SM @0.5' - Grass and scattered hay remnants
@1' - Silty SAND: light brown, wet (recent rain), dense.
R-1 1
1 5
SP @2.5' - SAND : light brown, moist, loose, bits of plastic and rootlets.
R-2 4
5 7
SM @5' - Silty SAND: light brown, moist, medium dense,
rootlets.
R-3 2
4 6
SC @7.5' - Clayey SAND: light brown, very moist, medium Dense, few root casts.
R-4 3
3 8
SM @10' - Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium Dense, fine grained sand.
SPT-1 4
5 7
ML SILT with some SAND: light brown, dry, stiff.
R-5 7
12 18
SP SAND: light brown, dry, dense, micaceous.
SPT-2 5
6 11
SM Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense, iron oxide, some gravel. B-1 B-2 Last Edited: 3/31/2017
CO
CO
MD
7.5 10.5
17.0 11.1
2.2 14.5
4.9 99.9
105.3
110.1
104.1
99.6 Quaternary Young Eolian Depostis (Qye):
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu):
6654
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft)Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
715
710
705
700
695
690
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
2/9/2017
~747' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
R-6 4
10 15
SM Silty SAND: grayish brown to reddish brown, mottled, moist, medium dense, iron oxide, some small gravels
SPT-3 7
9 14
ML-SP Silt with SAND: light brown, slightly moist, medium dense.
R-7 5
14 24
SC Clayey SAND: brown, moist, dense.
SPT-4 9
12 14
CL-SP CLAY with SAND: brown, moist, hard.
R-8 7
15 26
CL-SP Clay with SAND, brown, moist, hard, micaceous,
manganese oxide, fine grain sand.
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017
AL
7.5 16.5
15.7 7.2
20.3 113.6
113.4
117.9
6655
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
740
735
730
725
720
715
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
2/9/2017
~743' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
@0'. - Gravel / old asphalt.
SA
R-1 6
6 9
SP SAND: brown, moist, medium dense.
R-2 6
6 10
ML SILT: brown, moist to very moist, stiff.
R-3 5
8 14
SM Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense, some small
angular gravels, fine grains of sand.
R-4 7
9 16
SM Silty SAND: grayish brown, slightly moist, medium
dense, fine grains of sand.
R-5 2
3 5
ML-SP Clayey SILT with SAND, grayish brown, slightly moist to moist, stiff, iron oxide, trace rootlet, pores.
SPT-1 7
8 9
SM Sandy SILT, brown, moist stiff, laminations.
R-6 5
7 9
CL Silty CLAY: brown/gray, moist, stiff, micaceous, iron oxide, scattered gravel, mottled. B-1 Last Edited: 3/31/2017 AL
EI
CO
6.5 18.1
6.9 9.9
26.6 15.8
16.2 108.6
107.9
112.0
112.1
106.5
103.1
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu):
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6656
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft)Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
710
705
700
695
690
685
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
2/9/2017
~743' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
SPT-2 4
6 8
SM Sandy SILT, brown, moist, stiff, laminations.
R-7 3
10 25
SP - GP SAND with GRAVEL: gray and orange, mottled, moist, dense, few scattered root pores.
SPT-3 6
11 11
SM Sandy SILT: orange/brown, moist, very stiff, micaceous, iron oxide.
R-8 2
8 14
CL CLAY: grayish brown, moist, very stiff, iron oxide,
manganese oxide, woody bits, traces of pinhole porosity.
SPT-4 7
11 16
SC Sandy CLAY: brown, moist, very stiff, iron oxide,
manganese oxide, fine grains of sand, pinhole porosity.
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017
AL
SA
SA
18.2 17.3
14.6 14.0
97.8 21.0
112.9
AL
6657
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
735
730
725
720
715
710
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
2/9/2017
~748' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
5 5
5 Old asphalt turned gravel, scattered bones, broken
glass. R-1 4
8 7
S
SAND: brown, moist, medium dense, roots, some
organics.
R-2 4
4 6
SC Clayey SAND: grayish brown, wet, organics, hay and
plastic.
