.68 3364.64 0.902 19 42.88 108.75 3.00 2687.10 2992.70 0.898 20 46.21 109.93 0.21 172.23 192.26 0.896 21 46.21 110.96 2.79 2035.79 2295.56 0.887 22 49.53 112.90 3.00 1591.72 1857.38 0.857 23 52.86 114.78 3.00 989.42 1262.35 0.784 24 56.18 116.52 3.00 409.02 715.08 0.572 25 59.51 118.12 3.00 ‐141.15 226.84 ‐0.622 26 62.83 118.90 0.07 ‐9.92 0.11 ‐91.181
2238
***TABLE 6 ‐ Effective and Base Shear Stress Data on the 26 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Shear Strength Shear Stress * (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) 1 ‐13.64 59.97 0.06 114.19 450.84 189.33 2 ‐13.64 61.43 2.94 257.11 514.47 216.06 3 ‐10.32 64.33 3.00 502.93 623.92 262.02 4 ‐6.99 67.29 3.00 716.17 718.86 301.89 5 ‐3.67 70.28 3.00 896.54 799.17 335.62 6 ‐0.34 73.28 3.00 1046.36 865.87 363.63 7 2.98 76.27 3.00 1167.54 919.82 386.29 8 6.31 79.26 3.00 1261.74 961.76 403.90 9 9.63 82.23 3.00 1330.42 992.34 416.75 10 12.96 85.17 3.00 1374.94 1012.16 425.07 11 16.28 88.07 3.00 1396.55 1021.78 429.11 12 19.61 90.93 3.00 1396.49 1021.76 429.10 13 22.93 93.72 3.00 1375.97 1012.62 425.26 14 26.26 96.45 3.00 1336.22 994.92 417.83 15 29.58 99.10 3.00 1278.52 969.23 407.04 16 32.91 101.66 3.00 1204.17 936.13 393.14 17 36.23 104.13 3.00 1114.58 896.24 376.39 18 39.56 106.50 3.00 1011.23 850.23 357.06 19 42.88 108.75 3.00 895.70 798.79 335.46 20 46.21 109.93 0.21 809.17 760.27 319.28 21 46.21 110.96 2.79 730.42 725.20 304.56 22 49.53 112.90 3.00 530.57 636.23 267.19 23 52.86 114.78 3.00 329.81 546.84 229.65 24 56.18 116.52 3.00 136.34 460.70 193.48 25 59.51 118.12 3.00 ‐47.05 379.05 159.19 26 62.83 118.90 0.07 ‐142.16 336.71 141.40
***TABLE 6A ‐ Effective and Base Shear Force Data on the 26 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized 2239
No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force Shear Force Shear Force * (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 ‐13.64 59.97 0.06 7.35 29.01 12.18 2 ‐13.64 61.43 2.94 754.77 1510.31 634.27 3 ‐10.32 64.33 3.00 1508.80 1871.76 786.07 4 ‐6.99 67.29 3.00 2148.50 2156.57 905.68 5 ‐3.67 70.28 3.00 2689.62 2397.50 1006.86 6 ‐0.34 73.28 3.00 3139.07 2597.60 1090.89 7 2.98 76.27 3.00 3502.62 2759.47 1158.87 8 6.31 79.26 3.00 3785.22 2885.29 1211.71 9 9.63 82.23 3.00 3991.27 2977.03 1250.24 10 12.96 85.17 3.00 4124.81 3036.48 1275.21 11 16.28 88.07 3.00 4189.65 3065.35 1287.33 12 19.61 90.93 3.00 4189.46 3065.27 1287.29 13 22.93 93.72 3.00 4127.90 3037.86 1275.78 14 26.26 96.45 3.00 4008.67 2984.77 1253.49 15 29.58 99.10 3.00 3835.55 2907.70 1221.12 16 32.91 101.66 3.00 3612.52 2808.40 1179.42 17 36.23 104.13 3.00 3343.75 2688.73 1129.16 18 39.56 106.50 3.00 3033.68 2550.68 1071.19 19 42.88 108.75 3.00 2687.10 2396.38 1006.38 20 46.21 109.93 0.21 172.23 161.82 67.96 21 46.21 110.96 2.79 2035.79 2021.25 848.85 22 49.53 112.90 3.00 1591.72 1908.68 801.57 23 52.86 114.78 3.00 989.42 1640.52 688.95 24 56.18 116.52 3.00 409.02 1382.11 580.43 25 59.51 118.12 3.00 ‐141.15 1137.16 477.56 26 62.83 118.90 0.07 ‐9.92 23.49 9.87 Average Effective Normal Stress = 922.6529(psf)
Average Available Shear Strength = 810.7915(psf)
Total Length of Failure Surface = 69.0698(ft)
INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLIFIED 3D ANALYSIS
Composite Phi (deg)= 41.308
3D Depth (Vertical difference between ends of Slip Surface) = 25.00(ft) 2240
L/D(1): L = 25.00(ft) L/D(2): L = 50.00(ft) L/D(3): L = 75.00(ft) L/D(4): L = 100.00(ft) L/D(5): L = 125.00(ft) L/D(6): L = 150.00(ft) SUM OF MOMENTS = ‐0.109727E‐03 (ft/lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) = ‐0.1675105E‐08 SUM OF FORCES = ‐.762124E‐06 (lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) = ‐0.1163472E‐10 Sum of Available Shear Forces = 56001.19(lbs)
Sum of Mobilized Shear Forces = 23518.32(lbs)
FS Balance Check: FS = 2.381173
**** END OF GEOSTASE OUTPUT ****
2241
95 Argonaut. Aliso Viejo
Global Stability of 25' High Slopes (Pseudo-Static)
SA Geotechnical, Inc. \01p.gsd
Spencer Method
PLATE C.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500
GEOSTASEÆ v4.30.32 by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE
GEOSTASE FS = 1.458
kh = 0.29000
B 1
B 2
B 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500 No. FS
1 1.458
2 1.459
3 1.461
4 1.465
5 1.472
6 1.478
7 1.485
8 1.486
9 1.492
10 1.507
Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru -Uw Fact Piez Surf Soil
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (unsat) No. Options 1 Fill 110.0 110.0 400.0 24.0 0.000 0.0 1
2242
95 Argonaut. Aliso Viejo
Global Stability of 25' High Slopes (Pseudo-Static)
SA Geotechnical, Inc. \01p.gsd
Spencer Method
PLATE C.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500
GEOSTASEÆ v4.30.32 by GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE
GEOSTASE FS = 1.458
kh = 0.29000
B 1
B 2
B 3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
400
420
440
460
480
500
400
420
440
460
480
500 No. FS
1 1.458
2 1.459
3 1.461
4 1.465
5 1.472
6 1.478
7 1.485
8 1.486
9 1.492
10 1.507
Soil Moist Wt Sat Wt c Phi ru -Uw Fact Piez Surf Soil
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) (ratio) (unsat) No. Options 1 Fill 110.0 110.0 400.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 1
2243
*** GEOSTASE(R) ***
** GEOSTASE(R) (c)Copyright by Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,S.E.,BC.GE ** ** Current Version 4.30.32‐Double Precision, Sept 2023 ** (All Rights Reserved‐Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SOFTWARE (2D & 3D)
Simplified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or General Equilibrium (GE) Options. (Spencer, Morgenstern‐Price, USACE, and Lowe & Karafiath) Including Pier/Pile, Planar Reinf, Nail, Tieback, Line Loads Applied Forces, Fiber‐Reinforced Soil (FRS), Distributed Loads Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Strength Envelope, Anisotropic Strengths, Water Surfaces, 3‐Stage Rapid Drawdown 2‐ or 3‐Stage Pseudo‐Static & Simplified Newmark Seismic Analyses. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Date: 5/ 28/ 2024
Analysis Time:
Analysis By: SA Geotechnical, Inc.
Input File Name: C:\Users\Reza Saberi\SA Geotechnical, Inc\SA Geotechnical ‐ Projects\2024\24059‐01 Meritage ‐ 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo\Engineering\Sted\General Slope\01p.gsd
Output File Name: C:\Users\Reza Saberi\SA Geotechnical, Inc\SA Geotechnical ‐ Projects\2024\24059‐01 Meritage ‐ 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo\Engineering\Sted\General Slope\01p.OUT
Unit System: English
PROJECT: 95 Argonaut. Aliso Viejo
DESCRIPTION: Global Stability of 25' High Slopes (Pseudo‐Static) 2244
PROFILE BOUNDARY DATA
3 Surface Boundaries
3 Total Boundaries
Boundary X ‐ 1 Y ‐ 1 X ‐ 2 Y ‐ 2 Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.000 422.000 60.000 422.000 1 2 60.000 422.000 110.000 447.000 1 3 110.000 447.000 160.000 447.000 1 User Specified X‐Origin = 0.000(ft)
User Specified Y‐Origin = 400.000(ft)
SURFACE BOUNDARY POINT COORDINATES
(Information Only‐Not Used Directly)
Point No. X‐COORD Y‐COORD
1 0.000 422.000
2 60.000 422.000
3 110.000 447.000
4 160.000 447.000
SUBSURFACE BOUNDARY POINT COORDINATES
(Information Only‐Not Used Directly)
Point No. X‐COORD Y‐COORD
PROFILE BOUNDARY SLOPES AND ANGLES
BND No. Slope Angle(Deg.)
1 0.000 0.000
2 0.500 26.565
3 0.000 0.000
MOHR‐COULOMB SOIL PARAMETERS
1 Type(s) of Soil Defined
2245
Soil Number Moist Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore (‐Uw) Water Water and Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Fact. Surface Option Description (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ratio(ru) No. 1 Fill 110.0 110.0 400.00 24.00 0.000 0.0 1 0
SEISMIC (EARTHQUAKE) DATA
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (PGA) = 0.290(g) Default Velocity = 1.450(ft) per second
Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.29000(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) (NOTE:Input Velocity = 0.0 will result in default Peak
Velocity = 2 times(PGA) times 2.5 fps or 0.762 mps)
Specified Seismic Pore‐Pressure Factor = 0.000
Horizontal Seismic Force is Applied at Center of Gravity of Slices
TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE DATA
Circular Trial Failure Surfaces Have Been Generated Using A Random Procedure.
2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
2000 Surfaces Generated at Increments of 0.0600(in) Equally Spaced Within the Start Range Along The Specified Surface Between X = 55.00(ft)
and X = 65.00(ft)
Each Surface ends within a Range Between X = 110.00(ft) and X = 140.00(ft)
All surfaces are generated left to right for both a left and right sliding slope.
Unless XCLUDE Lines Were Specified, The Minimum Elevation To Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 400.00(ft)
2246
Specified Maximum Radius = 100000.000(ft)
3.000(ft) Line Segments Were Used For Each Trial Failure Surface.
The Spencer Method Was Selected for FS Analysis.
Selected fx function = Constant (1.0)
SELECTED CONVERGENCE PARAMETERS FOR SPENCER METHOD:
Initial estimate of FS = 1.500
FS tolerance = 0.000001000
Initial estimate of theta(deg) = 15.00
Theta tolerance(radians) = 0.0001000
Minimum theta(deg) = ‐45.00 ; Maximum theta(deg) = 45.00 Theta convergence Step Factor = 5000.00
Maximum number of iterations = 50
Allowable negative side force = ‐1000.0(lbs)
Maximum force imbalance = 100.000000(lbs)
Maximum moment imbalance = 100.000000 (ft/lbs)
Selected Lambda Coefficient = 1.00
Specified Tension Crack Water Depth Factor = 0.000
Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 2000
WARNING! The Factor of Safety Calculation for one or More Trial Surfaces Did Not Converge in 50 Iterations.
Number of Trial Surfaces with Non‐Converged FS = 1779
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 221
Percentage of Trial Surfaces With Non‐Converged and/or
2247
Non‐Valid FS Solutions of the Total Attempted = 89.0 % Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 1.907 FS Min = 1.458 FS Ave = 1.673
Standard Deviation = 0.100 Coefficient of Variation = 5.97 % Critical Surface is Sequence Number 8 of Those Analyzed. *****BEGINNING OF DETAILED GEOSTASE OUTPUT FOR CRITICAL SURFACE FROM A SEARCH***** BACK‐CALCULATED CIRCULAR SURFACE PARAMETERS:
Circle Center At X = 79.072422(ft) ; Y = 461.584595(ft); and Radius = 46.189706(ft) Circular Trial Failure Surface Generated With 29 Coordinate Points Point X‐Coord. Y‐Coord.
No. (ft) (ft)
1 55.27014 422.00000
2 57.88998 420.53836
3 60.59919 419.24987
4 63.38632 418.13997
5 66.23963 417.21334
6 69.14707 416.47388
7 72.09638 415.92472
8 75.07512 415.56818
9 78.07072 415.40575
10 81.07054 415.43813
11 84.06194 415.66517
12 87.03229 416.08592
13 89.96906 416.69860
14 92.85986 417.50063
15 95.69250 418.48863
16 98.45503 419.65843
17 101.13580 421.00509
18 103.72349 422.52293
2248
19 106.20720 424.20555
20 108.57643 426.04585
21 110.82121 428.03607
22 112.93206 430.16782
23 114.90007 432.43209
24 116.71694 434.81934
25 118.37502 437.31950
26 119.86730 439.92202
27 121.18748 442.61592
28 122.33001 445.38984
29 122.87389 447.00000
Iter. Theta FS FS
No. (deg) (Moment) (Force)
(fx=1.0) Lambda Delta FS 1 15.0000 1.669854 1.332393 0.268 0.3374611E+00 2 19.9500 1.647384 1.378190 0.363 0.2691943E+00 3 39.4653 9.550143 1.745311 0.823 0.7804832E+01 4 19.2530 1.653452 1.371193 0.349 0.2822590E+00 5 18.4988 1.658690 1.363842 0.335 0.2948478E+00 6 36.1598 0.000000 1.641211 0.731 0.1641211E+01 7 21.1879 1.633066 1.391134 0.388 0.2419319E+00 8 23.1140 1.598474 1.412737 0.427 0.1857370E+00 9 29.4789 0.000000 1.501027 0.565 0.1501027E+01 10 23.8147 1.580714 1.421087 0.441 0.1596267E+00 11 24.3602 1.564324 1.427786 0.453 0.1365382E+00 12 27.5854 1.384097 1.471473 0.522 0.8737655E‐01 13 26.3271 1.478043 1.453533 0.495 0.2451021E‐01 14 26.6029 1.461048 1.457360 0.501 0.3687567E‐02 15 26.6518 1.457865 1.458044 0.502 0.1790882E‐03 16 26.6495 1.458014 1.458012 0.502 0.1202523E‐05 17 26.6495 1.458013 1.458013 0.502 0.3293546E‐07 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 1.458 Theta (fx = 1.0) = 26.65 Deg Lambda = 0.502
2249
The Spencer Method Has Been Selected For Analysis.
Selected fx function = Constant (1.0)
SELECTED CONVERGENCE PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS METHOD:
Initial estimate of FS = 1.500
FS tolerance = 0.000001000
Initial estimate of theta(deg) = 15.00
Theta tolerance(radians) = 0.0001000
Minimum theta(deg) = ‐45.00 ; Maximum theta(deg) = 45.00 Theta convergence Step Factor = 5000.00
Maximum number of iterations = 50
Maximum force imbalance = 100.000000(lbs)
Maximum moment imbalance(if Applicable) = 100.000000 (ft/lbs) Selected Lambda Coefficient = 1.00
Tension Crack Water Force = 0.00(lbs)
Specified Tension Crack Water Depth Factor = 0.000 ( 0.00% Filled ) Depth of Tension Crack (zo) at Side of Last Slice = 0.000(ft) Depth of Water in Tension Crack = 0.000(ft)
Theoretical Tension Crack Depth = 11.199(ft)
NOTE: In Table 1 following, when a tension crack with water is present on the first slice (right facing slope) or on the last slice (left facing slope), the "side force" in the tension crack is set equal to the water pressure resultant. *** Table 1 ‐ Line of Thrust(if applicable) and Slice Force Data *** Slice X Y Side Force fx Force Angle Vert. Shear No. Coord. Coord. h/H (lbs) (Deg) Force(lbs) 2250
1 57.89 421.93 0.950 3030.29 1.000 26.65 1359.2 2 60.00 421.91 0.965 5333.39 1.000 26.65 2392.2 3 60.60 421.88 0.863 6054.86 1.000 26.65 2715.8 4 63.39 421.85 0.668 9202.53 1.000 26.65 4127.6 5 66.24 421.85 0.586 12349.95 1.000 26.65 5539.3 6 69.15 421.93 0.540 15298.87 1.000 26.65 6862.0 7 72.10 422.10 0.510 17906.63 1.000 26.65 8031.7 8 75.08 422.38 0.488 20071.76 1.000 26.65 9002.8 9 78.07 422.76 0.471 21725.73 1.000 26.65 9744.7 10 81.07 423.25 0.457 22827.80 1.000 26.65 10239.0 11 84.06 423.84 0.445 23361.35 1.000 26.65 10478.3 12 87.03 424.53 0.435 23331.13 1.000 26.65 10464.7 13 89.97 425.32 0.425 22760.74 1.000 26.65 10208.9 14 92.86 426.20 0.416 21690.43 1.000 26.65 9728.8 15 95.69 427.17 0.407 20174.76 1.000 26.65 9049.0 16 98.46 428.23 0.397 18280.37 1.000 26.65 8199.3 17 101.14 429.36 0.387 16083.52 1.000 26.65 7214.0 18 103.72 430.56 0.377 13667.69 1.000 26.65 6130.4 19 106.21 431.82 0.364 11120.94 1.000 26.65 4988.1 20 108.58 433.12 0.350 8533.38 1.000 26.65 3827.5 21 110.00 433.97 0.339 6906.36 1.000 26.65 3097.7 22 110.82 434.45 0.338 6007.06 1.000 26.65 2694.4 23 112.93 435.81 0.335 3761.86 1.000 26.65 1687.3 24 114.90 437.13 0.323 1902.94 1.000 26.65 853.5 25 116.72 437.71 0.237 481.61 1.000 26.65 216.0 26 118.38 441.92 0.476 ‐468.44 1.000 26.65 ‐210.1 27 119.87 442.85 0.413 ‐932.69 1.000 26.65 ‐418.3 28 121.19 444.38 0.403 ‐917.26 1.000 26.65 ‐411.4 29 122.33 446.06 0.415 ‐450.28 1.000 26.65 ‐202.0 30 122.87 447.00 0.000 0.00 1.000 26.65 0.0 NOTE: A value of 0.000‐ for h/H indicates that the line of thrust is at or below the lower boundary of the sliding mass. A value of 1.000+ for h/H indicates that the line of thrust is at or above the upper boundary of the sliding mass.
***Table 2 ‐ Geometry Data on the 30 Slices***
2251
Slice Width Height X‐Cntr Y‐Cntr‐Base Y‐Cntr‐Top Alpha Beta Base Length No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) 1 2.62 0.73 56.58 421.27 422.00 ‐29.16 0.00 3.00 2 2.11 1.96 58.94 420.04 422.00 ‐25.44 0.00 2.34 3 0.60 2.76 60.30 419.39 422.15 ‐25.44 26.57 0.66 4 2.79 4.30 61.99 418.69 423.00 ‐21.71 26.57 3.00 5 2.85 6.73 64.81 417.68 424.41 ‐17.99 26.57 3.00 6 2.91 9.00 67.69 416.84 425.85 ‐14.27 26.57 3.00 7 2.95 11.11 70.62 416.20 427.31 ‐10.55 26.57 3.00 8 2.98 13.05 73.59 415.75 428.79 ‐6.83 26.57 3.00 9 3.00 14.80 76.57 415.49 430.29 ‐3.10 26.57 3.00 10 3.00 16.36 79.57 415.42 431.79 0.62 26.57 3.00 11 2.99 17.73 82.57 415.55 433.28 4.34 26.57 3.00 12 2.97 18.90 85.55 415.88 434.77 8.06 26.57 3.00 13 2.94 19.86 88.50 416.39 436.25 11.78 26.57 3.00 14 2.89 20.61 91.41 417.10 437.71 15.51 26.57 3.00 15 2.83 21.14 94.28 417.99 439.14 19.23 26.57 3.00 16 2.76 21.46 97.07 419.07 440.54 22.95 26.57 3.00 17 2.68 21.57 99.80 420.33 441.90 26.67 26.57 3.00 18 2.59 21.45 102.43 421.76 443.21 30.39 26.57 3.00 19 2.48 21.12 104.97 423.36 444.48 34.12 26.57 3.00 20 2.37 20.57 107.39 425.13 445.70 37.84 26.57 3.00 21 1.42 19.97 109.29 426.68 446.64 41.56 26.57 1.90 22 0.82 19.33 110.41 427.67 447.00 41.56 0.00 1.10 23 2.11 17.90 111.88 429.10 447.00 45.28 0.00 3.00 24 1.97 15.70 113.92 431.30 447.00 49.00 0.00 3.00 25 1.82 13.37 115.81 433.63 447.00 52.73 0.00 3.00 26 1.66 10.93 117.55 436.07 447.00 56.45 0.00 3.00 27 1.49 8.38 119.12 438.62 447.00 60.17 0.00 3.00 28 1.32 5.73 120.53 441.27 447.00 63.89 0.00 3.00 29 1.14 3.00 121.76 444.00 447.00 67.61 0.00 3.00 30 0.54 0.81 122.60 446.19 447.00 71.34 0.00 1.70
***Table 2A ‐ Coordinates of Slice Points Defining the Slip Surface*** 2252
Point
X‐Pt Y‐Pt
No. (ft) (ft)
1 55.270135 422.000000
2 57.889984 420.538361
3 60.000000 419.534845
4 60.599191 419.249872
5 63.386325 418.139971
6 66.239630 417.213338
7 69.147070 416.473882
8 72.096379 415.924724
9 75.075116 415.568179
10 78.070716 415.405751
11 81.070541 415.438127
12 84.061938 415.665168
13 87.032286 416.085918
14 89.969056 416.698602
15 92.859860 417.500635
16 95.692501 418.488633
17 98.455032 419.658429
18 101.135799 421.005088
19 103.723492 422.522929
20 106.207197 424.205550
21 108.576434 426.045852
22 110.000000 427.307986
23 110.821211 428.036073
24 112.932058 430.167815
25 114.900069 432.432088
26 116.716944 434.819339
27 118.375017 437.319497
28 119.867295 439.922017
29 121.187482 442.615918
30 122.330009 445.389838
31 122.873887 447.000000
2253
***Table 3 ‐ Force and Pore Pressure Data On The 30 Slices (Excluding Reinforcement)*** Ubeta Ubeta Ualpha Earthquake Force Stress Force Pore Force Distributed Slice Weight Top Top Bot Pressure ‐Uw Horiz Vert Load No. (lbs) (lbs) (psf) (lbs) (psf) (psf) (lbs) (lbs) (psf) 1 210.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 61.1 0.0 0.00 2 455.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 132.2 0.0 0.00 3 181.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 52.7 0.0 0.00 4 1318.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 382.4 0.0 0.00 5 2112.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 612.6 0.0 0.00 6 2879.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 835.0 0.0 0.00 7 3604.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1045.4 0.0 0.00 8 4274.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1239.7 0.0 0.00 9 4876.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1414.2 0.0 0.00 10 5399.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1565.9 0.0 0.00 11 5834.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1692.0 0.0 0.00 12 6174.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1790.7 0.0 0.00 13 6415.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1860.4 0.0 0.00 14 6553.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1900.4 0.0 0.00 15 6588.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1910.5 0.0 0.00 16 6522.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1891.5 0.0 0.00 17 6359.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1844.2 0.0 0.00 18 6105.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1770.7 0.0 0.00 19 5769.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1673.2 0.0 0.00 20 5360.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1554.7 0.0 0.00 21 3126.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 906.7 0.0 0.00 22 1746.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 506.3 0.0 0.00 23 4155.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1205.2 0.0 0.00 24 3398.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 985.6 0.0 0.00 25 2672.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 775.2 0.0 0.00 26 1993.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 578.1 0.0 0.00 27 1375.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 398.9 0.0 0.00 28 832.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 241.4 0.0 0.00 29 376.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 109.2 0.0 0.00 30 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 14.0 0.0 0.00 TOTAL WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 106724.37(lbs)
2254
EFFECTIVE WEIGHT OF SLIDING MASS = 106724.37(lbs)
TOTAL AREA OF SLIDING MASS = 970.22(ft2)
***TABLE 4 ‐ SOIL STRENGTH & SOIL OPTIONS DATA ON THE 30 SLICES*** Slice Soil Cohesion Phi(Deg) Options
No. Type (psf)
1 1 400.00 24.00
2 1 400.00 24.00
3 1 400.00 24.00
4 1 400.00 24.00
5 1 400.00 24.00
6 1 400.00 24.00
7 1 400.00 24.00
8 1 400.00 24.00
9 1 400.00 24.00
10 1 400.00 24.00
11 1 400.00 24.00
12 1 400.00 24.00
13 1 400.00 24.00
14 1 400.00 24.00
15 1 400.00 24.00
16 1 400.00 24.00
17 1 400.00 24.00
18 1 400.00 24.00
19 1 400.00 24.00
20 1 400.00 24.00
21 1 400.00 24.00
22 1 400.00 24.00
23 1 400.00 24.00
24 1 400.00 24.00
25 1 400.00 24.00
26 1 400.00 24.00
27 1 400.00 24.00
28 1 400.00 24.00
29 1 400.00 24.00
2255
30 1 400.00 24.00
SOIL OPTIONS:
A = ANISOTROPIC SHEAR STRENGTH
C = CURVED STRENGTH ENVELOPE (TANGENT PHI & C)
F = FIBER‐REINFORCED SOIL (FRS)
M = INDEPENDENT MULTI‐STAGE SHEAR STRENGTH
N = NONLINEAR UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
R = RAPID DRAWDOWN OR RAPID LOADING (SEISMIC) SHEAR STRENGTH S = SHANSEP UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
NOTE: Phi and C in Table 4 are modified values based on specified Soil Options (if any).