R-3 4
10 27
SC Clayey SAND: black, wet, medium dense, approx. 30%
organics/plastics.
R-4 2
4 7
SP SAND: brown, very moist, dense, some organics.
2 4
7 SM Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense.
SAND: very light brown, slightly moist, medium dense,
fine grained.
Total Depth = 21.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017 Last Edited: 3/31/2017 SPT-1
R-5 4
7 15
CO
97.2 20.4
103.3 8.6
100.7 19.6
113.0 3.6
26.1 101.0 2.9 B-1
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu):
Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye):
6658
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
735
730
725
720
715
710
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
2/9/2017
~738' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
Old asphalt turned gravel, scattered bones, broken
glass.
R-1 5
4 6
SM
Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium dense,
micaceous.
R-2 5
7 8
SP SAND: light, brown, very moist, medium dense,
micaceous.
R-3 5
5 8
SM Sandy SILT: brown, slightly moist, stiff.
R-4 5
7 8
ML SILT: grayish brown, slightly moist, stiff.
R-5 3
5 7
SM Sandy SILT, grayish brown, moist, stiff.
SPT-1 5
7 9
Sandy SILT, grayish brown, moist, stiff, micaceous.
Total Depth = 21.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017 Last Edited: 3/31/2017 AL
CO
99.2 22.1
98.0 4.4
9.1 87.7 29.8
101.5
17.0 93.6 20.6
Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu):
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6659
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
740
735
730
725
720
715
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-5
2/9/2017
~742' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
SM Scattered weeds
R-1 18
27 37
SM Silty SAND: dark brown, slightly moist, very dense,
strong organic odor.
R-2 15
18 20
SP Fine grain SAND: dark gray, moist, very dense,
abundant organics @ 6'.
R-3 6
10 18
SP SAND: gray, slightly moist, dense, decreased odor.
R-4 7
13 17
SAND: gray with black at base of sample, slightly moist, dense, strong organic odor.
SPT-1 5
6 6
ML Sandy SILT: gray, slightly moist, stiff, strong organic odor.
R-5 5
12 19
SP SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense, no odor.
SPT-2 6
10 11
SM Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist to moist, dense, no odor.
Total Depth = 25.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017 Last Edited: 3/31/2017 119.3 6.8
106.5 9.3
4.6 17.5
101.4
106.2
2.7 100.7 4.5
6.8 Stockpile over Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu):
Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye):
6660
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
740
735
730
725
720
715
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-6
2/9/2017
~742' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
Gravel
R-1 7
17 24
SM Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense, scattered gravel.
R-2 11
14 28
SM Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense, scattered gravel.
R-3 13
17 25
SM Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense.
R-4 8
11 13
SM Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense, fine grained.
R-5 3
4 6
ML SILT: brown, slightly moist, stiff, rootlets.
SPT-1 5
7 10
ML SILT with SAND: light brown, moist, stiff.
Total Depth = 21.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017 Last Edited: 3/31/2017 AL
CO
SA
122.6 7.4
119.9 5.7
4.3 11.1
108.2
118.8 6.6
105.5
11.8 Stockpile:
Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye):
6661
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
740
735
730
725
720
715
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-7
2/9/2017
~742' MSL
8"
Hollow Stem
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac
Regions North
16159-01
Logged By CNJ
Sampled By CNJ
Checked By BJE
Grass.
R-1 4
6 9
SM Silty SAND: brown, moist, stiff, medium dense.
R-2 6
7 9
SILTY SAND: brown, moist, medium dense.
R-3 3
3 5
SM Sandy SILT, brown, moist, stiff.
R-4 5
7 11
SILT: grayish, brown, slightly moist, stiff.
SPT-1 4
5 6
SAND with SILT: grayish brown, slightly moist, stiff.
SPT-2 6
10 15
Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, dense, some gravel.