***TABLE 5 ‐ Total Base Stress Data on the 30 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Total Total Total No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Vert. Stress Normal/Vert. * (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) Stress Ratio 1 ‐29.16 56.58 3.00 906.73 80.39 11.279 2 ‐25.44 58.94 2.34 978.07 215.97 4.529 3 ‐25.44 60.30 0.66 1139.32 303.32 3.756 4 ‐21.71 61.99 3.00 1239.72 473.16 2.620 5 ‐17.99 64.81 3.00 1469.91 740.28 1.986 6 ‐14.27 67.69 3.00 1642.62 990.34 1.659 7 ‐10.55 70.62 3.00 1770.62 1222.27 1.449 8 ‐6.83 73.59 3.00 1862.02 1435.11 1.297 9 ‐3.10 76.57 3.00 1922.30 1627.94 1.181 10 0.62 79.57 3.00 1955.35 1799.97 1.086 11 4.34 82.57 3.00 1964.12 1950.46 1.007 12 8.06 85.55 3.00 1950.97 2078.78 0.939 13 11.78 88.50 3.00 1917.86 2184.39 0.878 14 15.51 91.41 3.00 1866.52 2266.84 0.823 15 19.23 94.28 3.00 1798.53 2325.78 0.773 16 22.95 97.07 3.00 1715.40 2360.97 0.727 17 26.67 99.80 3.00 1618.59 2372.25 0.682 2256
18 30.39 102.43 3.00 1509.54 2359.59 0.640 19 34.12 104.97 3.00 1389.75 2323.03 0.598 20 37.84 107.39 3.00 1260.73 2262.72 0.557 21 41.56 109.29 1.90 1133.61 2196.39 0.516 22 41.56 110.41 1.10 1095.16 2126.08 0.515 23 45.28 111.88 3.00 928.35 1968.79 0.472 24 49.00 113.92 3.00 730.90 1727.01 0.423 25 52.73 115.81 3.00 542.25 1471.17 0.369 26 56.45 117.55 3.00 364.05 1202.36 0.303 27 60.17 119.12 3.00 198.18 921.72 0.215 28 63.89 120.53 3.00 46.73 630.41 0.074 29 67.61 121.76 3.00 ‐87.90 329.68 ‐0.267 30 71.34 122.60 1.70 ‐185.03 88.56 ‐2.089
***TABLE 5A ‐ Total Base Force Data on the 30 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Total Total Total No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force Vert. Force Normal/Vert. * (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs) Force Ratio 1 ‐29.16 56.58 3.00 2720.19 210.61 12.916 2 ‐25.44 58.94 2.34 2285.27 455.71 5.015 3 ‐25.44 60.30 0.66 755.95 181.75 4.159 4 ‐21.71 61.99 3.00 3719.16 1318.76 2.820 5 ‐17.99 64.81 3.00 4409.74 2112.25 2.088 6 ‐14.27 67.69 3.00 4927.85 2879.35 1.711 7 ‐10.55 70.62 3.00 5311.86 3604.86 1.474 8 ‐6.83 73.59 3.00 5586.07 4274.81 1.307 9 ‐3.10 76.57 3.00 5766.89 4876.67 1.183 10 0.62 79.57 3.00 5866.04 5399.60 1.086 11 4.34 82.57 3.00 5892.36 5834.60 1.010 12 8.06 85.55 3.00 5852.90 6174.70 0.948 13 11.78 88.50 3.00 5753.57 6415.05 0.897 14 15.51 91.41 3.00 5599.56 6552.98 0.855 15 19.23 94.28 3.00 5395.60 6588.10 0.819 16 22.95 97.07 3.00 5146.21 6522.25 0.789 17 26.67 99.80 3.00 4855.76 6359.46 0.764 2257
18 30.39 102.43 3.00 4528.62 6105.89 0.742 19 34.12 104.97 3.00 4169.24 5769.71 0.723 20 37.84 107.39 3.00 3782.18 5360.93 0.706 21 41.56 109.29 1.90 2156.70 3126.71 0.690 22 41.56 110.41 1.10 1201.93 1745.96 0.688 23 45.28 111.88 3.00 2785.05 4155.81 0.670 24 49.00 113.92 3.00 2192.70 3398.77 0.645 25 52.73 115.81 3.00 1626.75 2672.93 0.609 26 56.45 117.55 3.00 1092.16 1993.61 0.548 27 60.17 119.12 3.00 594.53 1375.46 0.432 28 63.89 120.53 3.00 140.18 832.26 0.168 29 67.61 121.76 3.00 ‐263.70 376.67 ‐0.700 30 71.34 122.60 1.70 ‐314.47 48.17 ‐6.529
***TABLE 6 ‐ Effective and Base Shear Stress Data on the 30 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Stress Shear Strength Shear Stress * (ft) (ft) (psf) (psf) (psf) 1 ‐29.16 56.58 3.00 906.73 803.70 551.23 2 ‐25.44 58.94 2.34 978.07 835.47 573.02 3 ‐25.44 60.30 0.66 1139.32 907.26 622.26 4 ‐21.71 61.99 3.00 1239.72 951.96 652.92 5 ‐17.99 64.81 3.00 1469.91 1054.45 723.21 6 ‐14.27 67.69 3.00 1642.62 1131.34 775.95 7 ‐10.55 70.62 3.00 1770.62 1188.33 815.03 8 ‐6.83 73.59 3.00 1862.02 1229.03 842.95 9 ‐3.10 76.57 3.00 1922.30 1255.86 861.35 10 0.62 79.57 3.00 1955.35 1270.58 871.44 11 4.34 82.57 3.00 1964.12 1274.48 874.12 12 8.06 85.55 3.00 1950.97 1268.63 870.11 13 11.78 88.50 3.00 1917.86 1253.88 860.00 14 15.51 91.41 3.00 1866.52 1231.03 844.32 15 19.23 94.28 3.00 1798.53 1200.76 823.56 16 22.95 97.07 3.00 1715.40 1163.75 798.17 17 26.67 99.80 3.00 1618.59 1120.64 768.61 2258
18 30.39 102.43 3.00 1509.54 1072.09 735.31 19 34.12 104.97 3.00 1389.75 1018.76 698.73 20 37.84 107.39 3.00 1260.73 961.31 659.33 21 41.56 109.29 1.90 1133.61 904.72 620.51 22 41.56 110.41 1.10 1095.16 887.60 608.77 23 45.28 111.88 3.00 928.35 813.33 557.83 24 49.00 113.92 3.00 730.90 725.42 497.54 25 52.73 115.81 3.00 542.25 641.42 439.93 26 56.45 117.55 3.00 364.05 562.09 385.52 27 60.17 119.12 3.00 198.18 488.23 334.86 28 63.89 120.53 3.00 46.73 420.80 288.61 29 67.61 121.76 3.00 ‐87.90 360.86 247.50 30 71.34 122.60 1.70 ‐185.03 317.62 217.84
***TABLE 6A ‐ Effective and Base Shear Force Data on the 30 Slices*** Slice Alpha X‐Coord. Base Effective Available Mobilized No. (deg) Slice Cntr Leng. Normal Force Shear Force Shear Force * (ft) (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 ‐29.16 56.58 3.00 2720.19 2411.11 1653.69 2 ‐25.44 58.94 2.34 2285.27 1952.06 1338.85 3 ‐25.44 60.30 0.66 755.95 601.97 412.87 4 ‐21.71 61.99 3.00 3719.16 2855.88 1958.75 5 ‐17.99 64.81 3.00 4409.74 3163.34 2169.63 6 ‐14.27 67.69 3.00 4927.85 3394.02 2327.84 7 ‐10.55 70.62 3.00 5311.86 3564.99 2445.10 8 ‐6.83 73.59 3.00 5586.07 3687.08 2528.84 9 ‐3.10 76.57 3.00 5766.89 3767.59 2584.06 10 0.62 79.57 3.00 5866.04 3811.73 2614.33 11 4.34 82.57 3.00 5892.36 3823.45 2622.37 12 8.06 85.55 3.00 5852.90 3805.88 2610.32 13 11.78 88.50 3.00 5753.57 3761.65 2579.99 14 15.51 91.41 3.00 5599.56 3693.08 2532.96 15 19.23 94.28 3.00 5395.60 3602.28 2470.68 16 22.95 97.07 3.00 5146.21 3491.24 2394.52 17 26.67 99.80 3.00 4855.76 3361.92 2305.83 2259
18 30.39 102.43 3.00 4528.62 3216.27 2205.93 19 34.12 104.97 3.00 4169.24 3056.27 2096.19 20 37.84 107.39 3.00 3782.18 2883.93 1977.99 21 41.56 109.29 1.90 2156.70 1721.23 1180.53 22 41.56 110.41 1.10 1201.93 974.13 668.12 23 45.28 111.88 3.00 2785.05 2439.98 1673.50 24 49.00 113.92 3.00 2192.70 2176.25 1492.62 25 52.73 115.81 3.00 1626.75 1924.27 1319.79 26 56.45 117.55 3.00 1092.16 1686.26 1156.55 27 60.17 119.12 3.00 594.53 1464.70 1004.59 28 63.89 120.53 3.00 140.18 1262.41 865.84 29 67.61 121.76 3.00 ‐263.70 1082.59 742.51 30 71.34 122.60 1.70 ‐314.47 539.80 370.23 Average Effective Normal Stress = 1251.9641(psf)
Average Available Shear Strength = 957.4103(psf)
Total Length of Failure Surface = 82.6995(ft)
INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SIMPLIFIED 3D ANALYSIS
Composite Phi (deg)= 37.406
3D Depth (Vertical difference between ends of Slip Surface) = 25.00(ft) L/D(1): L = 25.00(ft) L/D(2): L = 50.00(ft) L/D(3): L = 75.00(ft) L/D(4): L = 100.00(ft) L/D(5): L = 125.00(ft) L/D(6): L = 150.00(ft) Average Elevation of Point of Application of kh on Sliding Mass = 430.801(ft) SUM OF MOMENTS = ‐0.324693E‐03 (ft/lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) = ‐0.3042346E‐08 SUM OF FORCES = ‐.196472E‐04 (lbs);Imbalance (Fraction of Total Weight) = ‐0.1840930E‐09 Sum of Available Shear Forces = 79177.39(lbs)
Sum of Mobilized Shear Forces = 54305.01(lbs)
FS Balance Check: FS = 1.458013
**** END OF GEOSTASE OUTPUT ****
2260
Appendix!F!
2261
E-1
APPENDIX E
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 Geotechnical Consultant: Prior to commencement of work, the project owner shall employ a geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all keyway bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of subgrade and fill materials and perform adequate relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction and assess if, in their opinion, if the work was performed in substantial compliance 2262
E-2
with the geotechnical report(s) and these specifications. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide test results to the owner on a routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with applicable grading codes, the project plans, and these specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork planned for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s).
If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are corrected.
2.0 PREPARATION OF FILL AREAS
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material, man-made structures, and similar debris shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. Borrow areas shall be cleared and grubbed to the extent necessary to provide a suitable fill material.
Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing street may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 3 and 4. Earth fill material 2263
E-3
shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent organic matter. Nesting of organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered hazardous waste.
As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of such fluids may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of potentially hazardous materials; however, if observations, odors, or soil discoloration are suspect, the Geotechnical Consultant may request from the owner the termination of grading operations until such materials are deemed not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
2.2 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement.
A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
2.3 Processing: Ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Ground that is not satisfactory shall be removed/overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. After scarification, the surface should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to achieve the proper moisture content and compacted in accordance with Section 4 of these specifications.
2.4 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2264
E-4
2.5 Benching: Fills to be placed on ground sloping steeper than 5H:1V (horizontal to vertical units) shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for fill placement.
3.0 FILL MATERIAL
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or other underground construction.
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1 and/or requirements defined in the project geotechnical report(s). The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before import begins so that suitability can be determined, and appropriate laboratory tests performed.
4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers.
Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
2265
E-5
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM Test Method D1557).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction and uniformity.
Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.
4.4 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant’s discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.5 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals required by the governing agency and as deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Consultant in order to adequately qualify the fill material. In general, it should be anticipated that tests will be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill, unless recommended otherwise by the Geotechnical Consultant. In addition, test(s) shall be taken on slope faces and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope as deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
2266
E-6
4.6 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and location of each compaction test. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. Alternatively, GPS units may be used to determine the approximate location/coordinates of the field density tests.
5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and standard details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. The Contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The Contractor is responsible for the performance of subdrains.
6.0 EXCAVATION
Excavations, including over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical report(s) and plans are estimates. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
7.1 Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
7.2 Bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction.
Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface, except in traveled ways (see Section 7.6 below).
2267
E-7
7.3 Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.4 Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.
At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill, unless required differently by the governing agency or the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.6 Trench backfill in the upper foot measured from finish grade within existing or future traveled way, shoulder, and other paved areas (or areas to receive pavement) should be placed to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. 2268
Symbols ñ Locations are Approximate
LEGEND
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
Project Number: 24059-01
Date: May 31, 2024
Plate 1
H-4
TD: 76í
Af @ 0-55í
Tn @ 55í+
GW @ 55í
Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring,
Showing Total Depth, Depth to Earth Units, and Depth to Groundwater in Feet.
Af
Earth Units - Circled Where Buried
Artificial Fill Tm Monterey Formation
H-1
TD: 60.5í
Af @ 0-50í
Tm @ 50í+
North
Scale: 1î = 30í
(On 18îx24î Plot)
Basemap Source: X Engineering & Consulting (May 2024)
Af
Tm
Af
Tn
Af
Tm
A
Aí
B
Bí
B Bí Geotechnical Cross-Section
H-4
TD: 76í
Af @ 0-55í
Tn @ 55í+
GW @ 55
H-2
TD: 41.5í
Af @ 0-25í
Tm @ 25í+
H-3
TD: 81.5í
Af @ 0-75í
Tm @ 75í+
95 Argonaut
Af
Tm
Fault, Dotted Where Buried
Tn Niguel Formation
Af
Tm
2269
Geotechnical Cross-Section A-Aí
A Aí
370
400
430
340
N27W
Scale: 1 inch=30 feet
Legend
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
Project Number: 24059-01
Date: May 31, 2024
Plate 2
460
340
370
400
430
460
Existing Building (To Be Demolished)
H-1
T.D. 60.5í
Artificial Fill (Af)
310 310
Intersection
B-Bí
Glenwood Drive
Property Line
Monterey Formation (Tm)
490
H-3
T.D. 81.5í
Property Line
?
?
490
2270
Geotechnical Cross-Section B-Bí
B Bí
370
400
430
340
N80E
Scale: 1 inch=30 feet
Legend
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
Project Number: 24059-01
Date: May 31, 2024
Plate 3
460
340
370
400
430
460
Existing Building (To Be Demolished)
H-4
(Projected 20í)
T.D. 76í
GW @ 55í
Artificial Fill (Af)
310 310
Intersection
A-Aí
Property Line
Monterey Formation (Tm)
490
H-2
T.D. 41.5í
Property Line
Existing
Water Tank
?
490
?
Argonaut
Approximate Groundwater Level
(During Drilling)
Niguel Formation
(Tn)
Monterey Formation (Tm)
2271
Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan
(PWQMP)
Project Name:
Argonaut
TTM 19340
Prepared for:
Meritage Homes
5 Peters Canyon Road
Irvine, CA 92606
855-588-6374
Prepared by:
X Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
Engineer: Eric Lissner, P.E.
Registration No. 84264
6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 650
Santa Ana, CA 92707
949-522-1700
[email protected]
Engineer’s Seal
Prepared on:
September 05, 2024
2272
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Owner’s Certification
Project Owner’s Certification
Permit/Application No. TBD Grading Permit No. TBD
Tract/Parcel Map No. TTM 19340 Building Permit No. TBD
CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract) APN: 141-521-48 This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Meritage Homes by X Engineering & Consulting, Inc. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the local NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan.
The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the San Diego Region (South Orange County).
Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity.
Owner:
Title Ms. Johanna Crooker
Company Meritage Homes
Address 5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310, Irvine, CA 92806 Email [email protected]
Telephone # 855-588-6374
Signature Date
2273
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Owner’s Certification
Contents Page No.
Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions ...................... 3 Section 2 Project Description ........................................................................... 4
2.1 General Description ............................................................................ 4
2.2 Post Development Drainage Characteristics .................................... 5
2.3 Property Ownership/Management .................................................... 5 Section 3 Site & Watershed Characterization ................................................... 6
3.1 Site Conditions .................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Infiltration-Related Characteristics ................................................................... 6
3.2 Proposed Site Development Activities .............................................. 7
3.2.1 Overview of Site Development Activities ..................................................... 7
3.2.2 Project Attributes Influencing Stormwater Management.......................... 7
3.2.3 Effects on Infiltration and Harvest and Use Feasibility ............................. 8
3.3 Receiving Waterbodies ....................................................................... 8
3.4 Stormwater Pollutants or Conditions of Concern ........................... 8
3.5 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern ..................................................... 9
3.6 Critical Course Sediment Yield Areas ............................................... 9 Section 4 Site Plan and Drainage Plan ............................................................ 10
4.1 Drainage Management Area Delineation ........................................ 10
4.2 Overall Site Design BMPs .................................................................. 10
4.3 DMA Characteristics and Site Design BMPs ..................................... 11
4.3.1 DMA 1............................................................................................................. 11
4.3.X DMA Summary ............................................................................................. 11
4.4 Source Control BMPs ......................................................................... 12 Section 5 Low Impact Development BMPs ..................................................... 14
5.1 LID BMPs in DMA 1 ............................................................................ 14
5.1.1 Hydrologic Source Controls for DMA 1 ............................................................. 14
5.1.2 Structural LID BMP for DMA 1 ......................................................................... 14
5.2 Summary of LID BMPs ....................................................................... 15 Section 6 Hydromodification BMPs ................................................................ 16
6.1 Points of Compliance ......................................................................... 16
6.2 Pre-Development (Natural) Conditions .......................................... 16
6.3 Post-Development Conditions and Hydromodification BMPs ...... 16
6.4 Measures for Avoidance of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas 16
6.5 Hydrologic Modeling and Hydromodification Compliance ............ 16 Section 7 Educational Materials Index ........................................................... 18 BMP Exhibit ................................................................................... 21 2274
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section II
Attachment A: Educational Materials ............................................................... 22 Attachment B: Operations and Maintenance Plan ............................................ 23 Attachment C: Calculations and Worksheets ........................................................ 24 Attachment D: Supporting Exhibits ...................................................................... 71 Attachment E: Geotechnical Report ..................................................................... 94 2275
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 1
Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) and Water
Quality Conditions
Project Infomation
Permit/Application No. TBD
Site Address or
Tract/Parcel Map
No.
95 Argonaut, Aliso
Viejo, CA 92656
APN: 141-521-48
Additional Information/
Comments:
TTM 19340
Water Quality Conditions
Water Quality
Conditions from prior
approvals or applicable
watershed-based plans
Pending, to be included in the Final WQMP.
2276
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 2
Section 2 Project Description
2.1 General Description
Description of Proposed Project
Site Location
95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Project Area (ft2): _______
Number of Dwelling Units:
__62_________
SIC Code: __________
Narrative Project
Description:
This priority redevelopment project consists of the removal of an existing commercial building for the construction of a housing development. The completed project will consist of 61 dwelling units in 8 separate buildings within the property. There will be 140 parking spaces including 124 for garage parking. 20,945-square feet of open space is provided in this development.
This project qualifies as a priority project due to the creation and replacement of more than 10,000-square feet of impervious surface.
Project Area
Pervious Impervious
Area
(acres or sq ft)
Percentage
Area
(acres or sq ft)
Percentage
Pre-Project Conditions 28,749 24 88,863 76
Post-Project Conditions 24,585 21 93,027 79
2277
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 2
2.2 Post Development Drainage Characteristics
The proposed condition drainage will mimic the existing condition drainage to the maximum extent possible. Runoff generally flows from north to south. Proposed condition drainage generally concentrates sheet flow into drainage inlets, catch basins, and routes it into subsurface storm drainage pipes. Runoff is conveyed to dual MWS-L-8-16-V units for water quality treatment of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. Stormwater flows exceeding this value, including flows from the MWS will then be routed into a subsurface detention facility with a flow control outlet orifice suitable for mitigating hydromodification and peak stormwater flows.
The project is not covered by an existing WQMP and is not subject to cross-lot drainage. There are no existing stormwater BMPs onsite.
2.3 Property Ownership/Management
This project is owned by Meritage Homes.
2278
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 3
Section 3 Site & Watershed Characterization
3.1 Site Conditions
3.1.1 Existing Site Conditions
The existing condition is fully developed as a commercial site. It consists of one large commercial building with a parking lot and surrounding landscape planters. The existing site drainage is split into stormwater flowing east and west essentially down the middle of the property. Stormwater sheet flows in both directions at an approximately 1 to 2% slope into perimeter gutters along the edge of the existing parking lot. Gutter flow concentrates into two culverts at the south end of the property on each side of the entry driveway. Stormwater enters the gutter at the knuckle of Argonaut and flows south until reaching a catch basin approximately 250-feet south of the site.
In the existing condition, approximately 0.07 acres located at the northeast corner of the site, drains into the project area. In the proposed condition, this region is graded towards the sidewalk away from the site and to the gutter. It drains through a self-treating landscaping area. The flow contributing to the gutter is deemed negligible.
Stormwater enters an existing 39-inch storm drain flowing southeast which eventually becomes a 78-inch storm drain. The 78-inch storm drain then drains at a rip rap energy dissipation structure before entering Aliso Creek. Aliso Creek flows southwest and enters the Pacific Ocean in South Laguna Beach.
This project is not covered by an existing WQMP. No cross-lot drainage or stormwater run-on flows enter the site. There are no existing stormwater BMPs in place onsite.
Existing Land Uses
Land Use Description Total Area
(acres)
Impervious
Area
(acres)
Pervious Area
(acres)
Imperviousness
(%)
Commercial 2.77 2.01 0.76 73%
Total 2.77 2.01 0.76 73%
3.1.2 Infiltration-Related Characteristics
3.1.2.1 Hydrogeologic Conditions
Groundwater was encountered during subsurface exploration by SA Geotechnical at a depth of 55- feet below ground surface (bgs). Historic high groundwater has been measured at 20-feet bgs. 2279
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 3
However, it is noted that the historic high groundwater measurements were measured below original grades prior to mass grading in the 1980s. It is expected that groundwater will remain deep below the site (SA Geotechnical 2024).
3.1.2.2 Soil and Geologic Infiltration Characteristics
The SA Geotechnical report indicates that stormwater infiltration is not recommended for this project. The site is underlain by silty/clayey engineered fill up to 75 feet thick overlying bedrock.
Additionally, the native hydrologic soil classification is HSG D (Attachment D1).
3.1.2.3 Geotechnical Conditions
The project is not within a potential liquefaction hazard zone. The site is located on flat terrain that has no slope stability concerns. However, onsite soils are anticipated to have high expansion potential at grading completion.
3.1.2.4 Summary of Infiltration Opportunities and Constraints of Existing Site Due to the geotechnical constraints previously mentioned, infiltration is not recommended onsite.
The presence of compacted silty/clayey engineered fill, HSG D soil group, and deep groundwater suggest that infiltration is not suitable at this site.
3.2 Proposed Site Development Activities
3.2.1 Overview of Site Development Activities
The housing redevelopment project will construct 8 new buildings, new landscaping, and private streets. The proposed construction is replacing the existing single 2-story commercial building and parking lot.
3.2.2 Project Attributes Influencing Stormwater Management The proposed residential development will retain the same drainage pattern of the existing condition with stormwater flowing north to south. Slope and grade changes will be minimal. 61 dwelling units are planned for the community within 8 buildings. The proposed landscaping will be California friendly, drought resistant plants. The overall pervious landscape will be slightly reduced from the existing condition (27 % pervious) to the proposed condition (20 % pervious).
No SIC codes have been applied to the site. Waste generated from the site will be general household waste, not including any hazardous waste.
Proposed Land Uses
Land Use Description Total Area
(acres)
Impervious
Area
(acres)
Pervious Area
(acres)
Imperviousness
(%)
Residential 2.7 2.15 0.55 79.6
2280
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 3
3.2.3 Effects on Infiltration and Harvest and Use Feasibility Infiltration is not recommended for the site due to low infiltration rates of existing compacted engineered fill and the presence of HSG class D soil. Harvest and use for the planned community is not feasible due to lack of space.
3.3 Receiving Waterbodies
The project drains to the public storm drain which in turn drains to Aliso Creek prior to discharge into the Pacific Ocean. 303(d) listings associated with Aliso Creek along with the SWRCB decision ID are phosphorous (111092), nitrogen (127601), selenium (111093), benthic community effects (125926), toxicity (111095), indicator bacteria (79858), and malathion (81901).
3.4 Stormwater Pollutants or Conditions of Concern
Pollutants or Conditions of Concern
Pollutant
Expected from
Proposed Land
Uses/Activities
(Yes or No)
Receiving
Waterbody
Impaired
(Yes or No)
Priority
Pollutant
from WQIP
or other
Water
Quality
Condition?
(Yes or No)
Pollutant of
Concern
(Primary, Other,
or No)
Suspended-Solids Yes No No Other
Nutrients Yes Yes No Primary
Heavy Metals Yes No No Other
Bacteria/Virus/Pathogens Yes Yes Yes Primary
Pesticides Yes No No No
Oil and Grease Yes No No Other
Toxic Organic
Compounds Yes No No Other
Trash and Debris Yes No No Other
Dry Weather Runoff Yes No Yes Primary
2281
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 3
3.5 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Does a hydrologic condition of concern exist for this project? No – An HCOC does not exist for this receiving water because (select one):
Project discharges directly to a protected conveyance (bed and bank are concrete lined the entire way from the point(s) of discharge to a receiving lake, reservoir, embayment, or the Ocean
Project discharges directly to storm drains which discharge directly to a reservoir, lake, embayment, ocean or protected conveyance (as described above) The project discharges to an area identified in the WMAA as exempt from hydromodification concerns
Yes – An HCOC does exist for this receiving water because none of the above are applicable.
Repeat this checklist for each different receiving water to which the project would discharge.
3.6 Critical Course Sediment Yield Areas
Critical coarse sediment provisions do not apply to this project (redevelopment of an existing developed site). Site is also not listed within the Potential Coarse Sediment area on the OCPW Potential Coarse Sediment Map of Aliso Creek (Attachment D2). 2282
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 4
Section 4 Site Plan and Drainage Plan
4.1 Drainage Management Area Delineation
One DMA is designated for this project. See attached DMA Exhibit.
The site DMA consists of 8 new two-story buildings containing 61 dwelling units, hardscape, and drought resistant landscaping. All drainage is intercepted by inlet drains, roof drains, catch basins and conveyed through subsurface storm drains. Drainage is directed to the southeast portion of the site to be treated in two MWS-L-8-16-V modular wetland systems (MWS). Any water flowing through the MWS as well as stormwater peak flows exceeding the 85th percentile water quality design volume will be routed through a subsurface detention vault.
4.2 Overall Site Design BMPs
Minimize Impervious Area - Impervious areas will be minimized through provision of landscaped areas to the maximum extent possible.
Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity - Infiltration is not recommended on site as referenced in the geotechnical report. However, natural infiltration is maximized in landscaped areas to the maximum extent possible.
Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Time of Concentration - Existing drainage patterns are preserved with routing stormwater flows from north to south. The proposed condition will use a subsurface detention/hydromodification vault that will increase the time of concentration comparable to the existing condition.
Disconnect Impervious Areas - Runoff from impervious areas will be dispersed to landscaped areas to the maximum extent possible.
Protect Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Areas - Existing vegetation will be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The remaining areas will be replaced by drought tolerant vegetation.
There are no sensitive areas for this project.
Revegetate Disturbed Areas - Disturbed areas will be hardscaped and landscaped.
Soil Stockpiling and Site Generated Organics – No organic wastes are anticipated for the project.
Soil stockpiling is to be managed through erosion and sediment control plans.
Firescaping - Drought resistant landscaping and firescaping measures will be incorporated to the maximum extent possible.
Water Efficient Landscaping - Water-efficient irrigation methods will be implemented on proposed landscaping.
2283
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 4
Slopes and Channel Buffers - Not applicable for this project as the proposed project area is very flat with slopes between 1 to 2 %.
4.3 DMA Characteristics and Site Design BMPs
4.3.1 DMA 1
The entire residential community has been graded to drain to two LID BMPs located in the southeast corner of the project. Stormwater peak flows will be conveyed to a Modular Wetland System MWS-L- 8-16-V for water quality treating the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event. Overflow during heavy storm events will be bypassed through an internal weir within each MWS. Treated stormwater and bypassed flow will be routed to the subsurface detention basin for hydromodification management and attenuating peak flows before exiting to the public 24-inch storm drain along Argonaut.
The site will be developed as a residential property with approximately 80% imperviousness (2.15- acres) and 25% perviousness (0.55-acres). The DMA is very flat with average slopes between 1-2%.
Anticipated pollutants generated from this site are suspended solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria and viruses), oils/grease, trash, and debris.
4.3.X DMA Summary
Drainage Management Areas
DMA
(Number/Description)
Total
Area
(acres)
Imperviousness
(%)
Infiltration
Feasibility Category
(Full, Partial, or No
Infiltration)
Hydrologic Source
Controls Used
DMA 1 2.7 80 No Infiltration Not applicable
2284
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 4
4.4 Source Control BMPs
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One
Reason Source Control is
Not Applicable Included Not
Applicable
N1 Education for Property Owners,
Tenants and Occupants
N2 Activity Restrictions
N3 Common Area Landscape
Management
N4 BMP Maintenance
N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How
development will comply)
No hazardous waste will be
generated from this site.
N6
Local Industrial Permit Compliance
No industrial business on this
site.
N7
Spill Contingency Plan
No hazardous waste will be
generated from this site.
N8 Underground Storage Tank
Compliance
N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure
Compliance
No hazardous waste will be
generated from this site.
N10
Uniform Fire Code Implementation
No use or storage of hazardous
materials.
N11 Common Area Litter Control
N12 Employee Training
N13
Housekeeping of Loading Docks
No loading docks are proposed
for this site.
N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection
N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and
Parking Lots
N16
Retail Gasoline Outlets
No retail gasoline outlets are
proposed for this project.
2285
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 4
Structural Source Control BMPs
Identifier Name
Check One
Reason Source Control is Not
Applicable Included Not
Applicable
S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling
and signage
S2
Design and construct outdoor material
storage areas to reduce pollution
introduction
S3
Design and construct trash and waste
storage areas to reduce pollution
introduction
S4
Use efficient irrigation systems &
landscape design, water conservation,
smart controllers, and source control
S5 Protect slopes and channels and
provide energy dissipation
Flat site, slopes less than 2%
overall
Incorporate requirements applicable to
individual priority project categories
(from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit)
S6 Dock areas
Not applicable, residential
development
S7 Maintenance bays
Not applicable, residential
development
S8 Vehicle wash areas
S9 Outdoor processing areas
S10 Equipment wash areas
Not applicable, residential
development
S11 Fueling areas Not applicable, residential
development
S12 Hillside landscaping
Flat site, slopes less than 2%
overall
S13 Wash water control for food
preparation areas
Not applicable, residential
development
S14 Community car wash racks
2286
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 5
Section 5 Low Impact Development BMPs
5.1 LID BMPs in DMA 1
Due to the site’s infeasibility for infiltration, the LID BMP used in DMA 1 is a proprietary biofiltration BMP with no infiltration. Harvest and use BMP is not feasible due to the project’s lack of demand for harvest stormwater.
5.1.1 Hydrologic Source Controls for DMA 1
Hydrologic source control BMPs are not practical for this project and are not used. The site’s soil characteristics are not suitable for stormwater retention to achieve volume reduction.
5.1.2 Structural LID BMP for DMA 1
The LID BMPs utilized in DMA 1 are two Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) for pollutant control.
The MWS units are WA TAPE (Washington State Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology) approved proprietary biofiltration (BIO-5) device that provides biofiltration via horizontal flow.
The MWS are used as compact LID BMPs to accommodate the tight space constraints of the project and to receive subsurface pipe flows for treatment.
The MWS’ are paired with a downstream subsurface detention vault for HMP compliance and attenuation of peak flows. This MWS’ have been sized to accommodate 150% of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm for water quality treatment per Appendix E.3.5 and Worksheet 9. Stormwater flows exceeding the water quality flows will be bypassed through an internal weir within each MWS and discharge into the detention vault. Both the runoff treated by the MWS, and bypassed flows are routed through the detention vault.
The vault is capable of regulating hydromodification events from 10% of the 2-year through the 10- year storms with a riser. Equipped with a 2 inch low-flow diameter orifice at the bottom of the structure as well as a rectangular notch at the top, this riser controls the hydromodification events. and attenuates peak flows. Stormwater flows exceeding the hydromodification events will pass through the 18 inch diameter opening at the top of the riser. Stormwater then travels from the vault to the 24-inch R.C.P storm drain along Argonaut through a proposed reinforced concrete pipe (R.C.P.) 18-inch storm drain.
See the attached DMA Exhibit in the preceding section for details. 2287
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 5
5.2 Summary of LID BMPs
Water quality requirements for the project are met by use of two MWS’. The following table summarizes the total water quality flow by the drainage area. See Attachment C, Worksheet 9 for detailed calculations. Each 8x16 MWS unit will treat half of the design flow (0.365 cfs per MWS) shown in the table below.
LID BMP Design Parameters
Drainage
Area (ac)
IMP
%
C
Idesign, 80%
(in/hr)
Q80% (cfs)
Qdesign (cfs)
2.7 80 0.825 0.24 0.486 0.729
2288
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 6
Section 6 Hydromodification BMPs
6.1 Points of Compliance
The POC for the project is located downstream of the MWS and subsurface detention vault (see DMA Exhibit). This location accounts for the stormwater treatment and detention for meeting hydromodification requirements.
6.2 Pre-Development (Natural) Conditions
The natural pre-development condition of the site consisted of very steep slopes. This was determined through use of a USGS topographic quadrangle map (1949) and historical aerial photograph (1938) courtesy of Historical Aerials. Historical information pertaining to the land cover was limited to the use of the 1939 historical photograph. However, it could be reasonably deduced from the photograph that the land cover existing before development was open brush, most likely native grasses and shrubs. The pre-development condition utilized in the SOHM model was HSG class D soils, with open brush and very steep slopes. Refer to Attachment D5 and D6 for historical photograph (1938) and topographic map (1949).
6.3 Post-Development Conditions and Hydromodification BMPs In the post-development condition, the land cover is urban/commercial with flat slopes. The subsurface detention vault serves as a HM BMP. The stormwater flow exiting the system at the POC is controlled by an orifice plate.
6.4 Measures for Avoidance of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
The project is a redevelopment project and thus not subject to critical coarse sediment provision.
Additionally, the project does not lie in a critical coarse sediment region (Attachment D2)
6.5 Hydrologic Modeling and Hydromodification Compliance The South Orange County Hydrologic Model (SOHM) was utilized to design and size hydromodification mitigation BMPs. SOHM is an HSPF-based (Hydrological Simulation Program FORTRAN) watershed model that has been specifically calibrated to natural and developed condition subwatersheds in southern Orange County. More than 48 years of 15-minute precipitation, evapotranspiration, and irrigation data is used in the model. The Laguna Beach meteorological station is the station utilized in the study. SOHM defines the pre-developed (natural) condition as predevelopment and post-developed condition as mitigated.
Areas of the predevelopment condition were broken down by land use and soil type and entered into SOHM. In the predeveloped conditions, the area acts as one watershed which is selected as the Point of Compliance (POC). Areas of the mitigated condition were broken 2289
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 6
down likewise. BMPs were connected downstream of the mitigated condition. The POC of the mitigated condition was selected immediately downstream of the subsurface detention vault.
The vault contains an outlet structure, which is configured with an orifice plate with openings to control flow rate. Next, an analysis was performed at the POC for the predevelopment and mitigated scenarios. The analysis compares flow durations for each scenario with the specific flow values and the number of times predevelopment and mitigated flows exceeded those flow values. A percentage is calculated to determine when the system passes or fails if the percentages exceed the allowable 110%. A summary table for the key hydromodification BMP design parameters and the drawdown time is provided as follows. Full details are available in the SOHM reported included in Attachment C6.Summary for hydromodification compliance
BMP Elements Size Elevation Drawdown time
Detention system
(StormTrap)
20’ x 50’ x 4’
(3,200 cf)*
433.45 (bottom of vault)
3.03 hours**
Orifice on weir plate 2” ∅ 433.45
Top of weir plate 0.65’ width 435.95
*BMP is used for hydromodification management only, not for LID requirements. Thus, required volume criterion is not applicable. See flow-duration plot for Predevelopment and Mitigated Flow below for hydromodification compliance.
** Drawdown time per SOHM report result. See Attachment C. 2290
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Section 7
Section 7 Educational Materials Index
For applicable educational materials refer to https://h2oc.org/ Educational Materials
Residential Material
(http://www.ocwatersheds.com)
Check If
Applicable
Business Material
(http://www.ocwatersheds.com)
Check If
Applicable
The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable
Water Use
Proper Maintenance Practices for Your
Business
Household Tips
Compliance BMPs for Mobile
Businesses
Proper Disposal of Household
Hazardous Waste
Other Material
Check If
Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Attached
Collection Center (North County)
Recycle at Your Local Used Oil
Collection Center (Central County)
Recycle at Your Local Used Oil
Collection Center (South County)
Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank
System
Responsible Pest Control
Sewer Spill
Tips for the Home Improvement Projects
Tips for Horse Care
Tips for Landscaping and Gardening
Tips for Pet Care
Tips for Projects Using Paint
2291
FIGURE 1: DMA EXHIBIT
95 ARGONAUT
ALISO VIEJO, CA
ONSITE SWQMP SUMMARY
NOTES
PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM A
1 ARGONAUT
ARGONAUT
GLENWOOD DRIVE
BLDG 1
BLDG 2
BLDG 3
BLDG 4BLDG 5BLDG 6
BLDG 7
BLDG 8
ALLEY B
ALLEY A
ALLEY C ALLEY D
ALLEY E
ALLEY F
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 30 31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
15 46
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 61
60 59 58 57 56 55 54
ACC ACC ACC
ACC
ACC
ACCACC
NATOM
ARGONAUT
2292
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Attachment
Attachment A: Educational Materials
Educational materials are available at https://h2oc.org/ 2293
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Attachment
Attachment B: Operations and Maintenance
Plan
To be included in Final Engineering.
2294
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Attachment
Attachment C: Calculations and Worksheets
• Attachment C1: OCTGD Worksheet 01 Infiltration Feasibility Categorization • Attachment C2: OCTGD Worksheet 09 Flow-Based Compact Biofiltration Method • Attachment C3: SOHM HMP Sizing Calculations
• Attachment C4: StormTrap Stage Storage Discharge Calculations • Attachment C5: Contech MWS 8x16 HGL calculations
2295
Worksheet 1: Infiltration Feasibility Categorization
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Page 1 of 5 Part 1: Physical Limitations of Infiltration
Based on the criteria for physical limitations of infiltration described in Section 4.2.2.2, what level of physical feasibility of infiltration is the maximum that the BMP location will support? 1 Physical Infiltration Feasibility Category
Mark
applicable
category
Next step
Full Infiltration of the DCV Continue to Part 2
Biotreatment with Partial Infiltration Continue to Part 3 Biotreatment with No Infiltration x
Select and Utilize
Biotreatment
without Infiltration
Provide summary of basis:
The site is underlain by engineered fills (5 to 75-feet) that are silty and clayey in nature, which are not conducive to infiltration. In addition, the presence of slopes along the property boundaries and deep canyon fill, infiltration of stormwater can result in seepage or springs in locations where none previously existed. Thus, infiltration is not recommended for the site.
See SA Geotechnical Infiltration report (May 2024) in Attachment C for more information. 2296
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Page 2 of 5 Part 2: Risks Limiting Full Infiltration of the DCV –Would infiltration of the full DCV introduce risks of undesirable consequences that cannot reasonably be mitigated?
Yes No
2 • Would infiltration of the DCV pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Use criteria described in Section
4.2.2.3 and results from Worksheet 2 (Appendix C) to describe groundwater-related infiltration feasibility criteria.
x
Provide basis:
Groundwater was discovered at 55-feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.
See SA Geotechnical Infiltration report (May 2024) in Attachment C for more information. 3 • Would infiltration of the full DCV pose significant risk of increasing risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? Use criteria described in Section 4.2.2.4. x
Provide basis:
Infiltration of stormwater can result in seepage or springs in locations where none previously existed due to the presence of slopes along the property boundary and deep canyon fill.
See SA Geotechnical Infiltration report (May 2024) in Attachment C for more information. 4 Would infiltration of the DCV cause an increase in groundwater flow or decrease in surface runoff over predevelopment conditions that would cause impairment to downstream beneficial uses, such as change of seasonality of ephemeral washes or increased
discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? Use criteria in Section 4.2.2.5
x
Provide basis:
Not applicable to the site nor project of this scale.
2297
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Page 3 of 5 Part 2 (continued): Risks Limiting Full Infiltration of the DCV –Would infiltration of the full DCV introduce risks of undesirable consequences that cannot reasonably be mitigated?
Yes No
5 Is there substantial evidence that infiltration of the DCV would result in a significant increase in I&I to the sanitary sewer that cannot be sufficiently mitigated?
x
Provide basis:
Not applicable to this site.
6 • Would infiltration of the DCV violate downstream water rights? x Provide basis:
Not applicable to the project.
Part 2
Result
If the answer to all questions 2-6 are “No”, then the DMA is categorized as “Full Infiltration” for the purposes of LID BMP type selection. Describe finding.
At the Preliminary/Conceptual WQMP phase, describe the additional design-phase testing required to confirm this determination and identify contingencies for final design.
At the Final Project WQMP phase, identify any required constructionphase testing and identify the design contingencies that should result based on construction-phase testing.
If the answer to any of questions 2-6 is “Yes” then the site cannot be categorized as “Full Infiltration”. Continue to Part 3: Partial Infiltration Feasibility
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Page 4 of 5 Part 3: Partial Infiltration Feasibility Criteria –Would infiltration of any appreciable volume of stormwater result in risks of undesirable consequences that cannot reasonably be mitigated?
Yes No
8 Would use of biotreatment BMPs with partial infiltration pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Refer to criteria in Section 4.2.2.3 and Worksheet 1 (Appendix C) for guidance on groundwater-related infiltration feasibility criteria. x
2298
Provide basis:
Groundwater was observed at 55-feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Historic high groundwater mapping indicates high groundwater greater than 20 bgs. This is prior to significant mass grading in the 1980s. Groundwater is expected to remain deep below the site.
See SA Geotechnical Infiltration report (May 2024) in Attachment C for more information. 9 • Would the use of biotreatment BMPs with partial infiltration pose elevated risks of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? Refer to Section 4.2.2.4.
x
Provide basis:
Infiltration of stormwater can result in seepage or springs in locations where none previously existed due to the presence of slopes along the property boundary and deep canyon fill.
See SA Geotechnical Infiltration report (May 2024) in Attachment C for more information. 10 Would the use of biotreatment BMPs with partial infiltration elevate risks or introduced conflicts related to groundwater balance, inflow and infiltration, or water rights? Refer to Section
4.2.2.5. Note: this is uncommon and must be supported by sitespecific analysis if it is used as a basis to reject biotreatment with partial infiltration.
x
Provide basis:
Not applicable to the project.
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Page 5 of 5 Part 3
Result
If the answer to all questions 8-10 are “No”, then the DMA is categorized as “Biotreatment with Partial Infiltration” for the purposes of LID BMP type selection.
If the answer to any of questions 8-10 is “Yes” then the site is categorized as “Biotreatment with No Infiltration” for the purposes of LID BMP type selection.
2299
Worksheet 9: Flow-Based Compact Biofiltration with Supplemental Retention Method Part 1: Determine the design storm intensity of the compact biofiltration BMP 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See E.2.3) (account for upstream detention by increasing Tc to a
maximum 60 minutes per Section E.3.5.2 if detention is
provided)
Tc= 8 min
2 Using Figure E-7 or the figure included in the worksheet, determine the design intensity at which the estimated
time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture
efficiency, I1
I1= 0.24 in/hr
3 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to upstream
HSCs and/or upstream BMPs, Y2. Attach associated
calculations.
Y2 = 0 %
4 Using Figure E-7, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream
capture efficiency(Y2), I2
I2= 0 in/hr
5 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP to achieve 80 percent capture, Idesign= I1-I2
Idesign_80%
=
0.24 in/hr
Part 2: Calculate the design flowrate of the compact biofiltration BMP (Section E.2.6) 6a Enter DMA area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= 2.7 acres 6b Enter DMA Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 0.8
6c Calculate runoff coefficient, c= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 c= 0.75 6d
Calculate flowrate to achieve 80 percent capture, Q80%= (c x Idesign x A) Q80%=
0.486 cfs
7 Calculate design flowrate, Qdesign= Q80% x 150% Qdesign=
0.729 cfs
Part 3: Demonstrate that Supplemental Retention BMPs Conform to Volume Reduction Targets (Only DMAs Categorized as “Biotreatment with Partial Infiltration”) 8 Describe system, including features to maximize volume reduction (if applicable): N/A (no infiltration)
9 Summarize calculations to demonstrate that volume reduction targets are met, where feasible and applicable.
N/A (no infiltration)
2300
Worksheet 9: Flow-Based Compact Biofiltration with Supplemental Retention Method Supporting Calculations
Provide time of concentration assumptions: Time of concentration taken from CivilD calculations, approved hydrologic software.