Total Depth = 21.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 2/9/2017 Last Edited: 3/31/2017 ML
SM
CO
SA
111.7 3.5
99.8 7.6
8.4 21.2
97.3 101.0 13.4
105.5
4.9 Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6662
LGC Geotechnical
Project Regions North Operator DG-BH Filename SDF(494).cptJob Number 16159-01 Cone Number DDG1350 GPSHole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 2/9/2017 7:43:11 AM Maximum Depth 60.53 ftEST GW Depth During Test 200.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 700
TIP
TSF 0 14
FRICTION
TSF 0 9
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL
BEHAVIOR
TYPE
6663
LGC Geotechnical
Project Regions North Operator DG-BH Filename SDF(495).cptJob Number 16159-01 Cone Number DDG1350 GPSHole Number CPT-02 Date and Time 2/9/2017 8:33:30 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 200.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 700
TIP
TSF 0 14
FRICTION
TSF 0 9
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL
BEHAVIOR
TYPE
6664
LGC Geotechnical
Project Regions North Operator DG-BH Filename SDF(496).cptJob Number 16159-01 Cone Number DDG1350 GPSHole Number CPT-03 Date and Time 2/9/2017 9:12:40 AM Maximum Depth 27.89 ftEST GW Depth During Test 200.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 700
TIP
TSF 0 14
FRICTION
TSF 0 9
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL
BEHAVIOR
TYPE
6665
LGC Geotechnical
Project Regions North Operator DG-BH Filename SDF(497).cptJob Number 16159-01 Cone Number DDG1350 GPSHole Number CPT-04 Date and Time 2/9/2017 9:43:18 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 0.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 700
TIP
TSF 0 14
FRICTION
TSF 0 9
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL
BEHAVIOR
TYPE
6666
LGC Geotechnical
Project Regions North Operator DG-BH Filename SDF(498).cptJob Number 16159-01 Cone Number DDG1350 GPSHole Number CPT-05 Date and Time 2/9/2017 10:19:03 AM Maximum Depth 50.52 ftEST GW Depth During Test 0.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 700
TIP
TSF 0 14
FRICTION
TSF 0 9
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL
BEHAVIOR
TYPE
6667
LGC Geotechnical
Project Regions North Operator DG-BH Filename SDF(499).cptJob Number 16159-01 Cone Number DDG1350 GPSHole Number CPT-06 Date and Time 2/9/2017 10:55:41 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 0.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 700
TIP
TSF 0 14
FRICTION
TSF 0 9
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL
BEHAVIOR
TYPE
6668
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-1 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 747 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' Silty SAND: dark brown, wet grading to dry, loose; abundant roots (Topsoil) @ 0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @ 6" SAND: brown, moist, medium dense with loose pockets; rootlets GB-1 @ 1-2' @ 2' Increase density to dense GB-2 @ 3-4' @ 5' SAND: gray brown and light brown mottled, moist, dense; some roots GB-3 @ 5-7' @ 9' SAND: very light brown, slightly moist, dense to very dense; fine grained, slightly indurated GB-4 @ 9-10' Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 A Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SMSP
6669
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-2 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 747 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW @ 0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu GB-1 @ A @ 0' Silty SAND with scattered gravels: light brown, slightly 1-3' moist, very dense @ 2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian deposits (Qye): Qye B @ 2' SAND: light brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense with some loose pockets; pinhole porosity @ 5' Increase density to dense GB-2 @ 5-6' @ 8' SAND: light brown, moist to very moist, dense; fine grained Total Depth: 9' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 AB Last Edited: 3/30/2017 SMSP
6670
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-3 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 743 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @ 0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): About 2" layer of Asphalt Concrete and CMB Qye @ 2" SAND: light brown, moist, loose to medium dense GB-1 @ 2-3' @ 4' Silty SAND: grayish light brown, moist to very moist, medium dense to dense; rootlets and pinhole porosity GB-2 @ 4-5' @ 8' Silty SAND: light grayish brown, moist to very moist, medium dense to dense GB-3 @ 8-9' Total Depth: 9' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 A Last Edited: 3/30/2017 SPSM
6671
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-4 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 746 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW @ 0' to 3' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): @ 0' - Asphalt Concrete Afu A @ 8" Silty SAND with Gravel: brown, dark brown, and gray, moist, dense; trash; bones; treated lumber @ 3' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye GB-1 @ 3-5' Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SP @ 3' SAND: light brown, moist, dense; pinhole porosity GB-2 @ 5-7' @ 5' SAND: very light grayish brown, moist, dense B 6672
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-5 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 748 ' MSL Surface Slope: 20 deg. Trend: NS @ 0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu A @ 0' Silty SAND: brown, moist to very moist, loose; ~80% organics GB-1 @ 0-1' GB-2 @ 1-2' @ 1' Silty SAND: brown, dry, loose; roots, about 50% organics @ 2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye B @ 2' SAND with some Silt: brown, moist, loose to medium dense; larger roots up to 1" diameter GB-3 @ @ 5' SAND: grayish-brown, moist, dense 3-4' GB-4 @ 6-7' Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 A B Last Edited: 3/30/2017 SMSP
6673