Graphical Operations
Provide supporting graphical operations in figure above. 2301
SOHM
PROJECT REPORT
2302
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 2 General Model Information
Project Name: 117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 Site Name: Argonaut
Site Address: 95 Argonaut
City: Aliso Viejo
Report Date: 8/19/2024
Gage: Laguna Beach
Data Start: 10/01/1949
Data End: 09/30/2006
Timestep: 15 Minute
Precip Scale: 1.000
Version Date: 2017/08/18
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Year
2303
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data
Predeveloped Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
D,Open Brush,VSteep 2.77
Pervious Total 2.77
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 2.77
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
2304
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
B,Urban,Flat(0-5%) 2.15
Pervious Total 2.15
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious,Flat(0-5) 0.55
Impervious Total 0.55
Basin Total 2.7
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Flow Splitter 1 Flow Splitter 1
2305
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 5 Routing Elements
Predeveloped Routing
2306
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 6 Mitigated Routing
Flow Splitter 1
Bottom Length: 10.00 ft.
Bottom Length: 10.00 ft.
Depth: 10 ft.
Side slope 1: 0 To 1
Side slope 2: 0 To 1
Side slope 3: 0 To 1
Side slope 4: 0 To 1
Control Structure Splitter Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Primary(cfs) Secondary(cfs)
0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.111 0.002 0.000 1.302 0.000
0.222 0.002 0.000 1.842 0.000
0.333 0.002 0.000 2.256 0.000
0.444 0.002 0.001 2.605 0.000
0.555 0.002 0.001 2.912 0.000
0.666 0.002 0.001 3.190 0.000
0.777 0.002 0.001 3.446 0.000
0.888 0.002 0.002 3.684 0.000
1.000 0.002 0.002 3.907 0.000
1.111 0.002 0.002 4.119 0.000
1.222 0.002 0.002 4.320 0.000
1.333 0.002 0.003 4.512 0.000
1.444 0.002 0.003 4.696 0.000
1.555 0.002 0.003 4.873 0.000
1.666 0.002 0.003 5.044 0.000
1.777 0.002 0.004 5.210 0.000
1.888 0.002 0.004 5.370 0.000
2.000 0.002 0.004 5.526 0.000
2.111 0.002 0.004 5.677 0.000
2.222 0.002 0.005 5.825 0.000
2.333 0.002 0.005 5.969 0.000
2.444 0.002 0.005 6.109 0.000
2.555 0.002 0.005 6.246 0.000
2.666 0.002 0.006 6.381 0.000
2.777 0.002 0.006 6.512 0.000
2.888 0.002 0.006 6.641 0.000
3.000 0.002 0.006 6.768 0.000
3.111 0.002 0.007 6.892 0.000
3.222 0.002 0.007 7.014 0.000
3.333 0.002 0.007 7.134 0.000
3.444 0.002 0.007 7.252 0.000
3.555 0.002 0.008 7.368 63.96
3.666 0.002 0.008 7.482 110.7
3.777 0.002 0.008 7.595 143.0
3.888 0.002 0.008 7.706 169.2
4.000 0.002 0.009 7.815 191.8
4.111 0.002 0.009 9.101 213.3
4.222 0.002 0.009 11.35 233.9
4.333 0.002 0.009 14.21 253.8
4.444 0.002 0.010 17.49 272.9
4.555 0.002 0.010 21.06 291.5
4.666 0.002 0.010 24.74 309.4
4.777 0.002 0.011 28.39 326.6
4.888 0.002 0.011 31.85 343.0
2307
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 7
5.000 0.002 0.011 34.98 358.6
5.111 0.002 0.011 37.66 373.2
5.222 0.002 0.012 39.86 387.0
5.333 0.002 0.012 41.57 399.9
5.444 0.002 0.012 42.91 412.2
5.555 0.002 0.012 44.56 424.4
5.666 0.002 0.013 45.89 436.0
5.777 0.002 0.013 47.18 447.3
5.888 0.002 0.013 48.44 458.3
6.000 0.002 0.013 49.66 469.1
6.111 0.002 0.014 50.84 479.6
6.222 0.002 0.014 52.00 489.9
6.333 0.002 0.014 53.13 500.0
6.444 0.002 0.014 54.23 509.9
6.555 0.002 0.015 55.32 519.6
6.666 0.002 0.015 56.38 529.1
6.777 0.002 0.015 57.41 538.5
6.888 0.002 0.015 58.43 547.7
7.000 0.002 0.016 59.43 556.7
7.111 0.002 0.016 60.41 565.6
7.222 0.002 0.016 61.38 574.4
7.333 0.002 0.016 62.33 583.0
7.444 0.002 0.017 63.27 591.5
7.555 0.002 0.017 64.19 599.9
7.666 0.002 0.017 65.10 608.2
7.777 0.002 0.017 65.99 616.3
7.888 0.002 0.018 66.87 624.4
8.000 0.002 0.018 67.74 632.3
8.111 0.002 0.018 68.60 640.2
8.222 0.002 0.018 69.45 647.9
8.333 0.002 0.019 70.28 655.6
8.444 0.002 0.019 71.11 663.1
8.555 0.002 0.019 71.93 670.6
8.666 0.002 0.019 72.74 678.0
8.777 0.002 0.020 73.53 685.3
8.888 0.002 0.020 74.32 692.6
9.000 0.002 0.020 75.10 699.8
9.111 0.002 0.020 75.88 706.9
9.222 0.002 0.021 76.64 713.9
9.333 0.002 0.021 77.40 720.8
9.444 0.002 0.021 78.15 727.7
9.555 0.002 0.021 78.89 734.6
9.666 0.002 0.022 79.62 741.3
9.777 0.002 0.022 80.35 748.0
9.888 0.002 0.022 81.07 754.7
10.00 0.002 0.023 81.79 761.2
10.11 0.002 0.023 82.50 767.8
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 4 ft.
Riser Diameter: 36 in.
Orifice 1 Diameter: 12 in. Elevation:0 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
MWS 1 Flow Splitter 2
2308
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 8 MWS 1
MWS Model Number: MWS-L-8-16
Media Filter Rate (in/hr): 100
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Vault 1 Vault 1
MWS Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
12.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.013
12.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.026
12.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.039
12.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.052
12.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.065
12.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.078
12.000 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.091
12.000 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.104
12.000 0.001 0.008 0.000 0.117
12.000 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.130
12.000 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.143
12.000 0.001 0.014 0.000 0.157
12.000 0.001 0.016 0.000 0.170
12.000 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.183
12.000 0.001 0.022 0.000 0.196
12.000 0.001 0.025 0.000 0.209
12.000 0.001 0.028 0.000 0.222
12.000 0.001 0.031 0.000 0.235
12.000 0.001 0.035 0.000 0.248
12.000 0.001 0.039 0.000 0.261
12.000 0.001 0.042 0.000 0.274
12.000 0.001 0.047 0.000 0.287
12.000 0.001 0.051 0.000 0.300
12.000 0.001 0.055 0.000 0.314
12.000 0.001 0.060 0.000 0.327
12.000 0.001 0.065 0.000 0.340
12.000 0.001 0.070 0.000 0.353
12.000 0.001 0.075 0.000 0.366
12.000 0.001 0.080 0.000 0.379
12.000 0.001 0.086 0.000 0.392
12.000 0.001 0.092 0.000 0.405
12.000 0.001 0.098 0.000 0.418
12.000 0.001 0.104 0.000 0.431
12.000 0.001 0.110 0.000 0.444
12.000 0.001 0.117 6.000 0.444
2309
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 9 Vault 1
Width: 50 ft.
Length: 20 ft.
Depth: 4 ft.
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 2.5 ft.
Riser Diameter: 18 in.
Notch Type: Rectangular
Notch Width: 0.800 ft.
Notch Height: 0.650 ft.
Orifice 1 Diameter: 2 in. Elevation:0 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Vault Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
0.0000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.0444 0.023 0.001 0.022 0.000
0.0889 0.023 0.002 0.032 0.000
0.1333 0.023 0.003 0.039 0.000
0.1778 0.023 0.004 0.045 0.000
0.2222 0.023 0.005 0.051 0.000
0.2667 0.023 0.006 0.056 0.000
0.3111 0.023 0.007 0.060 0.000
0.3556 0.023 0.008 0.064 0.000
0.4000 0.023 0.009 0.068 0.000
0.4444 0.023 0.010 0.072 0.000
0.4889 0.023 0.011 0.075 0.000
0.5333 0.023 0.012 0.079 0.000
0.5778 0.023 0.013 0.082 0.000
0.6222 0.023 0.014 0.085 0.000
0.6667 0.023 0.015 0.088 0.000
0.7111 0.023 0.016 0.091 0.000
0.7556 0.023 0.017 0.094 0.000
0.8000 0.023 0.018 0.097 0.000
0.8444 0.023 0.019 0.099 0.000
0.8889 0.023 0.020 0.102 0.000
0.9333 0.023 0.021 0.104 0.000
0.9778 0.023 0.022 0.107 0.000
1.0222 0.023 0.023 0.109 0.000
1.0667 0.023 0.024 0.112 0.000
1.1111 0.023 0.025 0.114 0.000
1.1556 0.023 0.026 0.116 0.000
1.2000 0.023 0.027 0.118 0.000
1.2444 0.023 0.028 0.121 0.000
1.2889 0.023 0.029 0.123 0.000
1.3333 0.023 0.030 0.125 0.000
1.3778 0.023 0.031 0.127 0.000
1.4222 0.023 0.032 0.129 0.000
1.4667 0.023 0.033 0.131 0.000
1.5111 0.023 0.034 0.133 0.000
1.5556 0.023 0.035 0.135 0.000
1.6000 0.023 0.036 0.137 0.000
1.6444 0.023 0.037 0.139 0.000
1.6889 0.023 0.038 0.141 0.000
2310
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 10
1.7333 0.023 0.039 0.142 0.000
1.7778 0.023 0.040 0.144 0.000
1.8222 0.023 0.041 0.146 0.000
1.8667 0.023 0.042 0.154 0.000
1.9111 0.023 0.043 0.190 0.000
1.9556 0.023 0.044 0.243 0.000
2.0000 0.023 0.045 0.308 0.000
2.0444 0.023 0.046 0.383 0.000
2.0889 0.023 0.048 0.467 0.000
2.1333 0.023 0.049 0.560 0.000
2.1778 0.023 0.050 0.660 0.000
2.2222 0.023 0.051 0.766 0.000
2.2667 0.023 0.052 0.879 0.000
2.3111 0.023 0.053 0.999 0.000
2.3556 0.023 0.054 1.124 0.000
2.4000 0.023 0.055 1.254 0.000
2.4444 0.023 0.056 1.390 0.000
2.4889 0.023 0.057 1.531 0.000
2.5333 0.023 0.058 1.665 0.000
2.5778 0.023 0.059 1.915 0.000
2.6222 0.023 0.060 2.249 0.000
2.6667 0.023 0.061 2.647 0.000
2.7111 0.023 0.062 3.094 0.000
2.7556 0.023 0.063 3.576 0.000
2.8000 0.023 0.064 4.079 0.000
2.8444 0.023 0.065 4.588 0.000
2.8889 0.023 0.066 5.090 0.000
2.9333 0.023 0.067 5.570 0.000
2.9778 0.023 0.068 6.016 0.000
3.0222 0.023 0.069 6.417 0.000
3.0667 0.023 0.070 6.764 0.000
3.1111 0.023 0.071 7.055 0.000
3.1556 0.023 0.072 7.292 0.000
3.2000 0.023 0.073 7.482 0.000
3.2444 0.023 0.074 7.644 0.000
3.2889 0.023 0.075 7.887 0.000
3.3333 0.023 0.076 8.063 0.000
3.3778 0.023 0.077 8.235 0.000
3.4222 0.023 0.078 8.402 0.000
3.4667 0.023 0.079 8.565 0.000
3.5111 0.023 0.080 8.725 0.000
3.5556 0.023 0.081 8.881 0.000
3.6000 0.023 0.082 9.034 0.000
3.6444 0.023 0.083 9.184 0.000
3.6889 0.023 0.084 9.331 0.000
3.7333 0.023 0.085 9.475 0.000
3.7778 0.023 0.086 9.617 0.000
3.8222 0.023 0.087 9.757 0.000
3.8667 0.023 0.088 9.894 0.000
3.9111 0.023 0.089 10.02 0.000
3.9556 0.023 0.090 10.16 0.000
4.0000 0.023 0.091 10.29 0.000
4.0444 0.023 0.092 10.42 0.000
4.0889 0.000 0.000 10.54 0.000
2311
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 11 Flow Splitter 2
Bottom Length: 10.00 ft.
Bottom Length: 10.00 ft.
Depth: 10 ft.
Side slope 1: 0 To 1
Side slope 2: 0 To 1
Side slope 3: 0 To 1
Side slope 4: 0 To 1
Control Structure Splitter Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Primary(cfs) Secondary(cfs)
0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.111 0.002 0.000 1.302 0.000
0.222 0.002 0.000 1.842 0.000
0.333 0.002 0.000 2.256 0.000
0.444 0.002 0.001 2.605 0.000
0.555 0.002 0.001 2.912 0.000
0.666 0.002 0.001 3.190 0.000
0.777 0.002 0.001 3.446 0.000
0.888 0.002 0.002 3.684 0.000
1.000 0.002 0.002 3.907 0.000
1.111 0.002 0.002 4.119 0.000
1.222 0.002 0.002 4.320 0.000
1.333 0.002 0.003 4.512 0.000
1.444 0.002 0.003 4.696 0.000
1.555 0.002 0.003 4.873 0.000
1.666 0.002 0.003 5.044 0.000
1.777 0.002 0.004 5.210 0.000
1.888 0.002 0.004 5.370 0.000
2.000 0.002 0.004 5.526 0.000
2.111 0.002 0.004 5.677 0.000
2.222 0.002 0.005 5.825 0.000
2.333 0.002 0.005 5.969 0.000
2.444 0.002 0.005 6.109 0.000
2.555 0.002 0.005 6.246 0.000
2.666 0.002 0.006 6.381 0.000
2.777 0.002 0.006 6.512 0.000
2.888 0.002 0.006 6.641 0.000
3.000 0.002 0.006 6.768 0.000
3.111 0.002 0.007 6.892 0.000
3.222 0.002 0.007 7.014 0.000
3.333 0.002 0.007 7.134 0.000
3.444 0.002 0.007 7.252 0.000
3.555 0.002 0.008 7.368 63.96
3.666 0.002 0.008 7.482 110.7
3.777 0.002 0.008 7.595 143.0
3.888 0.002 0.008 7.706 169.2
4.000 0.002 0.009 7.815 191.8
4.111 0.002 0.009 9.101 213.3
4.222 0.002 0.009 11.35 233.9
4.333 0.002 0.009 14.21 253.8
4.444 0.002 0.010 17.49 272.9
4.555 0.002 0.010 21.06 291.5
4.666 0.002 0.010 24.74 309.4
4.777 0.002 0.011 28.39 326.6
4.888 0.002 0.011 31.85 343.0
5.000 0.002 0.011 34.98 358.6
5.111 0.002 0.011 37.66 373.2
2312
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 12
5.222 0.002 0.012 39.86 387.0
5.333 0.002 0.012 41.57 399.9
5.444 0.002 0.012 42.91 412.2
5.555 0.002 0.012 44.56 424.4
5.666 0.002 0.013 45.89 436.0
5.777 0.002 0.013 47.18 447.3
5.888 0.002 0.013 48.44 458.3
6.000 0.002 0.013 49.66 469.1
6.111 0.002 0.014 50.84 479.6
6.222 0.002 0.014 52.00 489.9
6.333 0.002 0.014 53.13 500.0
6.444 0.002 0.014 54.23 509.9
6.555 0.002 0.015 55.32 519.6
6.666 0.002 0.015 56.38 529.1
6.777 0.002 0.015 57.41 538.5
6.888 0.002 0.015 58.43 547.7
7.000 0.002 0.016 59.43 556.7
7.111 0.002 0.016 60.41 565.6
7.222 0.002 0.016 61.38 574.4
7.333 0.002 0.016 62.33 583.0
7.444 0.002 0.017 63.27 591.5
7.555 0.002 0.017 64.19 599.9
7.666 0.002 0.017 65.10 608.2
7.777 0.002 0.017 65.99 616.3
7.888 0.002 0.018 66.87 624.4
8.000 0.002 0.018 67.74 632.3
8.111 0.002 0.018 68.60 640.2
8.222 0.002 0.018 69.45 647.9
8.333 0.002 0.019 70.28 655.6
8.444 0.002 0.019 71.11 663.1
8.555 0.002 0.019 71.93 670.6
8.666 0.002 0.019 72.74 678.0
8.777 0.002 0.020 73.53 685.3
8.888 0.002 0.020 74.32 692.6
9.000 0.002 0.020 75.10 699.8
9.111 0.002 0.020 75.88 706.9
9.222 0.002 0.021 76.64 713.9
9.333 0.002 0.021 77.40 720.8
9.444 0.002 0.021 78.15 727.7
9.555 0.002 0.021 78.89 734.6
9.666 0.002 0.022 79.62 741.3
9.777 0.002 0.022 80.35 748.0
9.888 0.002 0.022 81.07 754.7
10.00 0.002 0.023 81.79 761.2
10.11 0.002 0.023 82.50 767.8
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 4 ft.
Riser Diameter: 36 in.
Orifice 1 Diameter: 12 in. Elevation:0 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Vault 1 MWS 2
2313
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 13 MWS 2
MWS Model Number: MWS-L-8-16
Media Filter Rate (in/hr): 100
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Vault 1 Vault 1
MWS Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
12.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.013
12.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.026
12.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.039
12.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.052
12.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.065
12.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.078
12.000 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.091
12.000 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.104
12.000 0.001 0.008 0.000 0.117
12.000 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.130
12.000 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.143
12.000 0.001 0.014 0.000 0.157
12.000 0.001 0.016 0.000 0.170
12.000 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.183
12.000 0.001 0.022 0.000 0.196
12.000 0.001 0.025 0.000 0.209
12.000 0.001 0.028 0.000 0.222
12.000 0.001 0.031 0.000 0.235
12.000 0.001 0.035 0.000 0.248
12.000 0.001 0.039 0.000 0.261
12.000 0.001 0.042 0.000 0.274
12.000 0.001 0.047 0.000 0.287
12.000 0.001 0.051 0.000 0.300
12.000 0.001 0.055 0.000 0.314
12.000 0.001 0.060 0.000 0.327
12.000 0.001 0.065 0.000 0.340
12.000 0.001 0.070 0.000 0.353
12.000 0.001 0.075 0.000 0.366
12.000 0.001 0.080 0.000 0.379
12.000 0.001 0.086 0.000 0.392
12.000 0.001 0.092 0.000 0.405
12.000 0.001 0.098 0.000 0.418
12.000 0.001 0.104 0.000 0.431
12.000 0.001 0.110 0.000 0.444
12.000 0.001 0.117 6.000 0.444
2314
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:41:42 PM Page 14 Analysis Results
POC 1
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 2.77
Total Impervious Area: 0
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 2.15
Total Impervious Area: 0.55
Flow Frequency Method: Cunnane
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 1.610448
5 year 2.024481
10 year 2.553289
25 year 3.414307
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.125813
5 year 0.156841
10 year 0.300355
25 year 0.500632
2315
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:07 PM Page 15 Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
0.1610 3612 269 7 Pass
0.1852 3266 218 6 Pass
0.2094 2942 175 5 Pass
0.2335 2644 138 5 Pass
0.2577 2404 117 4 Pass
0.2819 2180 97 4 Pass
0.3060 1978 80 4 Pass
0.3302 1820 64 3 Pass
0.3544 1684 54 3 Pass
0.3785 1553 39 2 Pass
0.4027 1425 28 1 Pass
0.4268 1312 17 1 Pass
0.4510 1205 13 1 Pass
0.4752 1107 13 1 Pass
0.4993 1031 13 1 Pass
0.5235 958 11 1 Pass
0.5477 898 11 1 Pass
0.5718 828 10 1 Pass
0.5960 759 10 1 Pass
0.6202 711 10 1 Pass
0.6443 664 10 1 Pass
0.6685 602 8 1 Pass
0.6927 564 6 1 Pass
0.7168 520 6 1 Pass
0.7410 493 5 1 Pass
0.7651 466 3 0 Pass
0.7893 430 2 0 Pass
0.8135 398 2 0 Pass
0.8376 375 2 0 Pass
0.8618 356 2 0 Pass
0.8860 336 2 0 Pass
0.9101 314 2 0 Pass
0.9343 298 2 0 Pass
0.9585 282 2 0 Pass
0.9826 273 2 0 Pass
1.0068 262 2 0 Pass
1.0310 241 2 0 Pass
1.0551 227 2 0 Pass
1.0793 216 2 0 Pass
1.1034 204 2 0 Pass
1.1276 196 2 1 Pass
1.1518 183 2 1 Pass
1.1759 172 2 1 Pass
1.2001 164 2 1 Pass
1.2243 156 2 1 Pass
1.2484 148 2 1 Pass
1.2726 138 2 1 Pass
1.2968 129 2 1 Pass
1.3209 121 2 1 Pass
1.3451 118 2 1 Pass
1.3692 112 2 1 Pass
1.3934 106 2 1 Pass
1.4176 100 2 2 Pass
2316
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:07 PM Page 16
1.4417 96 2 2 Pass
1.4659 91 2 2 Pass
1.4901 85 2 2 Pass
1.5142 81 2 2 Pass
1.5384 79 2 2 Pass
1.5626 73 2 2 Pass
1.5867 67 2 2 Pass
1.6109 67 2 2 Pass
1.6351 60 1 1 Pass
1.6592 57 1 1 Pass
1.6834 53 1 1 Pass
1.7075 49 1 2 Pass
1.7317 46 1 2 Pass
1.7559 45 1 2 Pass
1.7800 45 1 2 Pass
1.8042 42 1 2 Pass
1.8284 41 1 2 Pass
1.8525 39 1 2 Pass
1.8767 32 1 3 Pass
1.9009 29 1 3 Pass
1.9250 29 1 3 Pass
1.9492 27 1 3 Pass
1.9734 26 1 3 Pass
1.9975 23 1 4 Pass
2.0217 22 1 4 Pass
2.0458 22 1 4 Pass
2.0700 22 1 4 Pass
2.0942 22 1 4 Pass
2.1183 20 0 0 Pass
2.1425 19 0 0 Pass
2.1667 19 0 0 Pass
2.1908 18 0 0 Pass
2.2150 16 0 0 Pass
2.2392 16 0 0 Pass
2.2633 16 0 0 Pass
2.2875 15 0 0 Pass
2.3116 15 0 0 Pass
2.3358 14 0 0 Pass
2.3600 14 0 0 Pass
2.3841 14 0 0 Pass
2.4083 14 0 0 Pass
2.4325 14 0 0 Pass
2.4566 13 0 0 Pass
2.4808 12 0 0 Pass
2.5050 11 0 0 Pass
2.5291 11 0 0 Pass
2.5533 11 0 0 Pass
2317
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:07 PM Page 17 Water Quality
2318
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:07 PM Page 18 Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.
PERLND Changes
No PERLND changes have been made.
IMPLND Changes
No IMPLND changes have been made.