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-6 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 743 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to 1' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu): Afu @ 0' SILT and CLAY: dark brown, very moist to wet, stiff; organic rich GB-1 @ 0-1' @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @ 1' Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: gray brown, very moist, medium dense to stiff; porous GB-2 @ 2-3' B @ 4' SAND: gray brown, moist to very moist, dense; scattered gravels GB-3 @ 4-5' Total Depth: 8' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/06/2017 ML-CL SMSP
6674
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-7 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 748 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to 1' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @ 0' SILT and CLAY: dark brown, very moist to wet, stiff GB-1 @ @ 1' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye 0-1' GB-2 @ 2-3' B @ 1' Silty SAND: gray brown, moist to very moist, medium dense with some loose pockets; scattered roots; pinhole porosity @ 3' Sandy SILT and CLAY: gray and orange mottled, very moist, stiff; abundant rootlets; pinhole porosity GB-3 @ @ 4.5 SAND: grayish brown, moist, dense 3-4' Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/06/2017 ML-CL SM SM-CL SP
6675
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-8 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 749 ' MSL Surface Slope: 20 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' - 5' - Stockpile Stockpile @ 0' Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: gray brown to light brown, moist to very moist, dense to very stiff; "lifts" visible @ 5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Afu/Qye GB-1 @ B @ 5' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense with some loose 3-4' pockets; abundant roots; upper one foot disturbed @ 6' SAND: light gray brown, dry grading to moist by 8', grades to dense by 8' GB-2 @ 6-8' Total Depth: 8' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 A B Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SMSP
6676
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/8/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-9 scale : 1 in = 10 ft Elevation : 741 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to 7' Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu) or Stockpile: @ 0' Silty SAND: light brown to gray, moist, dense to very dense; scattered trash visable down to 5'; "lifts" visible GB-1 @ 2-3' B @ 6' SILT and CLAY: dark brown, dry, hard; indurated; organic rich GB-2 @ 6' @ 7' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): @ 7' SAND: dark gray, moist, dense; odoriferous GB-3 @ 7-9' GB-4 @ 18' Total Depth: 18.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/8/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SM ML-CL SP Stockpile /Afu Qye
6677
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-10 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 749 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): @ 0' Silty SAND: dark brown, very moist, loose; bone fragments; abundant trash; odoriferous; organic rich GB-1 @ B @ 2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye 0-2' @2' SAND: grayish brown, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense GB-2 @ @ 7' Silty SAND: grayish brown, very moist to wet, medium 2-4' dense to dense; iron oxide GB-3 @ 7-9' Total Depth: 9' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 AB Last Edited: 3/30/2017 Afu SMSPSM
6678
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-11 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 740 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): @ 0' Sandy SILT: brown, wet, soft; abundant roots GB-1 @ 1' Silty SAND: grayish brown, very moist, medium dense B @ 2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @2' SAND: grayish brown, very moist, medium dense; scattered gravel; iron oxide GB-2 Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 AB Last Edited: 3/30/2017 Afu SMSPSM
6679
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-12 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 736 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to 3.5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @ 0' SILT and SAND: dark brown, very moist, soft; abundant rootlets; organic rich; bone fragments; abundant trash; odoriferous GB-1 @ 0-3' B @ 3.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @ 3.5' SAND with Silt: gray brown, very moist, medium dense to dense; iron oxide GB-2 @ 4-5' Total Depth: 5.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 AB Last Edited: 3/30/2017 SMSP
6680
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-13 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 740 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @ 0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): @ 0' SILT with Sand: dark brown, very moist; abundant roots GB-1 @ @ 4' Silty SAND: brown, very moist to wet, medium dense; 2-3' scattered gravels; occasional rock greater than 8" diameter; roots to 4' Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 A Last Edited: 3/30/2017 SM SM-ML Qye
6681
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-14 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 743 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N30W A @ 0' to 6' - Stockpile @ 0' Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: grayish brown, moist, dense to very stiff; trace trash B @ 6' to 9' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): @ 6' Silty SAND: brown, dry, medium dense with loose pockets; organic rich; abundant trash GB-1 @ 6-8' C @ 9' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @9' Silty SAND: light grayish brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense to dense GB-2 @ 9-10' Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 ABC Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SM Afu Stockpile
6682
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-15 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 745 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @ 0' to 6' - Stockpile @ 0' Silty SAND: brown to gray, moist, dense; trace trash; scattered gravel and bone fragments; "lifts' visible B @ 6' to T.D. - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): @ 6' SAND and SILT: dark brown, dry, loose; organic rich Total Depth: 8' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SM Afu Stockpile