2319
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:07 PM Page 19 Appendix
Predeveloped Schematic
2320
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 20 Mitigated Schematic
2321
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 21 Predeveloped UCI File
RUN
GLOBAL
WWHM4 model simulation
START 1949 10 01 END 2006 09 30
RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0
RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1
END GLOBAL
FILES
<File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> ***
WDM 26 117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.wdm MESSU 25 Pre117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.MES 27 Pre117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.L61
28 Pre117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.L62
30 POC117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-191.dat
END FILES
OPN SEQUENCE
INGRP INDELT 00:15
PERLND 44
COPY 501
DISPLY 1
END INGRP
END OPN SEQUENCE
DISPLY
DISPLY-INFO1
# - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9
END DISPLY-INFO1
END DISPLY
COPY
TIMESERIES
# - # NPT NMN ***
1 1 1
501 1 1
END TIMESERIES
END COPY
GENER
OPCODE
# # OPCD ***
END OPCODE
PARM
# # K ***
END PARM
END GENER
PERLND
GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
44 D,Open Brush,VSteep 1 1 1 1 27 0
END GEN-INFO
*** Section PWATER***
ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 44 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
END ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 44 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
END PRINT-INFO
2322
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 22 PWAT-PARM1
<PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 44 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
END PWAT-PARM1
PWAT-PARM2
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC
44 0 3.7 0.012 250 0.2 0.8 0.955
END PWAT-PARM2
PWAT-PARM3
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 44 40 35 4 2 0 0.03 0
END PWAT-PARM3
PWAT-PARM4
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 ***
# - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP ***
44 0 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.3 0
END PWAT-PARM4
MON-LZETPARM
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 44 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.4
END MON-LZETPARM
MON-INTERCEP
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 44 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
END MON-INTERCEP
PWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 ***
# - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS
44 0 0 0.025 0 0.74 0.3 0.01
END PWAT-STATE1
END PERLND
IMPLND
GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer ***
# - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
END GEN-INFO
*** Section IWATER***
ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***
END ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
<ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR
# - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *********
END PRINT-INFO
IWAT-PARM1
<PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI ***
END IWAT-PARM1
IWAT-PARM2
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC
END IWAT-PARM2
2323
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 23 IWAT-PARM3
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN
END IWAT-PARM3
IWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
# - # *** RETS SURS
END IWAT-STATE1
END IMPLND
SCHEMATIC
<-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK ***
<Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# ***
Basin 1***
PERLND 44 2.77 COPY 501 12
PERLND 44 2.77 COPY 501 13
******Routing******
END SCHEMATIC
NETWORK
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***
END NETWORK
RCHRES
GEN-INFO
RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer ***
# - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out ***
END GEN-INFO
*** Section RCHRES***
ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG ***
END ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR *********
END PRINT-INFO
HYDR-PARM1
RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section ***
# - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***
END HYDR-PARM1
HYDR-PARM2
# - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 ***
<------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2
HYDR-INIT
RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section ***
# - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><--->
END HYDR-INIT
END RCHRES
2324
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 24
SPEC-ACTIONS
END SPEC-ACTIONS
FTABLES
END FTABLES
EXT SOURCES
<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP
END EXT SOURCES
EXT TARGETS
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL
END EXT TARGETS
MASS-LINK
<Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #***
MASS-LINK 12
PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 12
MASS-LINK 13
PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 13
END MASS-LINK
END RUN
2325
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 25 Mitigated UCI File
RUN
GLOBAL
WWHM4 model simulation
START 1949 10 01 END 2006 09 30
RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0
RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1
END GLOBAL
FILES
<File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> ***
WDM 26 117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.wdm MESSU 25 Mit117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.MES 27 Mit117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.L61
28 Mit117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19.L62
30 POC117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-191.dat
END FILES
OPN SEQUENCE
INGRP INDELT 00:15
PERLND 53
IMPLND 1
RCHRES 1
RCHRES 2
RCHRES 3
RCHRES 4
RCHRES 5
COPY 1
COPY 501
DISPLY 1
END INGRP
END OPN SEQUENCE
DISPLY
DISPLY-INFO1
# - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Vault 1 MAX 1 2 30 9
END DISPLY-INFO1
END DISPLY
COPY
TIMESERIES
# - # NPT NMN ***
1 1 1
501 1 1
END TIMESERIES
END COPY
GENER
OPCODE
# # OPCD ***
END OPCODE
PARM
# # K ***
END PARM
END GENER
PERLND
GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
53 B,Urban,Flat(0-5%) 1 1 1 1 27 0
END GEN-INFO
*** Section PWATER***
ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 53 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
END ACTIVITY
2326
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 26
PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 53 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
END PRINT-INFO
PWAT-PARM1
<PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 53 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
END PWAT-PARM1
PWAT-PARM2
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC
53 0 4.8 0.07 400 0.05 0.8 0.955
END PWAT-PARM2
PWAT-PARM3
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 53 40 35 2 2 0 0.03 0
END PWAT-PARM3
PWAT-PARM4
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 ***
# - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP ***
53 0 0.7 0.25 3 0.7 0
END PWAT-PARM4
MON-LZETPARM
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 53 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.55 0.5
END MON-LZETPARM
MON-INTERCEP
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 53 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
END MON-INTERCEP
PWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 ***
# - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS
53 0 0 0.07 0 0.96 0.3 0.01
END PWAT-STATE1
END PERLND
IMPLND
GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer ***
# - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
1 Impervious,Flat(0-5) 1 1 1 27 0
END GEN-INFO
*** Section IWATER***
ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***
1 0 0 1 0 0 0
END ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
<ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR
# - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *********
1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9
END PRINT-INFO
2327
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 27 IWAT-PARM1
<PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI ***
1 0 0 0 0 0
END IWAT-PARM1
IWAT-PARM2
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC
1 100 0.05 0.1 0.1
END IWAT-PARM2
IWAT-PARM3
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN
1 0 0
END IWAT-PARM3
IWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
# - # *** RETS SURS
1 0 0
END IWAT-STATE1
END IMPLND
SCHEMATIC
<-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK ***
<Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# ***
Basin 1***
PERLND 53 2.15 RCHRES 1 2
PERLND 53 2.15 RCHRES 1 3
IMPLND 1 0.55 RCHRES 1 5
******Routing******
RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 7
RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 3 8
RCHRES 2 1 RCHRES 5 7
RCHRES 2 COPY 1 17
RCHRES 2 1 RCHRES 5 8
RCHRES 2 COPY 1 18
RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 5 7
RCHRES 3 COPY 1 17
RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 4 8
RCHRES 4 1 RCHRES 5 7
RCHRES 4 COPY 1 17
RCHRES 4 1 RCHRES 5 8
RCHRES 4 COPY 1 18
RCHRES 5 1 COPY 501 16
END SCHEMATIC
NETWORK
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***
END NETWORK
RCHRES
GEN-INFO
RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer ***
# - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out ***
1 Flow Splitter 1-005 2 1 1 1 28 0 1
2 MWS 1 2 1 1 1 28 0 1
3 Flow Splitter 2-008 2 1 1 1 28 0 1
2328
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 28 4 MWS 2 2 1 1 1 28 0 1
5 Vault 1 1 1 1 1 28 0 1
END GEN-INFO
*** Section RCHRES***
ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
END ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
END PRINT-INFO
HYDR-PARM1
RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section ***
# - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***
1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
2 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
3 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
4 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
5 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
END HYDR-PARM1
HYDR-PARM2
# - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 ***
<------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
2 2 0.01 0.0 12.0 0.5 0.0
3 3 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
4 4 0.01 0.0 12.0 0.5 0.0
5 5 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
END HYDR-PARM2
HYDR-INIT
RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section ***
# - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
END HYDR-INIT
END RCHRES
SPEC-ACTIONS
END SPEC-ACTIONS
FTABLES
FTABLE 1
90 5
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***
0.000000 0.002296 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.111111 0.002296 0.000255 1.302567 0.000000
0.222222 0.002296 0.000510 1.842107 0.000000
0.333333 0.002296 0.000765 2.256112 0.000000
2329
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 29
0.444444 0.002296 0.001020 2.605133 0.000000
0.555556 0.002296 0.001275 2.912628 0.000000
0.666667 0.002296 0.001530 3.190624 0.000000
0.777778 0.002296 0.001786 3.446267 0.000000
0.888889 0.002296 0.002041 3.684215 0.000000
1.000000 0.002296 0.002296 3.907700 0.000000
1.111111 0.002296 0.002551 4.119077 0.000000
1.222222 0.002296 0.002806 4.320125 0.000000
1.333333 0.002296 0.003061 4.512223 0.000000
1.444444 0.002296 0.003316 4.696471 0.000000
1.555556 0.002296 0.003571 4.873758 0.000000
1.666667 0.002296 0.003826 5.044819 0.000000
1.777778 0.002296 0.004081 5.210267 0.000000
1.888889 0.002296 0.004336 5.370620 0.000000
2.000000 0.002296 0.004591 5.526322 0.000000
2.111111 0.002296 0.004846 5.677756 0.000000
2.222222 0.002296 0.005102 5.825255 0.000000
2.333333 0.002296 0.005357 5.969110 0.000000
2.444444 0.002296 0.005612 6.109579 0.000000
2.555556 0.002296 0.005867 6.246890 0.000000
2.666667 0.002296 0.006122 6.381247 0.000000
2.777778 0.002296 0.006377 6.512833 0.000000
2.888889 0.002296 0.006632 6.641813 0.000000
3.000000 0.002296 0.006887 6.768335 0.000000
3.111111 0.002296 0.007142 6.892535 0.000000
3.222222 0.002296 0.007397 7.014536 0.000000
3.333333 0.002296 0.007652 7.134451 0.000000
3.444444 0.002296 0.007907 7.252384 0.000000
3.555556 0.002296 0.008162 7.368430 63.96206
3.666667 0.002296 0.008418 7.482676 110.7855
3.777778 0.002296 0.008673 7.595204 143.0235
3.888889 0.002296 0.008928 7.706088 169.2277
4.000000 0.002296 0.009183 7.815400 191.8862
4.111111 0.002296 0.009438 9.101365 213.3163
4.222222 0.002296 0.009693 11.35469 233.9436
4.333333 0.002296 0.009948 14.21151 253.8010
4.444444 0.002296 0.010203 17.49811 272.9823
4.555556 0.002296 0.010458 21.06184 291.5255
4.666667 0.002296 0.010713 24.74759 309.4170
4.777778 0.002296 0.010968 28.39661 326.6064
4.888889 0.002296 0.011223 31.85390 343.0240
5.000000 0.002296 0.011478 34.98055 358.5993
5.111111 0.002296 0.011733 37.66942 373.2812
5.222222 0.002296 0.011989 39.86356 387.0593
5.333333 0.002296 0.012244 41.57678 399.9864
5.444444 0.002296 0.012499 42.91631 412.2030
5.555556 0.002296 0.012754 44.56505 424.4206
5.666667 0.002296 0.013009 45.89758 436.0384
5.777778 0.002296 0.013264 47.18850 447.3526
5.888889 0.002296 0.013519 48.44160 458.3861
6.000000 0.002296 0.013774 49.66012 469.1588
6.111111 0.002296 0.014029 50.84685 479.6886
6.222222 0.002296 0.014284 52.00424 489.9912
6.333333 0.002296 0.014539 53.13442 500.0808
6.444444 0.002296 0.014794 54.23928 509.9701
6.555556 0.002296 0.015049 55.32049 519.6706
6.666667 0.002296 0.015305 56.37956 529.1929
6.777778 0.002296 0.015560 57.41782 538.5464
6.888889 0.002296 0.015815 58.43650 547.7398
7.000000 0.002296 0.016070 59.43668 556.7810
7.111111 0.002296 0.016325 60.41936 565.6775
7.222222 0.002296 0.016580 61.38546 574.4359
7.333333 0.002296 0.016835 62.33580 583.0625
7.444444 0.002296 0.017090 63.27116 591.5631
7.555556 0.002296 0.017345 64.19223 599.9431
7.666667 0.002296 0.017600 65.09967 608.2075
7.777778 0.002296 0.017855 65.99408 616.3609
7.888889 0.002296 0.018110 66.87601 624.4076
8.000000 0.002296 0.018365 67.74599 632.3519
8.111111 0.002296 0.018621 68.60449 640.1975
2330
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 30
8.222222 0.002296 0.018876 69.45197 647.9480
8.333333 0.002296 0.019131 70.28886 655.6067
8.444444 0.002296 0.019386 71.11554 663.1769
8.555556 0.002296 0.019641 71.93239 670.6616
8.666667 0.002296 0.019896 72.73976 678.0636
8.777778 0.002296 0.020151 73.53798 685.3856
8.888889 0.002296 0.020406 74.32736 692.6301
9.000000 0.002296 0.020661 75.10818 699.7996
9.111111 0.002296 0.020916 75.88073 706.8963
9.222222 0.002296 0.021171 76.64527 713.9224
9.333333 0.002296 0.021426 77.40205 720.8800
9.444444 0.002296 0.021681 78.15130 727.7710
9.555556 0.002296 0.021937 78.89325 734.5973
9.666667 0.002296 0.022192 79.62811 741.3607
9.777778 0.002296 0.022447 80.35607 748.0630
9.888889 0.002296 0.022702 81.07735 754.7057
END FTABLE 1
FTABLE 2
36 5
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***
0.000000 0.001469 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.100000 0.001469 0.000186 0.000000 0.013083
0.200000 0.001469 0.000558 0.000000 0.026166
0.300000 0.001469 0.001115 0.000000 0.039248
0.400000 0.001469 0.001859 0.000000 0.052331
0.500000 0.001469 0.002788 0.000000 0.065414
0.600000 0.001469 0.003903 0.000000 0.078497
0.700000 0.001469 0.005205 0.000000 0.091580
0.800000 0.001469 0.006692 0.000000 0.104663
0.900000 0.001469 0.008365 0.000000 0.117745
1.000000 0.001469 0.010223 0.000000 0.130828
1.100000 0.001469 0.012268 0.000000 0.143911
1.200000 0.001469 0.014499 0.000000 0.156994
1.300000 0.001469 0.016915 0.000000 0.170077
1.400000 0.001469 0.019517 0.000000 0.183159
1.500000 0.001469 0.022306 0.000000 0.196242
1.600000 0.001469 0.025280 0.000000 0.209325
1.700000 0.001469 0.028440 0.000000 0.222408
1.800000 0.001469 0.031785 0.000000 0.235491
1.900000 0.001469 0.035317 0.000000 0.248574
2.000000 0.001469 0.039035 0.000000 0.261656
2.100000 0.001469 0.042938 0.000000 0.274739
2.200000 0.001469 0.047027 0.000000 0.287822
2.300000 0.001469 0.051303 0.000000 0.300905
2.400000 0.001469 0.055764 0.000000 0.313988
2.500000 0.001469 0.060411 0.000000 0.327070
2.600000 0.001469 0.065244 0.000000 0.340153
2.700000 0.001469 0.070262 0.000000 0.353236
2.800000 0.001469 0.075467 0.000000 0.366319
2.900000 0.001469 0.080857 0.000000 0.379402
3.000000 0.001469 0.086434 0.000000 0.392484
3.100000 0.001469 0.092196 0.000000 0.405567
3.200000 0.001469 0.098144 0.000000 0.418650
3.300000 0.001469 0.104278 0.000000 0.431733
3.400000 0.001469 0.110598 0.000000 0.444816
4.400000 0.001469 0.117104 6.000000 0.444816
END FTABLE 2
FTABLE 5
92 4
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time***
(ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***
0.000000 0.022957 0.000000 0.000000
0.044444 0.022957 0.001020 0.022884
0.088889 0.022957 0.002041 0.032363
0.133333 0.022957 0.003061 0.039636
0.177778 0.022957 0.004081 0.045768
0.222222 0.022957 0.005102 0.051170
0.266667 0.022957 0.006122 0.056054
0.311111 0.022957 0.007142 0.060545
2331
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 31
0.355556 0.022957 0.008162 0.064725
0.400000 0.022957 0.009183 0.068651
0.444444 0.022957 0.010203 0.072365
0.488889 0.022957 0.011223 0.075897
0.533333 0.022957 0.012244 0.079272
0.577778 0.022957 0.013264 0.082509
0.622222 0.022957 0.014284 0.085623
0.666667 0.022957 0.015305 0.088628
0.711111 0.022957 0.016325 0.091535
0.755556 0.022957 0.017345 0.094352
0.800000 0.022957 0.018365 0.097088
0.844444 0.022957 0.019386 0.099748
0.888889 0.022957 0.020406 0.102339
0.933333 0.022957 0.021426 0.104867
0.977778 0.022957 0.022447 0.107334
1.022222 0.022957 0.023467 0.109747
1.066667 0.022957 0.024487 0.112107
1.111111 0.022957 0.025508 0.114419
1.155556 0.022957 0.026528 0.116685
1.200000 0.022957 0.027548 0.118908
1.244444 0.022957 0.028569 0.121089
1.288889 0.022957 0.029589 0.123233
1.333333 0.022957 0.030609 0.125340
1.377778 0.022957 0.031629 0.127411
1.422222 0.022957 0.032650 0.129450
1.466667 0.022957 0.033670 0.131457
1.511111 0.022957 0.034690 0.133434
1.555556 0.022957 0.035711 0.135382
1.600000 0.022957 0.036731 0.137303
1.644444 0.022957 0.037751 0.139197
1.688889 0.022957 0.038772 0.141065
1.733333 0.022957 0.039792 0.142909
1.777778 0.022957 0.040812 0.144730
1.822222 0.022957 0.041832 0.146528
1.866667 0.022957 0.042853 0.154036
1.911111 0.022957 0.043873 0.190304
1.955556 0.022957 0.044893 0.243154
2.000000 0.022957 0.045914 0.308273
2.044444 0.022957 0.046934 0.383622
2.088889 0.022957 0.047954 0.467932
2.133333 0.022957 0.048975 0.560316
2.177778 0.022957 0.049995 0.660110
2.222222 0.022957 0.051015 0.766788
2.266667 0.022957 0.052036 0.879925
2.311111 0.022957 0.053056 0.999164
2.355556 0.022957 0.054076 1.124204
2.400000 0.022957 0.055096 1.254782
2.444444 0.022957 0.056117 1.390670
2.488889 0.022957 0.057137 1.531664
2.533333 0.022957 0.058157 1.665682
2.577778 0.022957 0.059178 1.915113
2.622222 0.022957 0.060198 2.249489
2.666667 0.022957 0.061218 2.647587
2.711111 0.022957 0.062239 3.094400
2.755556 0.022957 0.063259 3.576155
2.800000 0.022957 0.064279 4.078956
2.844444 0.022957 0.065299 4.588531
2.888889 0.022957 0.066320 5.090476
2.933333 0.022957 0.067340 5.570795
2.977778 0.022957 0.068360 6.016645
3.022222 0.022957 0.069381 6.417226
3.066667 0.022957 0.070401 6.764807
3.111111 0.022957 0.071421 7.055862
3.155556 0.022957 0.072442 7.292295
3.200000 0.022957 0.073462 7.482769
3.244444 0.022957 0.074482 7.644103
3.288889 0.022957 0.075502 7.887251
3.333333 0.022957 0.076523 8.063453
3.377778 0.022957 0.077543 8.235041
3.422222 0.022957 0.078563 8.402362
2332
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 32
3.466667 0.022957 0.079584 8.565720
3.511111 0.022957 0.080604 8.725385
3.555556 0.022957 0.081624 8.881598
3.600000 0.022957 0.082645 9.034574
3.644444 0.022957 0.083665 9.184507
3.688889 0.022957 0.084685 9.331573
3.733333 0.022957 0.085706 9.475931
3.777778 0.022957 0.086726 9.617725
3.822222 0.022957 0.087746 9.757088
3.866667 0.022957 0.088766 9.894141
3.911111 0.022957 0.089787 10.02900
3.955556 0.022957 0.090807 10.16176
4.000000 0.022957 0.091827 10.29251
4.044444 0.022957 0.092848 10.42136
END FTABLE 5
FTABLE 3
90 5
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***
0.000000 0.002296 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.111111 0.002296 0.000255 1.302567 0.000000
0.222222 0.002296 0.000510 1.842107 0.000000
0.333333 0.002296 0.000765 2.256112 0.000000
0.444444 0.002296 0.001020 2.605133 0.000000
0.555556 0.002296 0.001275 2.912628 0.000000
0.666667 0.002296 0.001530 3.190624 0.000000
0.777778 0.002296 0.001786 3.446267 0.000000
0.888889 0.002296 0.002041 3.684215 0.000000
1.000000 0.002296 0.002296 3.907700 0.000000
1.111111 0.002296 0.002551 4.119077 0.000000
1.222222 0.002296 0.002806 4.320125 0.000000
1.333333 0.002296 0.003061 4.512223 0.000000
1.444444 0.002296 0.003316 4.696471 0.000000
1.555556 0.002296 0.003571 4.873758 0.000000
1.666667 0.002296 0.003826 5.044819 0.000000
1.777778 0.002296 0.004081 5.210267 0.000000
1.888889 0.002296 0.004336 5.370620 0.000000
2.000000 0.002296 0.004591 5.526322 0.000000
2.111111 0.002296 0.004846 5.677756 0.000000
2.222222 0.002296 0.005102 5.825255 0.000000
2.333333 0.002296 0.005357 5.969110 0.000000
2.444444 0.002296 0.005612 6.109579 0.000000
2.555556 0.002296 0.005867 6.246890 0.000000
2.666667 0.002296 0.006122 6.381247 0.000000
2.777778 0.002296 0.006377 6.512833 0.000000
2.888889 0.002296 0.006632 6.641813 0.000000
3.000000 0.002296 0.006887 6.768335 0.000000
3.111111 0.002296 0.007142 6.892535 0.000000
3.222222 0.002296 0.007397 7.014536 0.000000
3.333333 0.002296 0.007652 7.134451 0.000000
3.444444 0.002296 0.007907 7.252384 0.000000
3.555556 0.002296 0.008162 7.368430 63.96206
3.666667 0.002296 0.008418 7.482676 110.7855
3.777778 0.002296 0.008673 7.595204 143.0235
3.888889 0.002296 0.008928 7.706088 169.2277
4.000000 0.002296 0.009183 7.815400 191.8862
4.111111 0.002296 0.009438 9.101365 213.3163
4.222222 0.002296 0.009693 11.35469 233.9436
4.333333 0.002296 0.009948 14.21151 253.8010
4.444444 0.002296 0.010203 17.49811 272.9823
4.555556 0.002296 0.010458 21.06184 291.5255
4.666667 0.002296 0.010713 24.74759 309.4170
4.777778 0.002296 0.010968 28.39661 326.6064
4.888889 0.002296 0.011223 31.85390 343.0240
5.000000 0.002296 0.011478 34.98055 358.5993
5.111111 0.002296 0.011733 37.66942 373.2812
5.222222 0.002296 0.011989 39.86356 387.0593
5.333333 0.002296 0.012244 41.57678 399.9864
5.444444 0.002296 0.012499 42.91631 412.2030
5.555556 0.002296 0.012754 44.56505 424.4206
2333
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 33
5.666667 0.002296 0.013009 45.89758 436.0384
5.777778 0.002296 0.013264 47.18850 447.3526
5.888889 0.002296 0.013519 48.44160 458.3861
6.000000 0.002296 0.013774 49.66012 469.1588
6.111111 0.002296 0.014029 50.84685 479.6886
6.222222 0.002296 0.014284 52.00424 489.9912
6.333333 0.002296 0.014539 53.13442 500.0808
6.444444 0.002296 0.014794 54.23928 509.9701
6.555556 0.002296 0.015049 55.32049 519.6706
6.666667 0.002296 0.015305 56.37956 529.1929
6.777778 0.002296 0.015560 57.41782 538.5464
6.888889 0.002296 0.015815 58.43650 547.7398
7.000000 0.002296 0.016070 59.43668 556.7810
7.111111 0.002296 0.016325 60.41936 565.6775
7.222222 0.002296 0.016580 61.38546 574.4359
7.333333 0.002296 0.016835 62.33580 583.0625
7.444444 0.002296 0.017090 63.27116 591.5631
7.555556 0.002296 0.017345 64.19223 599.9431
7.666667 0.002296 0.017600 65.09967 608.2075
7.777778 0.002296 0.017855 65.99408 616.3609
7.888889 0.002296 0.018110 66.87601 624.4076
8.000000 0.002296 0.018365 67.74599 632.3519
8.111111 0.002296 0.018621 68.60449 640.1975
8.222222 0.002296 0.018876 69.45197 647.9480
8.333333 0.002296 0.019131 70.28886 655.6067
8.444444 0.002296 0.019386 71.11554 663.1769
8.555556 0.002296 0.019641 71.93239 670.6616
8.666667 0.002296 0.019896 72.73976 678.0636
8.777778 0.002296 0.020151 73.53798 685.3856
8.888889 0.002296 0.020406 74.32736 692.6301
9.000000 0.002296 0.020661 75.10818 699.7996
9.111111 0.002296 0.020916 75.88073 706.8963
9.222222 0.002296 0.021171 76.64527 713.9224
9.333333 0.002296 0.021426 77.40205 720.8800
9.444444 0.002296 0.021681 78.15130 727.7710
9.555556 0.002296 0.021937 78.89325 734.5973
9.666667 0.002296 0.022192 79.62811 741.3607
9.777778 0.002296 0.022447 80.35607 748.0630
9.888889 0.002296 0.022702 81.07735 754.7057
END FTABLE 3
FTABLE 4
36 5
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***
0.000000 0.001469 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
0.100000 0.001469 0.000186 0.000000 0.013083
0.200000 0.001469 0.000558 0.000000 0.026166
0.300000 0.001469 0.001115 0.000000 0.039248
0.400000 0.001469 0.001859 0.000000 0.052331
0.500000 0.001469 0.002788 0.000000 0.065414
0.600000 0.001469 0.003903 0.000000 0.078497
0.700000 0.001469 0.005205 0.000000 0.091580
0.800000 0.001469 0.006692 0.000000 0.104663
0.900000 0.001469 0.008365 0.000000 0.117745
1.000000 0.001469 0.010223 0.000000 0.130828
1.100000 0.001469 0.012268 0.000000 0.143911
1.200000 0.001469 0.014499 0.000000 0.156994
1.300000 0.001469 0.016915 0.000000 0.170077
1.400000 0.001469 0.019517 0.000000 0.183159
1.500000 0.001469 0.022306 0.000000 0.196242
1.600000 0.001469 0.025280 0.000000 0.209325
1.700000 0.001469 0.028440 0.000000 0.222408
1.800000 0.001469 0.031785 0.000000 0.235491
1.900000 0.001469 0.035317 0.000000 0.248574
2.000000 0.001469 0.039035 0.000000 0.261656
2.100000 0.001469 0.042938 0.000000 0.274739
2.200000 0.001469 0.047027 0.000000 0.287822
2.300000 0.001469 0.051303 0.000000 0.300905
2.400000 0.001469 0.055764 0.000000 0.313988
2.500000 0.001469 0.060411 0.000000 0.327070
2334
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 34
2.600000 0.001469 0.065244 0.000000 0.340153
2.700000 0.001469 0.070262 0.000000 0.353236
2.800000 0.001469 0.075467 0.000000 0.366319
2.900000 0.001469 0.080857 0.000000 0.379402
3.000000 0.001469 0.086434 0.000000 0.392484
3.100000 0.001469 0.092196 0.000000 0.405567
3.200000 0.001469 0.098144 0.000000 0.418650
3.300000 0.001469 0.104278 0.000000 0.431733
3.400000 0.001469 0.110598 0.000000 0.444816
4.400000 0.001469 0.117104 6.000000 0.444816
END FTABLE 4
END FTABLES
EXT SOURCES
<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP
WDM 22 IRRG ENGL 0.7 SAME PERLND 53 EXTNL SURLI
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 2 EXTNL PREC
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 4 EXTNL PREC
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 RCHRES 4 EXTNL POTEV
END EXT SOURCES
EXT TARGETS
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 5 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL
RCHRES 5 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1001 STAG ENGL REPL
COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL
COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL
END EXT TARGETS
MASS-LINK
<Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #***
MASS-LINK 2
PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 2
MASS-LINK 3
PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 3
MASS-LINK 5
IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 5
MASS-LINK 7
RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 7
MASS-LINK 8
RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 8
MASS-LINK 16
RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 16
MASS-LINK 17
RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 17
MASS-LINK 18
RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 COPY INPUT MEAN
2335
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 35 END MASS-LINK 18
END MASS-LINK
END RUN
2336
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 36 Predeveloped HSPF Message File
2337
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 37 Mitigated HSPF Message File
2338
117-010 Argonaut SOHM HMP_20x50x4_2024-08-19 8/19/2024 8:42:08 PM Page 38 Disclaimer
Legal Notice
This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2024; All Rights Reserved.
Clear Creek Solutions, Inc.
6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F
Olympia, WA. 98501
Toll Free 1(866)943-0304
Local (360)943-0304
www.clearcreeksolutions.com
2339
T1 T2 T4 T7 T74 T4 SP1 T4 SP2 Total Units
0 3 6 0 0 2 0 11
System Invert
433.45
0.25 0.00 88.02 133.72 0.00 0.00 30.12 0.00 247.36 433.70
0.50 0.00 176.04 267.45 0.00 0.00 60.23 0.00 494.72 433.95
0.75 0.00 264.05 401.17 0.00 0.00 90.35 0.00 742.07 434.20
1.00 0.00 352.07 534.89 0.00 0.00 120.47 0.00 989.43 434.45
1.25 0.00 440.09 668.61 0.00 0.00 150.59 0.00 1,236.79 434.70
1.50 0.00 528.11 802.34 0.00 0.00 180.70 0.00 1,484.15 434.95
1.75 0.00 616.12 936.06 0.00 0.00 210.82 0.00 1,731.51 435.20
2.00 0.00 704.14 1,069.78 0.00 0.00 240.94 0.00 1,978.87 435.45
2.25 0.00 792.16 1,203.51 0.00 0.00 271.06 0.00 2,226.22 435.70
2.50 0.00 880.18 1,337.23 0.00 0.00 301.17 0.00 2,473.58 435.95
2.75 0.00 968.20 1,470.95 0.00 0.00 331.29 0.00 2,720.94 436.20
3.18 0.00 1,119.59 1,700.96 0.00 0.00 383.09 0.00 3,146.40 436.63
3.25 0.00 1,144.23 1,738.40 0.00 0.00 391.53 0.00 3,215.66 436.70
3.50 0.00 1,232.25 1,872.12 0.00 0.00 421.64 0.00 N/A 436.95
3.75 0.00 1,320.27 2,005.84 0.00 0.00 451.76 0.00 N/A 437.20
4.00 0.00 1,408.29 2,139.57 0.00 0.00 481.88 0.00 N/A 437.45
4.25 0.00 1,496.30 2,273.29 0.00 0.00 512.00 0.00 N/A 437.70
4.50 0.00 1,584.32 2,407.01 0.00 0.00 542.11 0.00 N/A 437.95
4.75 0.00 1,672.34 2,540.74 0.00 0.00 572.23 0.00 N/A 438.20
5.00 0.00 1,760.36 2,674.46 0.00 0.00 602.35 0.00 N/A 438.45
5.25 0.00 1,848.37 2,808.18 0.00 0.00 632.47 0.00 N/A 438.70
5.50 0.00 1,936.39 2,941.91 0.00 0.00 662.58 0.00 N/A 438.95 Stage Storage
Elevation
3'-3" SingleTrap
TOTAL VOLUME: 3215.66 (C.F.)
ARGONAUT
STAGE STORAGE BREAKDOWN
Storage Height
2340
1'-3
1 2"
6"
3"
3'-0"
7'-10"
INLET
OUTLET
OUTSIDE BOTTOM ELEV. 434.62
OUTLET 1 INVERT ELEV. 435.20
TOP OF STRUCTURE ELEV. 443.20
WEIR/TREATMENT HGL ELEV. 438.20
INLET 1 INVERT ELEV. 436.25
RIM ELEV. 443.2+/-
PEAK HGL = 438.98
7'-8"
MEDIA
CAGE
HEIGHT
8" TOP
SLAB
8" BASE
SLAB
7'-3"
OUTFLOW RISER
AND FLOWKIT
8'-7"
2"
17'-4"
9'-4"
2'-2" 2'-10"
2'-6"
30 x 4 FRAME AND
COVER CAST-IN TO TOP
SLAB, TYP. OF 3
8'-0"
1"Ø IRRIGATION
PORT TYP. OF 3
2'-0"
4'-8" OPEN
PLANTER
TOP SLAB
2'-0"
OUTLET PIPE
12"Ø PVC
(16"Ø OPENING)
INLET PIPE
12"Ø PVC
(16"Ø OPENING)
4'-0"
16'-0"
8'-0"
4" WEIR
WALL
3'-6"
6"
SEPARATION
WALL
8'-8"
1'-9"
8'-0"
1"Ø IRRIGATION
PORT TYP. OF 3
1" OUTLET BAY
DEPRESSION
(4'-4" x 4'-0")
PREFILTER
CARTRIDGE TYP.
WETLAND
MEDIA BED
TYP.
2'-0"
14'-3"
1'-4"
2'-0"
SITE DESIGN DATA
WATER QUALITY FLOW
(CFS)
0.37 PEAK FLOW RATE
(CFS)
8.10 RETURN PERIOD (YRS) 10
MAXIMUM POLLUTANT
DENSITY (PREFILTER)
(GPM/SF)
3.0 PREFILTER LOADING
RATE (GPM/SF)
1.62 WETLAND MEDIA
LOADING RATE
(GPM/SF)
1.00 MEDIA OPERATING
HEAD (FT)
2.72 SURFACE LOADING PEDESTRIAN
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION*
435.2
*GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IS
ASSUMED. EOR TO PROVIDE IF
KNOWN
STRUCTURE DETAILS
NUMBER OF
DELIVERED PIECES
(DOES NOT INCLUDE
GRADE RINGS/RISERS)
3 MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT 9.33' x 17.33'
DELIVERED HEAVIEST
PICK*
44475 LB.
TOP SLAB
1100 LB.
TOP SECTION 27150 LB.
RISER SECTION 0 LB.
BASE SECTION 44475 LB.
INTERNAL
COMPONENTS
LB.
PROPOSAL
CONTECH
DRAWING
MCD
MCD
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
MCD
DESIGNED:
APPROVED:
\\QUIKRETE.NET\CONTECH\MERLIN\PROJECT\ACTIVE\815800\815864\815864-10-MODULAR WETLANDS\DRAWINGS\815864-10-MWSL0816OP-CONFAB.DWG 8/23/2024 10:02 AM SHEET NO.:
OF
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as a service to the project owner, engineer and contractor by CONTECH Construction Products Inc. or one of its affiliated companies ("CONTECH"). Neither this drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of CONTECH. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and CONTECH expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to CONTECH immediately for re-evaluation of the design.
CONTECH accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others.
MCD
08/23/2024
PROJECT No.: DATE:
815864
SEQ. No.:
010
www.ContechES.com
1 MODULAR WETLANDS MWSL0816OP - 815864-010
95 ARGONAUT
ALISO VIEJO, CA
SITE DESIGNATION: MWS #1
FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP
MARK DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION BY
1 RVRSD
6505 / 000000
LAYOUT 4
MWS-L-8-16-R
17.03 TS
4.48 TIW
ELEVATION VIEW*
PLAN VIEW
TOP SLAB NOT SHOWN
PLAN VIEW
RIGHT END VIEW
763-231-3705 763-416-1633 FAX
6655 Wedgwood Road, Suite 130, Maple Grove, MN 55311
THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY AND IS NOT A FINAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
*MEDIA CASTINGS, IF REQUIRED,
NOT SHOWN
2341
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Attachment
Attachment D: Supporting Exhibits
• Attachment D1: OCPW Land Development Soil Map
• Attachment D2: Southern Orange County TGD Critical Coarse Sediment Map • Attachment D3: OCTGD Rainfall Zones Design Capture Storm Depth Map • Attachment D4: OCTGD Capture Efficiency Nomograph
• Attachment D5: 95 Argonaut Historical Photograph 1938 (https://www.historicaerials.com/)
• Attachment D6: 95 Argonaut Historical Topographic Map 1949 (https://www.historicaerials.com/)
• Attachment D7: OCTGD BIO-7 Proprietary Biotreatment BMP Checklist • Attachment D8: Modular Wetland System Linear 8x16 Contech preliminary plan sheets • Attachment D9: StormTrap subsurface detention basin and flow control structure 2342
95 Argonaut HSG Soil Map
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,
USDA, USFWS, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, Land Development Resources
Hydro Group Soils
A
B
C
D
World Hillshade
9/4/2024
0 0.04 0.09 0.17 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:4,514
2343
2344
ORANGE COUNTY NGE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ORANGE
COUNTY
L
OS ANGELES ANGELES COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1.05 0.7
0 1
0 .95
0 .9
0 .85
0. .8
75 0.7
0.65 0.95
0.7 0.9
0 .9
0.75 P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-1_RainfallZones_20110215.mxd FIGURE JOB TITLE SCALE 1" = 1.8 miles DESIGNED
DRAWINGCHECKED
BMP
04/22/10
DATEJOB NO.
THTH9526-E
ORANGE COUNTY
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT
ORANGE CO. CA
RAINFALL ZONES
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION 0 1.8 3.6 7.2
Miles
036 12
Kilometers
LEGEND
Orange County Precipitation Stations
24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches)
24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) - Extrapolated City Boundaries
Rainfall Zones
Design Capture Storm Depth (inches)
0.65"
0.7 0.75
0.80 0.85
0.90 0.95
1.00 1.10"
Note: Events defined as 24-hour periods (calendar days) with greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall.
For areas outside of available data coverage, professional judgment shall be applied.
XVI-1
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW
STANDARD DETAIL
STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-8-16-V
FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP
LEFT END VIEW
INSTALLATION NOTES
SITE SPECIFIC DATA
1.0 _____ (CFS)
* PRELIMINARY ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PEDESTRIAN
2.1 GPM/SF
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
95 Argonaut
Meritage Homes Attachment
Attachment E: Geotechnical Report
• Attachment E1: SA Geotechnical Report
2365
1000 North Coast Highway Suite 10 • Laguna Beach, California 92651 • (949) 403-7229 • SAgeotechnical.com May 31, 2024
Project No. 24059-01
To: Meritage Homes
5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310
Irvine, California 92606
Attention: Ms. Emma Hill
Subject: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration, Due Diligence Study, and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Residential Development, 95 Argonaut, City of Aliso Viejo, California
At your request, SA Geotechnical, Inc. (SA GEO) has conducted subsurface exploration and geotechnical due diligence study for the proposed residential development located at 95 Argonaut in the City of Aliso Viejo, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical site conditions in light of the proposed grading and improvements in order to provide a geotechnical summary of conditions and preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project design, grading, and construction. Our evaluation included review of collected geologic and geotechnical engineering reports and maps pertinent to the subject site; a site-specific subsurface exploration; laboratory testing; geotechnical analysis; and preparation of this report.
The subject site is currently developed with a 2-story office building, retaining wall along the westerly property line, at-grade asphalt concrete paved parking lot and associated drive aisles, and hardscape/landscape improvements, all of which will be demolished as part of the proposed project. An approximately 20-foot-high descending slope is present along the easterly property boundary. Based on our review and field exploration, the primary geotechnical constraints include the presence of highly expansive silty/clayey soil that is diatomaceous and seismic shaking during a strong seismic event. The subsurface artificial fill soils at the site are primarily highly plastic silt/clay with minor interlayered clayey/silty sands. The artificial fill soils are generally diatomaceous and derived from Monterey Formation bedrock. Bedrock of the Monterey and Niguel Formations underlie the site at depth. Groundwater was encountered in one boring (H-4) during drilling, at a depth of 55 feet below ground surface. Onsite stormwater infiltration is not feasible considering that the site is underlain by relatively thick artificial fill, which are predominantly silty/clayey, overlying bedrock.
This report presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary design recommendations for the subject residential development. Based on our review, the proposed grading and development is considered geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during design, grading, and construction. Additional evaluation and analysis may need to be performed once the project plans for grading and foundations are developed. 2366
24059-01
May 31, 2024
ii
240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
References pertinent to the site are included in Appendix A. Boring and laboratory test data are included in Appendix B and C, respectively. Seismic design parameters are presented in Appendix D. Slope stability analysis is presented in Appendix E. General earthwork and grading specifications are presented in Appendix F.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services.
Respectfully submitted,
SA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Anthony Zepeda, CEG 2681 Reza Saberi, GE 3071
Project Geologist Principal Engineer
Peter Anderson, CEG 2596
Principal Engineering Geologist
2367
24059-01
May 31, 2024
iii
240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Introduction and Scope of Services ....................................................................................... 2
1.2 Site Condition and History .................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Proposed Grading and Improvements ................................................................................... 3
1.4 Subsurface Exploration ......................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 4
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Geologic Setting and Earth Units .......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Geotechnical Conditions ....................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Regional Faulting and Seismicity ......................................................................................... 7
2.5 Slope Stability ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.6 Settlement and Foundation Considerations ........................................................................... 8
2.7 Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility ........................................................................................ 8
2.8 Shrinkage and Bulking .......................................................................................................... 8
2.9 Existing Utilities and Pavement Section ............................................................................... 8
3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 9
3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation ........................................................................... 9
3.2 Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................................................................. 9
3.2.1 Site Demolition and Clearing ............................................................................................. 9
3.2.2 Protection of Existing Improvements and Utilities ............................................................. 9
3.2.3 Remedial Grading Measures ............................................................................................. 10
3.2.4 Fill Placement ................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.5 Import ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Settlement Potential ............................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Foundation Design .............................................................................................................. 11
3.5 Caisson Design .................................................................................................................... 13
3.6 Retaining Walls Design and Lateral Earth Pressures .......................................................... 13
3.7 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................................. 14
3.8 Slope Stability and Slope Setback ....................................................................................... 15
3.9 Corrosivity ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.10 Expansion Potential ............................................................................................................. 16
3.11 Interior Slab Moisture Mitigation........................................................................................ 17
3.12 Exterior Concrete ................................................................................................................ 17
3.13 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design ................................................................ 18
3.14 Vehicular PCC Pavements .................................................................................................. 19
3.15 Concrete Paver Section ....................................................................................................... 19
3.16 Trench Excavation and Backfill .......................................................................................... 20
3.17 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 21
3.18 Stormwater Infiltration ........................................................................................................ 21
3.19 Surface Drainage and Irrigation .......................................................................................... 21
3.20 Slope Maintenance, Lot Drainage, and Erosion Control ...................................................... 22
3.21 Additional Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing ............................................... 22
3.22 Review of Future Plans ....................................................................................................... 22
3.23 Observation and Testing during Grading and Construction ................................................ 22
4.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................... 24 2368
24059-01
May 31, 2024
iv
240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Illustrations
Figure 1 ñ Site Location and Seismic Hazards Map ñ Rear of Text Figure 2 ñ Regional Geologic Map ñ Rear of Text
Figure 3 ñ Regional Fault Map ñ Rear of Text
Figure 4 ñ Retaining Wall Drainage Detail ñ Rear of Text Appendices
Appendix A ñ References
Appendix B ñ Boring Logs
Appendix C ñ Laboratory Test Data
Appendix D ñ Seismicity Data
Appendix E ñ Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix F ñ General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Plates
Plate 1 ñ Geotechnical Map ñ Rear of Appendices
Plates 2 and 3 ñ Geotechnical Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' ñ Rear of Appendices 2369
24059-01
May 31, 2024
1 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject site is underlain by relatively thick artificial fill material as a result of mass grading and development that occurred in the 1980s. Approximately 25 to 75 feet of fill was encountered in all borings which generally consisted of olive gray, olive brown, bluish gray, brown, and black clayey silt, clay, silty/sandy clay, clayey sand, and silty sand that was moist to wet and medium stiff to hard/medium dense to dense. The fine-grained fill materials are derived from the Monterey Formation and were found to be diatomaceous. Bedrock of the Monterey and Niguel Formations were encountered during drilling, underlying the artificial fill at depth.
The primary geotechnical constraints at the site include the following:
• Presence of highly expansive silty/clayey soils that are diatomaceous; and • The potential for seismic shaking during an earthquake event.
Remedial grading for the site should consist of the removal and re-compaction of all weathered/disturbed fill materials. Remedial removals are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 4 feet below existing grades within the proposed building pads. Remedial grading within the proposed drive areas may be limited to removal and re-compaction of the soils in the upper 1 to 2 feet.
Deeper removals may be required where existing trees, utility lines, structures, and foundations are to be abandoned/removed. Considering that the onsite soils predominately consist of silty/clayey soils that are diatomaceous, achieving adequate compaction at acceptable moisture contents during fill placement may require additional mixing and compaction effort.
Groundwater was encountered in one boring (H-4) during our exploration, at a depth of 55 feet bgs (within Niguel Formation). Historic high groundwater is mapped 20 feet below original grades; however, this does not account for the mass grading and fill placement that occurred onsite.
In general, we anticipate groundwater to remain at least 20 feet below existing grades upon the completion of grading. However, seepage/groundwater may be present at shallower depth locally and can fluctuate on an annual and seasonal basis.
Considering the relatively minor grading anticipated to achieve design grades, the laboratory test data, building foundations and slabs should be designed to tolerate a total settlement of 2 inches and a differential settlement of 1-inch over a span of 40 feet. Onsite soils are anticipated to have "High" expansion potential at the completion of grading and are considered corrosive to concrete ("S2").
Based on our findings, we conclude that the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided it is designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and the future design/plan review report(s). The site is not considered suitable for infiltration of storm water. 2370
24059-01
May 31, 2024
2 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction and Scope of Services
At your request, SA Geotechnical, Inc. (SA GEO) has conducted subsurface exploration and geotechnical due diligence study for the proposed residential development located at 95 Argonaut in the City of Aliso Viejo, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to assess the onsite geologic and geotechnical conditions and provide preliminary recommendations for design, grading, and construction of the proposed residential development. A Topographic Survey by X Engineering & Consulting, received on May 15, 2024, has been utilized as the base for our Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
Our scope of services for this due diligence study included the following tasks:
• Review of available published geologic and geotechnical maps, reports, and data for the subject site and surrounding area, including an archive search of City of Aliso Viejo records. A list of references is included in Appendix A.
• Historic aerial photograph review, dating back to 1931. • Notification and coordination with DigAlert to identify and clear boring locations of underground utilities.
• Subsurface exploration consisting of excavation, sampling and logging of four hollow-stem auger borings (H-1 through H-4) to depths ranging from 41.5 to 81.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring logs are included in Appendix B.
• Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine engineering properties of onsite soils, including in-situ moisture and density, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, maximum density and optimum moisture content, consolidation/collapse, shear strength, expansion potential, and soluble sulfate content. Laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. • Geotechnical evaluation and analysis of the compiled data regarding the proposed grading and development.
• Evaluation of faulting, seismicity, and seismic and static settlement in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).
• Preparation of this report including our findings, conclusions, preliminary recommendations, and accompanying illustrations.
SA GEO's expertise and scope of services do not include assessment of potential subsurface environmental contaminants or environmental health hazards.
1.2 Site Condition and History
The subject site is located at 95 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo, California (see Figure 1), and is legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 85-158, Assessorís Parcel Number (APN) 141-521-48.