6683
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 2/10/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-16 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 751 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A 0' to 6' - Artificial Fill (Stockpile): @ 0' Silty SAND: brown, very moist, dense; scattered trash; roots; gravel; trace rock up to 1' diameter; "lifts" visible GB-1 @ 2-3' B @ 6' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): GB-2 @ 8-9' Total Depth: 11.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 2/10/2017 Last Edited: 4/06/2017 SM @ 6' Silty SAND: light brown to brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense to dense; scattered gravel AB Stockpile Qye 6684
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-17 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 746 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N60E A @0' to 2.5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Asphalt Concrete @6" - Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense; trash; bones B @2.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @2.5' - SAND: gray brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6685
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-18 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 740 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to T.D. - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Weeds; scattered trash @0' to T.D. - Silty fine SAND: light brown to brown, slightly moist to moist; abundant trash to 4'; trash concentrated in certain pockets, not homogeneous; bone fragments; medium dense; organinc rish; odoriferous Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6686
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-19 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 734 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to T.D. - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Weeds @0' to T.D. - Sandy SILT to Silty SAND: brown, moist to wet, medium stiff to medium dense; trash in zones to 5.5'; splotches of black and gray; scattered bone fragments; organinc rich; odoriferous Total Depth: 5.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6687
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-20 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 739 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to T.D. - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Weeds @0' to T.D. - Silty SAND: light brown and brown, moist, medium dense; scattered trash to 3.5'; organic rich, odoriferous Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6688
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-21 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 746 ' MSL Surface Slope: 10 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to T.D. - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Weeds @0' to 6" - SAND (Decomposed Granitic Sand) @6" - Silty SAND: light brown to brown, moist, medium dense; scattered gravel Total Depth: 3.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6689
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-22 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 739 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 3' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Weeds @0' to 3' - Silty SAND: brown to light brown with lifts of dark brown, moist, medium dense; abundant trash B @3' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @3' - Fine SAND: brown, moist, medium dense; scattered gravel; some iron oxide Total Depth: 5.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6690
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-23 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 738 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to 3.5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Weeds @0' to 3.5' - SAND: brown, moist, medium dense; scattered trash; organic rich; odoriferous B @3.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @3.5' - SAND: gray, moist, medium dense; odoriferous Total Depth: 8' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6691
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-24 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 739 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 1.5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - SILT: dark brown, slight moist, soft; manure; trash; odoriferous; slight indurated B @1.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @1.5' - SAND: gray, moist, medium dense; odoriferous; ammonia Total Depth: 6.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6692
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-25 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 739 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 4' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - WeedsSILT: dark brown, slight moist, soft; manure; trash; odoriferous; slight indurated @0' to 4' - Sandy SILT: brown, moist, stiff; bone fragments; trash; odor; organics B @4' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @4' SAND: gray brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6693
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-26 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 739 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @0' Silty SAND: dark brown, moist, medium dense; trash; organics; odoriferous; roots in upper 1' Total Depth: 3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6694
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-27 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 739 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to 4' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' Weeds @0' to 4' - Silty SAND: brown and dark brown, moist, medium dense; trash; bones; organics; odor B @4' to 7' - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @4' - SAND: gray brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6695