The approximately 2.85-acre site is bound by Glenwood Lane to the north, Argonaut Street to the west and south, a Moulton Niguel Water District reservoir/tank to the east, and other commercial properties to the southeast. The site is currently developed with an approximately 24,879 squarefoot two-story commercial building with at-grade asphalt-paved parking lot, drive aisles, and 2371
24059-01
May 31, 2024
3 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
associated landscaping/hardscaping. The site is primarily flat, with elevations ranging from 440 to 448 feet above mean sea level. A retaining wall is present along the western property line, approximately 3 to 6 feet in height, with an ascending 3- to 4-foot-high 2H:1V slope above. There is an approximately 20-foot-high descending 2H:1V slope along the easterly property line extending offsite to the adjacent water reservoir/tank.
Based on our review of available historic aerial photographs dating back to 1931, the earliest land use at the subject site and surrounding areas were for agricultural purposes (ranching).
Development of the surrounding area for commercial use began in the early 1980s, although the subject site remained an undeveloped natural drainage/swale. The site was mass graded between 1985 and 1987, concurrent with the construction of the water tank to the east. This mass grading appears to have occurred concurrent with the adjacent geotechnically-observed mass grading (Jack G. Raub Company, 1987), although no documents pertaining to the grading of the subject site were recovered during our archive search of City/County records. The geotechnical maps/report associated with the adjacent graded commercial lots overlap with the western portion of the subject site and detail a historical (pre-grading) topography ranging from 390 to 412 feet above sea level (Jack G. Raub Company, 1987); however, topography for the eastern and southern portion of the subject site were not included. This suggests a minimum of 30 to 60 feet of design fill associated with mass grading, although this does not account for any remedial grading/removal of alluvium during grading. The streets in the industrial complex were constructed by 1988, along with some of the other commercial buildings in the area. The existing two-story commercial building at the subject site was constructed by 1990. No significant changes were observed on the subject site since initial development and construction of the existing commercial building.
1.3 Proposed Grading and Improvements
Prior to any site development or grading, the existing structures, pavements, utilities, and hardscape will be demolished. Considering the site is relatively flat, we anticipate design grading to consist of cuts and fills on the order of 1 to 3 feet to reach pad grades and provide proper site drainage. Locally, deeper cuts/fills may be required were retaining structures are proposed.
The proposed project is anticipated to include grading/construction for residential development.
Based on our review of the Site Plan provided by you, dated March 2024, we understand that the proposed project will consist of 8 multifamily buildings totaling 62 residential units. We anticipate the proposed structures will be 3- to 4-story and consist of wood-framed construction. The development will also include infrastructure improvements, parking/drive aisles, stormwater filtration devices and landscape/hardscape improvements.
1.4 Subsurface Exploration
Our field exploration was performed on April 22, 2024, and included excavation of four hollow stem auger borings (H-1 through H-4) to depths ranging from 41.5 to 81.5 feet bgs.
The borings were geologically logged, and samples were obtained at selected intervals. After completion of drilling, the excavations were backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped. Pavement at the boring locations was repaired with cold patch asphalt. The approximate boring locations are shown on Plate 1 (Geotechnical Map). Boring logs are included in Appendix B. 2372
24059-01
May 31, 2024
4 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
Soil sampling was performed using a Modified California ring sampler. Relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained from the borings at various depths with a 2.5-inch inside-diameter, split-barrel sampler. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound, automatic trip hammer, free falling 30 inches. The sampling was used to assess the soil beneath the site as well as to obtain a measure of resistance of the soil to penetration (recorded as blows-per-foot on the geotechnical boring logs). Representative bulk samples of onsite soils were also collected from soil cuttings and used for additional soil identification purposes and laboratory testing.
1.5 Laboratory Testing
Representative samples of onsite soils collected during our field exploration were tested to characterize the engineering properties. Laboratory tests performed on selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples included:
• Moisture content and dry density;
• Grain size analysis;
• Atterberg limits;
• Direct shear;
• Consolidation;
• Maximum density and optimum moisture content;
• Expansion potential; and
• Soluble sulfate.
Laboratory tests were conducted in general conformance with applicable ASTM International standards. The laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C. 2373
24059-01
May 31, 2024
5 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
2.1 Geologic Setting and Earth Units
The subject site is located in the eastern foothills of the San Joaquin Hills, within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of Southern California. The site is mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2006) as underlain by sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey and Niguel Formations that is successively overlain by unconsolidated alluvium. Based on our subsurface exploration and understanding of the site history, the subject site was mass graded in the 1980's resulting in thick artificial fill materials placed over bedrock. No alluvium was encountered in any of our borings and is assumed to have been removed during mass grading. The earth unit distribution and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and Geotechnical Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' (Plates 2 and 3).
Our subsurface exploration encountered compacted Artificial Fill (Af) underlying the site as a result of original mass grading. Approximately 25 to 75 feet of artificial fill was encountered in all borings which generally consisted of olive gray, olive brown, bluish gray, brown, and black clayey silt, clay, silty/sandy clay, clayey sand, and silty sand that was moist to wet and medium stiff to hard. The fine-grained fill materials appear to be derived from the Monterey Formation and were found to be diatomaceous.
We encountered sedimentary bedrock of the Monterey Formation (Tm) and Niguel Formation (Tn) underlying the fill materials in all borings. Based on our review of the regional geologic mapping, the earth units are in fault contact below the site (see Figure 2). The fault is inactive/preQuaternary. The Monterey Formation bedrock generally consisted of olive gray, olive brown, brown, pale yellow, and white siltstone that was very moist to wet, very stiff to hard, and highly diatomaceous. Bedding was observed to be massive to well bedded with thin to laminated bedding.
The Niguel Formation was encountered in one boring (H-4) and the bedrock generally consisted of yellowish brown to yellowish gray sandstone that was saturated and very dense. The sandstone was observed to be massive, weakly indurated, and slightly friable.
2.2 Geotechnical Conditions
Based on our geotechnical exploration and laboratory testing, the site geotechnical conditions are generally as follows:
Soil Moisture Content and Dry Density: Onsite artificial fill materials had in-situ moisture contents and dry densities ranging from 10.9 to 84.2 percent and 50.6 to 117.9 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), respectively. Bedrock of the Monterey Formation had in-situ moisture contents ranging from 26.7 to 86.7 percent and dry densities ranging from 51.1 to 96.9 pcf. Please note that the high moisture contents and low densities in the artificial fill and Monterey Formation are typical of diatomaceous materials. Niguel Formation bedrock had in-situ moisture contents ranging from
15.4 to 23.8 percent and dry densities ranging from 96.6 to 115.2 pcf.
Blow counts (blows-per-foot of penetration) in the artificial fill generally ranged from 11 to 66 blows per foot. Blow counts in bedrock ranged from 22 blows per foot to 50 blows for 3.5 inches. 2374
24059-01
May 31, 2024
6 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
Soil Properties: Grain-size distribution tests were conducted on three bulk samples collected from the uppermost 5 feet. The samples were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as highly plastic silt (MH) with fines contents (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from 64 to 73 percent.
Soil plasticity testing was performed on three bulk samples collected from the uppermost 5 feet.
The samples were classified as highly plastic silt (MH) with Plasticity Indices ranging from 31 to 37 and Liquid Limits ranging from 70 to 83 percent.
Maximum dry density testing of one near surface sample (collected from the uppermost 5 feet) indicates that the silty soil (MH) has a maximum dry density of 94.1 pcf at optimum moisture content of 20.5 percent.
Shear Strength: Two direct shear tests (relatively undisturbed samples) were performed on samples collected at depths of 2.5 and 5 feet, representative of existing fill materials. The undisturbed direct shear test results indicate that the samples had ultimate internal friction angles of 24 and 26 degrees at cohesions of 400 and 450 pounds per square foot (psf), respectively. The peak internal friction angles were 28 and 29 degrees with cohesions of 450 and 775 psf, respectively.
Consolidation: Tests were performed on four samples collected at depths ranging from 2.5 to 15 feet, representative of existing fil materials. The testing showed that the diatomaceous fill materials are moderately compressible. However, the pre-consolidation pressures are relatively high (higher than 5 ksf). The samples generally had negligible collapse and swell upon the addition of water at a load of 3.2 ksf.
Expansion Potential: Expansion index testing was performed on two samples collected in the upper 5 feet. The results indicate a "High" expansion potential (EI = 91 and 104).
Soluble Sulfate: Soluble sulfate testing was performed on two bulk samples collected from the uppermost 5 feet. The results indicate negligible soluble sulfate content; however, per our experience with the Monterey Formation and review of the laboratory testing from the adjacent development (Jack G. Raub Company, 1987), we anticipate the soluble sulfate content of the onsite soils to be classified as "S2" per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI-318-14.
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration in one boring (H-4) at a depth of 55 feet below ground surface (bgs) within the Niguel Formation. Groundwater was not encountered in boring drilled within the Monterey Formation to a depth of 81.5 feet bgs. The presence of the fault contact between Monterey and Niguel formations may act as a barrier for groundwater migration.
Historic high groundwater mapping indicates high groundwater is greater than 20 feet bgs (CDMG, 2001a). Please note that this is below original grades prior to mass grading and significantly raising grade across the site. Groundwater is anticipated to fluctuate both seasonally and annually, but it is expected to remain deep below the site. 2375
24059-01
May 31, 2024
7 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
2.4 Regional Faulting and Seismicity
Regional Faults: The site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (CGS, 2018). Also, based on mapping by the State (Jennings and Bryant, 2010), there are no active faults mapped at the site. As discussed previously, the Monterey and Niguel Formations are in fault contact deep below the site; however, the fault is considered inactive (Pre-Quaternary). Regional Faults are presented on Figure 3.
Seismicity: Properties in southern California are subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and capability of nearby faults. These hazards can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy release of an earthquake) or secondary (i.e., related to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world). Since there are no active faults at the site, the potential for primary ground rupture is considered very low. The primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking during a future earthquake.
Using the USGS deaggregation computer program (USGS, 2024) and the site coordinates of
33.5946 north latitude and ñ117.7243 west longitude, the closest major active faults include the Newport-Inglewood and San Joaquin Hills Faults. The maximum moment magnitude for the controlling fault is 7.1 MW, which would be generated from the San Joaquin Hills Fault; however, numerous other regionally active faults could also produce ground shaking at the site during an earthquake.
The site is not located within a mapped potential liquefaction hazard zone, as defined by the State's Seismic Hazard Mapping (CDMG, 2001b). Other secondary seismic hazards, such as tsunami and seiche are considered nil due to site elevation and distance from the ocean or other confined body of water (CGS, 2021).
2.5 Slope Stability
The site geologic/geotechnical conditions are generally favorable for overall stability of the existing slope along the eastern perimeter. The existing fill slope is approximately 20 feet in total height at an inclination of 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical). We prepared cross-section B-B' (Plate 3) depicting the existing descending slope at the site. Slope stability analysis was performed for a 2H:1V slope with a maximum height of 25 feet, using artificial fill soil strength parameters that were developed during this study and based on the direct shear test results. For our analysis, we used an internal friction angle of 24 degrees and a cohesion of 400 psf. For pseudo-static analysis, we applied a seismic horizontal coefficient (kh) of 0.29 in accordance with Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CGS, 2008).
The results of the slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix E. The existing fill slope at the site was found to be grossly stable with a factor of safety of well over 1.5 under static conditions and a factor of safety of over 1.1 for pseudo-static conditions. 2376
24059-01
May 31, 2024
8 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
2.6 Settlement and Foundation Considerations
In general, the anticipated settlements depend upon the building loads, type of foundations, and the geotechnical properties of the supporting subgrade. Considering the subsurface soil conditions and laboratory test data, and relatively lightly loaded residential structures, we estimate the total static settlement to be on the order of 2 inches and the differential static settlement to be on the order of 1-inch over a 40-foot span. This assumes remedial grading measures recommended in Section 3.2 of this report are implemented during site grading.
2.7 Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility
The site is underlain by thick (25 to 75 feet) silty/clayey artificial fill materials overlying bedrock.
In accordance with County of Orange WQMP guidelines, stormwater infiltration should not be performed in compacted artificial fill and bedrock (OCPW, 2013). Furthermore, the fine-grained soils will not be conducive to infiltration. Also, considering the presence of slopes along the property boundaries and deep canyon fill, infiltration of stormwater can result in seepage or springs in locations where previously none existed, potentially impacting offsite properties and slopes.
Stormwater infiltration is not considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint.
2.8 Shrinkage and Bulking
The shrinkage and bulking (reduction or increase in volume of excavated materials on recompaction as fill) varies by soil type and location. The volume change primarily depends on in-situ density and the maximum dry density of the soil type. Considering the site is underlain by compacted fill materials, we anticipated that shrinkage of site soils will be relatively low and less than 5 percent. Ground subsidence at the site is estimated to be on the order of 0.1 foot. These values exclude losses due to removal of pavement, vegetation and debris and are dependent on the accuracy of the site topographic survey and type of equipment and compaction method used by the contractor.
2.9 Existing Utilities and Pavement Section
Existing onsite utilities consisting of sewer, water, and gas/electric lines are present onsite supporting the existing office building and associated improvements. We anticipate that the existing utilities will be demolished as part of the proposed improvements and that new utilities and service connections will be established.
The existing pavement section was measured in Borings H-1 through H-4 excavated during this study. The pavement section consisted of 4 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 to 8 inches of aggregate base (AB).
2377
24059-01
May 31, 2024
9 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on our review, construction of the proposed residential development, as described herein, is considered geotechnically feasible provided the preliminary recommendations in this report are implemented during design, grading, and construction. Grading, foundation, structural and wall plans for the project should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant during the design phase.
Updated recommendations should be provided once the project plans are finalized and as needed.
The recommendations in this report should be considered minimum and may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of others. In addition to the following recommendations, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are provided in Appendix F.
3.2 Site Preparation and Earthwork
Site preparation and grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations herein and the requirements of the City of Aliso Viejo/County of Orange.
3.2.1 Site Demolition and Clearing
Prior to remedial grading, the existing structures, foundations, hardscape/landscape, and utilities to be abandoned should be demolished and removed. Deleterious materials and debris should be cleared from the site and disposed of offsite. Concrete material may be mixed with onsite soils and placed as compacted fill provided it is broken into pieces that are smaller than 6 inches in the largest diameter. Asphalt concrete may also be used in compacted fill materials; however, it should not be placed under the residential pads. Placement of concrete and asphalt as compacted fill should be approved by the project environmental consultant. Excavations for the removal of existing foundations, utilities, and vegetation, including onsite trees, should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. Large roots, highly organic soils, and existing utilities should be removed and should not be incorporated into new fills.
Soil that is disturbed as part of excavations or removal of trees or underground utilities should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Excavations that require backfill should be properly documented and compacted under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 3.2.4.
3.2.2 Protection of Existing Improvements and Utilities Existing improvements, and utilities on or adjacent to the site that are to be protected in place should be located and visually marked prior to grading operations. Excavations adjacent to improvements to be protected in-place or any utility easement should be performed with care, so as not to undermine existing foundations or destabilize the adjacent ground.
Stockpiling of soils more than 5 feet in height at or near existing structures and over utility lines should not be allowed. If deeper removals are required, shoring or other special measures (i.e., setback or laybacks) to provide safety and mitigate the potential for lateral/vertical movements may be required.
2378
24059-01
May 31, 2024
10 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
3.2.3 Remedial Grading Measures
Remedial grading at the site should consist of removal of weathered/unsuitable fill materials.
In general, we recommend that remedial grading for the proposed building pads consist of removal and recompaction of soils in the upper 3 to 4 feet (from existing grade) to remove any unsuitable/disturbed artificial fill material. The removals for building pads should extend a minimum of 4 feet laterally, beyond the building footprint. Removals within the proposed drive areas may be limited to removal and re-compaction of the upper 1 to 2 feet, below existing grades. Where deeper unsuitable material is encountered, the removals should be extended to the bottom of unsuitable materials to competent, unweathered/undisturbed artificial fill.
The geotechnical consultant should review and approve the removal bottoms prior to fill placement and should provide additional specific recommendations based on actual conditions, if necessary.
Excavations deeper than 4 feet will need to be laid back at a minimum inclination of 1:1 or provided with shoring. Shallow, unconfined excavations (4 feet or less) may consist of nearvertical excavation, locally, and upon review by the geotechnical consultant. Trench excavations should be performed in accordance with Cal/OSHA requirements for Soil Type "B". The contractorís qualified person should verify compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements. Excavations near existing structures (within a 1:1 projection) should be provided with shoring that is designed to support the surcharge load of the existing structure.
Otherwise, excavations may need to be performed in sections (A/B/C slot cuts). Slot cuts should not exceed more than 20 feet in length. The conditions should be reviewed in the field by the project geotechnical consultant. Additional recommendations should be provided based on the actual conditions encountered during excavation and grading, as needed.
3.2.4 Fill Placement
Upon the completion of remedial grading measures, the approved removal bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6 inches. The removal bottoms and fill materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill materials should be placed in loose lifts no thicker than 8 inches.
Fill materials should be relatively free of deleterious material. The existing fill materials are considered suitable for re-use as compacted fill provided any deleterious material is removed.
Considering that the onsite soils predominately consist of silty/clayey soils that are diatomaceous, achieving adequate compaction at acceptable moisture contents during fill placement may require additional effort. The moisture content of the fill materials should be above the optimum moisture content but within the compactable levels.
Concrete material may be mixed with onsite soils and placed as compacted fill if it is broken into pieces that are smaller than 6 inches in the largest diameter. Asphalt concrete may also be used in compacted fill materials; however, it should not be placed under the residential pads.
Placement of concrete and asphalt as compacted fill should be approved by the project environmental consultant.
2379
24059-01
May 31, 2024
11 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
3.2.5 Import
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate and accept any import soils prior to transportation to the subject site. We recommend that import soils have similar or better engineering properties to onsite soils. At minimum, the import materials should have an Expansion Index of less than 90 and a Plasticity Index of less than 25.
3.3 Settlement Potential
The amount of settlement will depend upon the type of foundation(s) selected and future loading by additional fill and structures. Based on our review of the subsurface data, considering the remedial grading recommendations provided in this report are implemented during grading, and structural loads typically associated with the anticipated 3- to 4-story residential units, we estimate that total and differential post-construction settlement will be on the order of 2 inches and 1-inch over a span of 40 feet, respectively.
SA GEO should be provided with the foundation plans and structural loads, once available, in order to further evaluate the potential for post-construction settlement of the proposed buildings and associated improvements. The parameters provided herein will then be confirmed/updated based on the planned foundations and loads and additional testing and/or analysis.
3.4 Foundation Design
The slab and foundations should be designed by the project structural engineer based on the proposed structure type and the anticipated loading conditions. The foundation soils are anticipated to have expansive soil conditions ("High" expansion potential) and will be subject to climatic and landscape moisture fluctuations. Post-tensioned slab should be anticipated for the proposed residential buildings. The following foundation recommendations are provided with the assumption that the recommendations included in Section 3.2 of this report are implemented during site grading. Caisson design parameters are provided in Section 3.5 of this report.
The recommended net allowable bearing capacity for continuous and isolated footings may be calculated based on the following equation:
qall = 500 D + 150 B + 1,500 (but not to exceed 3,500 psf, see below for post-tensioned/mat slabs)
where:
D = embedment depth of footing, in feet
B = width of footing, in feet
Also, the following parameters may be used for design of foundation and slabs:
• Soil unit weight = 110 pcf
• Soil internal friction angle = 25 degrees
• Coefficient of Friction = 0.30
• Subgrade modulus (k) of 50 pci (corrected for large slabs) • Soil elastic modulus (Es) of 1,000 psi
• Effective Plasticity Index (upper 15 feet) = 35
2380
24059-01
May 31, 2024
12 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
The allowable bearing capacity of 1,000 psf may be used for design of post-tensioned/mat foundation.
The dead load of concrete below adjacent grades (buried concrete foundations) may be neglected.
The allowable bearing pressure and friction coefficient may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading.
We recommend that strip and isolated footings for the buildings have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and isolated column footings should be at least 24 inches wide. The footings of freestanding and isolated structures, such as walls and pilasters, should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches into approved soils.
The following table provides our general guidelines and preliminary recommendations for design of post-tensioned foundations and slabs on expansive soil in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and Post-Tension Institute (PTI) DC 10.5 Edition provisions.
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES
FOR DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED SLABS
Parameter Recommendation
Center Lift
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
Center Lift, ym
7.50 feet
0.90 inches
Edge Lift
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
Edge Lift, ym
4.00 feet
1.25 inch
Presaturation, as needed, to obtain the minimum
moisture down to the minimum depth
1.3 x optimum down to
18 inches
We recommend that post-tensioned slabs have a thickened edge such that the slab is embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
In addition, as indicated in the DC 10.5 Edition of PTI, shape factor calculations should be performed by the project structural engineer in order to determine if strengthening/modification of foundations are necessary. Per PTI guidelines, modifications to the foundations design should be considered if the shape factor (ratio of square of foundation perimeter over foundation area) exceeds 24.
If non-post-tensioned slabs-on-grade and foundations are considered at the site, an effective Plasticity Index of 35 is considered appropriate for the upper 15 feet of soil materials, in accordance with Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) method (per the 2022 California Building Code). For non-post-tensioned slabs, we recommend a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for the perimeter footings. Also, the upper 18 inches of subgrade soil should be pre-saturated to 130 percent of optimum moisture content prior to placement of moisture barrier and concrete.
2381
24059-01
May 31, 2024
13 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
The foundations and slabs should also be designed to tolerate the total and differential settlements discussed in Section 3.3 of this report.
For the design of pole-type foundations (i.e., light poles, shade structures, etc.), an allowable soilbearing pressure (S1) of 290 psf/ft may be used for Equation 18-1 (the "pole" equation) of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1807.3.2.1 to determine the depth of embedment for the footings, considering level ground conditions. The equation is applicable for designed embedment depths of less than 12 feet for the purpose of computing lateral pressure. Also, for vertical loads on pole-type foundations, an allowable skin friction of 250 pounds per square foot may be used.
Pole foundations should have a minimum embedment of 30 inches below adjacent grades. For cast-in-place pole-type foundations, the vertical end bearing pressure should be neglected.
3.5 Caisson Design
All caissons, if any, should have a minimum of 5 feet embedment into competent fill materials.
An average skin friction value of 250 pounds per square foot may be utilized to calculate the axial capacity of caissons. The lateral capacity of caissons may be computed using a value of 290 psf/ft but should not exceed 4,400 psf/ft for level conditions. For caissons near the existing descending slope with passive envelope impacted by the slope, the passive pressure should be limited to 170 psf/ft. Passive resistance may be doubled for isolated piles/caissons spaced a minimum of 3 diameters apart center-to-center. The allowable bearing pressure (both axial and lateral) may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading. Other minimum footing dimensions should be provided by the Structural Engineer and should comply with Table 1809.7 of the 2022 CBC.
Caissons should be designed in accordance with ACI recommendations and applicable building code requirements. The accepted criteria for caisson installation are detailed below:
• Caissons should be constructed as pre-drilled cast-in-place elements. A representative of the geotechnical consultant should be present during drilling of all caisson excavations in order to verify proper embedment and to geotechnically review appropriate drilling methods.
• Caisson excavations should be cleaned of loose soil, cuttings and groundwater and should be reviewed by the project geologist prior to placement of steel or concrete. • No caisson boring shall be excavated within 6 feet from the nearest edge of a completed caisson unless the completed caisson has been filled with concrete for more than 24 hours.
3.6 Retaining Walls Design and Lateral Earth Pressures
Recommendations for lateral earth pressures for permanent retaining walls and structures with approved onsite drained soils and above the groundwater table are as follows:
Conditions Level (pcf) 2:1 Sloping
Active 40 60
At-Rest 65 85
Passive 290 170 (sloping down)
2382
24059-01
May 31, 2024
14 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
These parameters are based on a soil internal friction angle of 25 degrees, a cohesion of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) and soil unit weight of 110 pcf.
To design an unrestrained retaining wall, such as a cantilever wall, the active earth pressure may be used. For a restrained retaining wall, the at-rest pressure should be used. Passive pressure is used to compute lateral soils resistance developed against lateral structural movement. The passive pressures provided above may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loads. The passive resistance is taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structure will remain intact with time. Future landscaping/planting and improvements adjacent to the retaining walls should also be taken into account in the design of the retaining walls. Excessive soil disturbance, trenches (excavation and backfill), future landscaping adjacent to footings and oversaturation can adversely impact retaining structures and result in reduced lateral resistance.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.30 may be used at the concrete and soil interface.
The coefficient of friction may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. The retaining walls may also need to be designed for additional lateral loads if other structures or walls are planned within a 1H:1V projection.
If slopes above the retaining walls are relatively minor (in height), the additional load associated with the soil above the retaining wall and within the active wedge may be calculated as a surcharge load and applied to the retaining wall using a coefficient of active pressure (ka) of 0.48.
The seismic lateral earth pressure for walls retaining more than 6 feet of soil may be estimated to be an additional 16 pcf for active and at-rest conditions. The earthquake soil pressure has a triangular distribution and is added to the static pressures. For the active and at-rest conditions, the additional earthquake loading is zero at the top and maximum at the base. The seismic lateral earth pressure does not apply to walls retaining less than, or equal to, 6 feet of soil (2022 CBC Section 1803.5.12).
Drainage behind walls retaining more than 30 inches of soil should also be provided in accordance with the attached Figure 4. Specific drainage connections, outlets and avoiding open joints should be considered for the retaining wall design.
3.7 Seismic Design Parameters
The following table summarizes the seismic design criteria for the subject site. The seismic design parameters are developed in accordance with ASCE 7-16 and 2022 CBC. Please note that, considering the proposed structures and anticipated structural periods, site-specific ground-motion hazard analysis was not performed for the site. Per Supplement 3 of ASCE 7-16, the value of SM1, and therefore SD1, have been increased by 50 percent. The seismic response coefficient, Cs, should be determined per the parameters provided below and using equation 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16. 2383
24059-01
May 31, 2024
15 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
Selected Seismic Design Parameters
from 2022 CBC/ASCE 7-16
Seismic Design
Values Reference
Latitude 33.5946 North
Longitude -117.7243 West
Controlling Seismic Source San Joaquin Hills USGS, 2024 Site Class per Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16 D
Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (Ss) 1.218 g SEA/OSHPD, 2024 Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (S1) 0.438 g SEA/OSHPD, 2024 Site Coefficient Fa, Table 11.4-1 of ASCE 7-16 1.013 SEA/OSHPD, 2024 Site Coefficient Fv, Table 11.4-2 of ASCE 7-16 1.862
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short
Periods (SDS) from Equation 11.4-4 of ASCE 7-16 0.822 g SEA/OSHPD, 2024 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second
Period (SD1) from Equation 11.4-4 of ASCE 7-16
(Includes 50% increase per Supplement 3)
0.816 g
TS, SD1 /SDS 11.4.6 of ASCE 7-16 0.992 sec
TL, Long-Period Transition Period 8 sec SEA/OSHPD, 2024 Peak Ground Acceleration Corrected for Site Class
Effects (PGAM) from Equation 11.8-1 of ASCE 7-16 0.566 g SEA/OSHPD, 2024 Seismic Design Category, Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16 D SEA/OSHPD, 2024
3.8 Slope Stability and Slope Setback
No significant modifications to the existing fill slope along the eastern property line are planned as part of this project. The existing slope is composed of compacted artificial fill materials and the proposed improvements are not anticipated to adversely impact the slope. Based on our slope stability analysis (Appendix E), the existing slope was found to be grossly stable. In general, slopes are considered susceptible to surficial instability in the form of erosion, raveling, and slumping.
Special care should be taken to ensure that onsite runoff is controlled and directed offsite in a nonerosive manner and that site drainage, and slopes are maintained over the life of the project.
Footings for structures located above descending slopes should be set back from the slope face in accordance with the minimum requirements of the City of Aliso Viejo and section 1808.7.1 of the 2022 CBC, whichever is greater. The setback distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing bottom along a horizontal line to the face of the slope.
The tables below summarize the minimum setback criteria for structures above descending slopes:
2384
24059-01
May 31, 2024
16 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
Case A ñ Building and Retaining Wall Footings Above
Descending Slopes
Slope Height [H] (feet) Minimum Setback
from Slope face (feet)
Less than 10 5
10 to 20 ½ * H
20 to 30 10
Greater than 30 ⅓ * H (maximum of 40')
Case B ñ Freestanding Wall Footings Above
Descending Slopes
Slope Height [H] (feet) Minimum Setback
from Slope face (feet)
Less than 10 5
10 to 20 ½ * H
Greater than 20 Maximum of 10
For freestanding walls and other structures that are sensitive to lateral movement (e.g., smooth stucco finish, glass screens, etc.), SA GEO recommends that the structural setback requirements in accordance with Case A above be followed or that additional design measures be used to help control the potential for cracking and displacements. Otherwise, typical freestanding walls may have a setback in accordance with Case B.
3.9 Corrosivity
Soluble sulfates exposure in the onsite soils should be classified as "S2" per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI318-14. Structural concrete elements in contact with soil include footings and building slabs-ongrade. The flatwork and sidewalk concrete are typically not considered structural elements.
Concrete mix for structural elements should be based on the "S2" soluble sulfate exposure class of Table 19.3.2.1 in ACI-318-14. Other ACI guidelines for structural concrete are recommended.
Also, onsite soils are anticipated to be corrosive to metals.
3.10 Expansion Potential
At the completion of grading, we anticipate that onsite soils will have "High" expansion potential.
The geotechnical recommendations provided in this report including the design parameters for foundations, slab-on-grade and flatwork improvement should be implemented during design and construction. Updated recommendations will be provided upon additional testing at the completion of grading at the site and as needed.
Homeowners and their design/construction team should be familiar with the recommendations in this report as well as principles described in a useful reference published by the California Geotechnical Engineers Association (CalGeo), titled, "Coexisting with Expansive Soil: An Informational Guide for Homeowners." This free booklet can be downloaded at www.calgeo.org. 2385
24059-01
May 31, 2024
17 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
3.11 Interior Slab Moisture Mitigation
In addition to geotechnical and structural considerations, the project owner should also consider interior moisture mitigation when designing and constructing slabs-on-grade.
The intended use of the interior space, type of flooring, and the type of goods in contact with the floor may dictate the need for, and design of, measures to mitigate potential effects of moisture emission from and/or moisture vapor transmission through the slab. Typically, for human occupied structures, a vapor retarder or barrier is recommended under the slab to help mitigate moisture transmission through slabs. The most recent guidelines by the American Concrete Institute (ACI 302.1R-04) suggest that the vapor retarder be placed directly under the slab (no sand layer).
However, the location of the vapor retarder may also be subject to the builder's past successful practice. Placement of 1 or 2 inches of sand over the moisture retardant has been common practice by builders in southern California. Specifying the strength of the retarder to resist puncture and its permeance rating is important. These qualities are not necessarily a function of the retarder thickness. A minimum of 10-mil is typical but some materials, such as 10-mil polyethylene ("Visqueen"), may not meet the desired standards for toughness and permeance.
Vapor retarders, when used, should be installed in accordance with standards such as ASTM E 1643 and/or those specified by the manufacturer.
Concrete mix design and curing are also significant factors in mitigating slab moisture problems.
Concrete with lower water/cement ratios results in denser, less permeable slabs that also "dry" faster with regard to when flooring can be installed (reduced moisture emissions quantities and rates). Rewetting of the slab following curing should be avoided since it can result in additional drying time required prior to flooring installation. Proper concrete slab testing prior to flooring installation is also important.
Concrete mix design, the type and location of the vapor retarder should be determined in coordination with all parties involved in the finished product, including the project owner, architect, structural engineer, geotechnical consultant, concrete subcontractors, and flooring subcontractors.
3.12 Exterior Concrete
The sidewalk, patio slabs, driveways and other flatwork elements should be at least 4 inches thick.
Driveway approaches should be a minimum of 6 inches thick. We recommend that the concrete flatwork be reinforced with No. 3 bars be placed at 24 inches on center both ways. Concrete slabs should be provided with construction or weakened plane control joints at a maximum spacing of 6 feet. The control joints should have a thickness that is º of the total concrete thickness. Upon the placement and compaction of subgrade soils (per Section 3.2 of these recommendations), the upper 18 inches of the subgrade soils should be pre-saturated to 130 percent of optimum moisture content prior to placement of concrete and reinforcement. We also recommend that 2 to 4 inches of granular materials/aggregate base be placed over the compacted subgrade prior to placement of reinforcement and concrete.
2386
24059-01
May 31, 2024
18 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
For exterior slabs, the use of a granular sublayer is primarily intended to facilitate presaturation and subsequent construction by providing a better working surface over the saturated soil. It also helps retain the added moisture in the native soil in the event that the slab is not placed immediately.
Exterior concrete elements such as curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalks, and patios are susceptible to lifting and cracking when constructed over expansive soils. With expansive soils, the impacts to flatwork/hardscape can be significant, generally requiring removal and replacement of the affected improvements. Please also note that reducing concrete problems is often a function of proper slab design, concrete mix design, placement, and curing/finishing practices. Adherence to guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) is recommended. Also, the amount of postconstruction watering, or lack thereof, can have a very significant impact on the adjacent concrete flatwork.
On projects with expansive soils, additional measures such as thickened concrete edges/footings, subdrains and/or moisture barriers should be considered where planter or natural areas with irrigation are located adjacent to the concrete improvements. Design and maintenance of proper surface drainage is also very important. If the concrete will be subject to heavy loading from cars/trucks or other heavy objects, thicker pavement section will be required the design of which should be performed by the geotechnical consultant, as needed.
The above recommendations typically are not applied to curb and gutter but should be considered in areas with highly expansive soils.
3.13 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Design
Final structural pavement sections should be based on R-value testing after the completion of grading and in accordance with city of Aliso Viejo requirements. Based on an R-value of 5 and estimated traffic indices (TIs), we recommend the following preliminary pavement sections:
Street Location Estimated TIs Pavement Section
Parking Stalls TI ñ 4.0 3 inches of AC / 6 inches
of AB
General Drives TI ñ 5.5 4 inches of AC / 10 inches
of AB
AC = Asphalt Concrete, AB = Aggregate Base
Please note that for two-stage paving operations, we recommend that the final AC cap be a minimum of 0.10 foot thick and the base AC course have a minimum thickness of 0.25 foot.
If pavement repair is needed within the adjacent streets, the section should match the existing section and follow standard City/County guidelines for trench/pavement repair. The new pavement section should at minimum consist of 4 inches of AC over 10 inches of AB. 2387
24059-01
May 31, 2024
19 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
Asphalt concrete pavement should be placed in accordance with the requirements of Sections 301 and 302 of the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction (the Greenbook). Prior to construction of pavement sections, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed, and recompacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Subgrade should be firm prior to AB placement.
AB materials can be crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base in accordance with the Greenbook (Section 200-2). The materials should be free of any deleterious materials. Aggregate base materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Asphalt concrete should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent.
Unpaved median and parkway areas should be provided with vertical moisture barriers.
3.14 Vehicular PCC Pavements
For trash enclosures, we recommend 6 inches of PCC reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 18 inches oncenter, both ways, over 4 inches of aggregate base placed over compacted subgrade. For parking stalls, the section may consist of 4 inches of PCC reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 18 inches oncenter, both ways, over 4 inches of aggregate base over compacted subgrade.
The subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed, and recompacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).
Aggregate base materials can be crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base in accordance with the Greenbook (Section 200-2). The materials should be free of any deleterious materials. Aggregate base materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick loose lifts, moistureconditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).
3.15 Concrete Paver Section
For concrete pavers within pedestrian walkways, we recommend 60-millimeter-thick concrete pavers over approximately 1 inch of sand, over a minimum of 6 inches of AB, over compacted subgrade. This should also accommodate the rare maintenance cart or light truck that might drive up on these areas.
For concrete pavers within vehicular drive areas, if any, we recommend 80-millimeter-thick concrete pavers over 6 inches of concrete reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 24 inches on-center, over 4 inches of AB. Alternatively, the concrete low pour slab may be replaced with a minimum of 15 inches of AB over compacted subgrade; or 12 inches of AB over a layer of geotextile (e.g., Mirafi 600X or equivalent), over compacted subgrade.
A concrete band along the perimeter of the pavers should be provided for lateral restraint. The concrete band should, at minimum, be 12 inches deep and deepened to below the depth of disturbed soil, if adjacent to landscape/planter areas.
2388
24059-01
May 31, 2024
20 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
Also, a drainage system consisting of a 2-inch PVC drainage pipe should be installed at the low end of the concrete low pour at 10-foot intervals through the slab and filled with pea gravel. The PVC drainage pipe should drain to a minimum of 6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-deep drain pit filled with pea gravel below the pipe. The paver surfaces should slope away from structures a minimum of 2 percent. The concrete underlayment for the drive areas should be provided with weakened plane joints at maximum 6-foot intervals. If the pavers are to be set in mortar or are underlain with AB, this drainage system is not required.
Prior to construction of the paver sections, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and recompacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). The upper 18 inches of subgrade for pedestrian walkway and patio areas should then be presaturated to 130 percent of optimum moisture content. Subgrade for vehicular pavers need not be pre-saturated.
Aggregate base materials can be crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base in accordance with the Greenbook (Section 200-2). The materials should be free of deleterious materials. Aggregate base materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick loose lifts, moistureconditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).
3.16 Trench Excavation and Backfill
Excavations should be performed in accordance with the requirements set forth by Cal/OSHA Excavation Safety Regulations (Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504, 1539 through 1547, Title 8, California Code of Regulations). In general, onsite soils may be classified as Type "B".
Cal/OSHA regulations indicate that, for workmen in confined conditions, the steepest allowable slopes in Type "B" soils are 1:1. Locally, Type "C" soils may be encountered (saturated soils, seepage) and require slope layback of 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical). These laybacks apply to excavations 20 feet deep or less. Where there is no room for these layback slopes, we anticipate that shoring will be necessary. Adequate shoring (i.e., shields) should be provided, as deemed necessary. The soils within the adjacent streets are anticipated to be similar to onsite soils.
Excavations should be reviewed periodically by the contractor's qualified person to confirm compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements.
Onsite soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill with the exception of wet/saturated materials, if encountered. Utility trench backfill should be in accordance with City of Aliso Viejo, County of Orange and/or the governing jurisdiction's specifications. Backfill materials should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Rocks greater than 3 inches in largest diameter should generally not be used as trench backfill unless approved by the agency and geotechnical consultant of record. Excavation and backfilling of HDPE pipes (if any) should be in accordance with the manufacturerís requirement and the Greenbook. Select granular backfill (i.e., clean sand with SE 30 or better) may be used in lieu of native soils but should also be compacted or densified with water jetting and flooding.
Trenches excavated next to structures and foundations should also be properly backfilled and compacted to provide full lateral support and reduce settlement potential. 2389
24059-01
May 31, 2024
21 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
3.17 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration at a depth of 55 feet in Boring H-4 (within Niguel Formation). While some saturated soil may be encountered during grading and/or utility trench excavation, we do not anticipate significant seepage or that mitigation measures will be necessary. In general, groundwater is anticipated to remain more than 20 feet below the proposed building foundations. However, shallow, perched water/seepage may occur on an annual and seasonal basis as a result of rainfall, irrigation and/or seepage from adjacent properties.
3.18 Stormwater Infiltration
As discussed previously (Section 2.7), considering the artificial fill thickness, and bedrock directly below the fill materials, and presence of fine-grained expansive soils, stormwater infiltration at the site is not feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. Other methods of filtration/treatment should be evaluated by the project civil engineer.
3.19 Surface Drainage and Irrigation
Maintaining adequate surface drainage, proper disposal of run-off water, and control of irrigation will help reduce the potential for future moisture-related problems and differential movements from soil heave/settlement.
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during grading, landscaping, and building construction. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and slopes and toward the street or suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water adjacent to the structures should not be allowed. Buildings should have roof gutter systems and the run-off should be directed to parking lot/street gutters by area drainpipes or by sheet flow over paved areas. Paved areas should be provided with adequate drainage devices, gradients, and curbing to prevent run-off flowing from paved areas onto adjacent unpaved areas.
Considering the climatic conditions in southern California and provided that the recommendations included in this report are implemented during grading and construction, a minimum two-percent slope away from structures is considered acceptable and in substantial compliance with the 2022 CBC. Also, swales with one-percent slopes are acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint and are common practice in this locale.
Construction of planter areas immediately adjacent to structures should be avoided if possible. If planter boxes are constructed adjacent to or near buildings, the planters should be provided with controls to prevent excessive penetration of the irrigation water into the foundation and flatwork subgrades. Provisions should be made to drain excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Raised planter boxes may be drained with weepholes. Deep planters (such as palm tree planters) should be drained with below-ground, water-tight drainage lines connected to a suitable outlet. Moisture barriers should also be considered.
2390
24059-01
May 31, 2024
22 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
It is also important to maintain a consistent level of soil moisture, not allowing the subgrade soils to become overly dry or overly wet. Properly designed landscaping and irrigation systems can help in that regard.
3.20 Slope Maintenance, Lot Drainage, and Erosion Control Maintenance of proper pad drainage, the design and construction of property improvements in accordance with sound engineering practices, and proper maintenance of landscaping, including regular pad and slope irrigation, should be performed. Irrigation should not be excessive or sporadic; maintaining a relatively constant level of soil moisture around structures and improvements is important. Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided.
Planters and landscape areas adjacent to structures should be avoided or provided with measures to mitigate the potential for water getting under the foundations and slabs. Water should not be allowed to pond and drainage should be maintained away from structures and tops of slopes.
Establishing and maintaining a rodent-control program is also recommended to reduce surficial slope deterioration often associated with rodent burrowing. The improvements at or near the tops of slopes may be subject to varying degrees of slope-creep related movements and should be designed with that in mind, meeting the setback criteria discussed in this report.
3.21 Additional Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing Additional subsurface exploration during the design phase of the project is not considered necessary unless significant plan changes occur. Additional laboratory testing should be performed during and upon completion of the grading to confirm/update the design parameters provided herein.
3.22 Review of Future Plans
The project grading, foundation, street improvement, wall, and landscape plans should be reviewed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to grading and construction. Additional recommendations should be provided upon the review of the project plans and as needed.
3.23 Observation and Testing during Grading and Construction Geotechnical observation and testing should be performed by SA GEO during the following phases of grading and construction:
• During site demolition, preparation and clearing;
• During excavations performed for the remedial grading and to relocate or remove existing underground improvements;
• During earthwork, including observation and acceptance of remedial removal bottoms and fill placement, including import material (if any);
• Following the completion of grading, in order to verify soil properties for foundations, slabon-grade and pavements; • Upon completion of any foundation or structural excavation, prior to pouring concrete; 2391
24059-01
May 31, 2024
23 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
• During slab and flatwork subgrade preparation prior to pouring of concrete; • During placement of backfill for utility trenches;
• During construction of stormwater filtration devices; • During placement of backfill for retaining structures; • During installation and backfill of subdrainage systems; and • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered.
2392
24059-01
May 31, 2024
24 240531_95 Argonaut (24059-01) DD Report.docx
4.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, Meritage Homes, within the scope of services requested for the subject property described herein. This report or its contents should not be used or relied upon for other projects or purposes, or by other parties without the acknowledgement of SA GEO and the consultation of a geotechnical professional. The means and methods used by SA GEO for this study are based on local geotechnical standards of practice, care, and requirements of governing agencies. No warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is given.
Our findings, conclusions, and recommendations are professional opinions based on interpretations and inferences made from geologic and engineering data from specific locations and depths, observed or collected at a given time. By nature, geologic conditions can vary from point to point, can be very different in-between exploration points, and can also change over time.
Our conclusions and recommendations are, by nature, preliminary and subject to verification and/or modification during grading and construction when more subsurface data is exposed. 2393
Source: Seismic Hazard Zones, San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle (CDMG, 2001b) Site Location and Seismic Hazard Map
Site Location
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
Project Number: 24059-01
Date: May 31, 2024
Figure 1
Liquefaction
Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions
indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resource Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
Earthquake-Induced Landslides
Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resource Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
2394
Source: Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30í X 60í Quadrangles (USGS, 2006) Regional Geologic Map
Site Location
Project Number: 24059-01
Date: May 31, 2024
Figure 2
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
2395
Source: Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings and Bryant, 2010) Regional Fault Map
Site Location
Project Number: 24059-01
Date: May 31, 2024
Figure 3
Meritage Homes
Proposed Residential Development
95 Argonaut
Aliso Viejo, California
2396
Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
Figure 4
2397
Appendix!A!
2398
24059-01
May 31, 2024
A-1
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2001a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Juan Capistrano 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 053.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2001b, Seismic Hazard Zones, San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, Official Map dated December 21, 2001.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, County of Orange, California, Official Map dated July 8, 2021.
Jack G. Raub Company, 1987, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Parcels 6 through 14, 19 and 20, PM 85-158, Planning Area 50.1, Aliso Viejo, Orange County, California, dated June 5, 1987.
Jennings, Charles W. and Bryant W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR), 2023, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, Date Accessed: May 20, 2024; website address: http://historicaerials.com Orange County Public Works (OCPW), 2013, Orange County Watersheds Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans, Exhibit 7.III, Dated December 20, 2013.
State of California Water Resources Control Board, 2023, GeoTracker Website, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Structural Engineers Association/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (SEA/OSHPD), 2024, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, web site address:
https://seismicmaps.org/; Date Accessed: April 26, 2024.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California, dated 2006, Open File Report 2006-1217. 2399
24059-01
May 31, 2024
A-2
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
REFERENCES
U.S. Geological Survey, 2024, Unified Hazard Tool, NSHM 2014 Dynamic Deaggregation Program; web site address: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/; Date Accessed: April 26, 2024.
2400
Appendix!B!
2401
COARSE
GRAINED SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
GRAVEL AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
SAND AND
SANDY SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE
SILTS AND
CLAYS
SILTS AND
CLAYS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
LIQUID LIMIT LESS
THAN 50
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
NOTE: Dual symbols are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. Symbols separated by a slash indicate borderline soil classifications.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
GW
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,
SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
KEY TO LOG OF BORING
Sampler and Symbol Descriptions Laboratory and Field Test Abbreviations GS
Notes:
AL
DS
CN
CC Chemical Testing incl. Soluble Sulfate
RV
MD
SE Sand Equivalent
EI Expansion Index
Modified California sample (D-#)
Standard Penetration Test (S-#)
Large bulk sample (B-#)
Resistance Value (R-Value)
Approximate depth of groundwater during drilling Grain Size Analysis (Sieve, Hydro. and/or -No. 200) Approximate depth of static groundwater
Atterberg limits (plasticity)
Small bulk sample (SB-#)
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture
SE
Consolidation
Direct Shear
Sand Equivalent
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Shear Strength
Note: Number of blows required to advance driven sample 12 inches (or length noted).
Shelby tube sample (T-#)
1. 2.
Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System and include color, moisture, and relative density or consistency. Field descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests where deemed appropriate. Bedrock descriptions are based on visual classification and include rock type, moisture, color, grain size, strength, and weathering.
Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were drilled. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. 2402
D-3
Log Of Boring
DepthTypeNumberUSCS
(ft)
SAMPLES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Moisture Content (%)Dry Density (pcf)
REMARKS
0 Blows Per Foot
5 10
15 20
25 30