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-28 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 740 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @0' - Grass @0' to T.D. - SAND with Silt: light brown, moist, medium dense; roots in upper 6"; pores until 2' Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6696
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-29 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 744 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye): Qye @0' - SAND; light brown, slight moist, medium dense; friable (caving) Total Depth: 5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 A Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6697
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-30 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 742 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - 3" Asphalt @3" - Silty SAND: brown, moist, dense; trash, bone fragments B @2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @2' - SAND: brown, moist, medium dense to dense Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6698
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-31 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 748 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, very dense; trash; bone fragments B @2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @2' - SAND: light brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 7' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6699
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-32 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 746 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 1' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, loose; rootlets; trash B @1' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @1' - SAND: light brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6700
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-33 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 746 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Silty SAND: light brown, slightly moist, dense; trash; bones B @2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @2' - SAND: brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6701
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-34 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 746 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: NS A @0' to 3' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - 6" thick asphalt @6" - Silty SAND: dark brown, moist, dense to medium dense; trash; bones; odoriferous; organics B @3' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @3' - SAND: brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6702
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-35 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 745 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 4.5' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense; some trash; scattered bones; organic smell B @4.5' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @4.5' - SAND with Gravel: light gray, dry, dense; lacks cementation; rounded gravels Total Depth: 6' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6703
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit Project Name: Regions North Project Number : 16159-01 Equipment: Backhoe Logged By: CNJ Date : 3/28/2017 Location: See Geotechnical Map Trench No: TP-36 scale : 1 in = 5 ft Elevation : 749 ' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: EW A @0' to 2' - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): Afu @0' - Silty SAND: dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense; trash; bones; organic smell B @2' to T.D. - Quaternary Young Eolean Deposits (Qye): Qye @2' - SAND: gray brown motled, moist, medium dense; iron oxide Total Depth: 5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 3/28/2017 AB Last Edited: 4/5/2017
6704
Appendix H
Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation Data –
Regions South (16158‐01)
6705
HS-2 T.D. = 50' HS-6 T.D. = 20' HS-4 T.D. = 20' HS-1 T.D. = 20' HS-5 T.D. = 50' HS-3 T.D. = 20' CPT-6 T.D. = 47.7' CPT-2 T.D. = 24.4' CPT-1 T.D. = 48.5' CPT-5 T.D. = 48.3' CPT-3 T.D. = 50.6' CPT-4 T.D. = 49' LEGEND Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet Approximate Location of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet HS-6 T.D. = 20' CPT-6 T.D. = 47.7' Limit of Report SHEET 1 of 1 LGC Geotechnical, Inc. 131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200 San Clemente, CA 92672 TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 DATE SCALE PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. Geotechnical Map ENG. / GEOL. Regions South 16158-01 BJE/KTM 1" = 100' June 2017 6706
Project No. 16158-01 C-1 June 22, 2017
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the site soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.
Grain Size Distribution: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve. The portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D422 (CTM 202). Where an appreciable amount of fines were encountered (greater than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) a hydrometer analysis was done to determine the distribution of soil particles passing the No. 200 sieve.
Sample Location Description % Passing # 200
Sieve
HS-2 @ 10 feet Clayey Sand 61
HS-2 @ 25 feet Sandy Silt 68
HS-3 @ 5 feet Sandy Clay 70
HS-4 @ 20 feet Sandy Silt 63
HS-5 @ 15 feet Silty Sand 48
HS-5 @ 35 feet Sandy Clay 60
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples were evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, Standard ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch-thick by 4-inch-diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below.
Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
HS-4 @ 5-7.5 feet 6 Very Low
*Per Chapter 18 of the 2007 C.B.C.; ASTM D 4829 Section 5.3 Collapse /Swell Potential: Collapse test were performed per ASTM D4546. Samples (2.4 inches in diameter and 1-inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and loaded to their approximate in-situ effective stress. The Curves are presented in this Appendix. 6707
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (Continued) Project No. 16158-01 C-2 June 22, 2017
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs.
Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples.
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422.
The results are presented below.
Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm
HS-4 @ 5-7.5 feet 11
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. As a result of a decrease in resistivity, the potential for corrosion increases. The results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm)
HS-4 @ 5-7.5 feet 7.43 1000
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below.
Sample
Location
Sulfate Content
(ppm)
Sulfate
Exposure*
HS-4 @ 5-7.5 feet 84 S0
*Per ACI 318
6708
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-1
5/8/2017
~725' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
R-1 5
8 11
@2.5' - SAND: brown, medium dense, moist, poorly
graded
SPT-1 4
4 7
@5' - Sandy SILT: brownish grey, medium dense, moist
R-2 9
10 18
@10' - Silty SAND: brown, medium dense, moist
SPT-2 11
10 11
@15' - SAND: light brown, medium dense, moist, poorly
graded
R-3 14
19 20
@20' - Silty SAND: light brown, dense, moist
Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/8/2017 B-1 B-2 Last Edited: 5/22/2017 104.2 6.4
110.9 6.2
111.9 15.1
20.6 6.7
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
SP
SM
SP
SM
6709
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-2
5/8/2017
~725' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
SPT-1 4
4 5
@2.5' - Silty SAND: brown, medium dense, moist
R-1 6
7 12
@5' - Clayey SAND: olive brown, medium dense, moist
SPT-2 4
3 3
@10' - Clayey SAND: light brown, loose, moist
R-2 7
13 18
@15' - Silty SAND - light brown, medium dense, moist
SPT-3 10
10 12
@20' - Silty SAND: dark brown, medium dense, moist
R-3 9
15 15
@25' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, medium dense,
moist B-1 B-2 Last Edited: 5/22/2017
17.1 111.7 11.8
112.2 9.2
108.4 16.5
18.0 14.5
-#200
-#200
CO
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
SM
SC
SM
6710
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft)Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
695
690
685
680
675
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-2
5/8/2017
~725' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
SPT-4 13
17 24
@30' - Silty SAND with gravel: brown, very dense, moist R-4 11
28 37
@35' - SAND: orangish brown, very dense, moist, poorly
graded
SPT-5 4
7 9
@40' - SILT: brown, medium dense, moist
R-5 11
33 45
@45' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, very dense, moist
SPT-6 5
8 12
@50' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, medium dense,
moist
Total Depth = 50'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/8/2017 B-3
10.1 121.7 10.4
123.9 12.7
17.5 13.8
SM
SP
ML
SM
6711
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
695
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-3
5/8/2017
~723' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
R-1 8
8 11
@2.5' - Sandy SILT: olive brown, medium dense, moist
SPT-1 3
3 4
@5' - Sandy SILT: brown, loose, moist
R-2 3
4 9
@10' - SILT with Sand: gray to orangish brown, moist,
medium dense
SPT-2 5
8 14
@15' - SAND: orangish brown, medium dense, moist,
poorly graded
R-3 7
14 28
@20' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, dense, moist
Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/8/2017 B-1 Last Edited: 5/22/2017 101.5 24.2
22.2 7.0
115.0 12.6
118.9 13.2
-#200
CO
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
ML
SP
SM
6712
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-4
5/8/2017
~725' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
SPT-1 4
5 7
@2.5' - SAND: greyish brown, medium dense, moist,
poorly graded
R-1 8
9 13
@5' - Clayey SAND: greyish brown, medium dense,
moist
SPT-2 3
4 7
@10' - Sandy SILT: brown, medium dense, moist
R-2 2
18 25
@15' - SAND: dark brown, dense, moist, poorly graded
SPT-3 3
6 11
@20' - Sandy SILT: brown, medium dense, moist
Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/8/2017 B-1 B-2 Last Edited: 5/22/2017
7.5 20.2
23.6 90.4 31.7
115.9 8.1
-#200
EI,
CR
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
SP
SC
ML
SP
ML
6713
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
715
710
705
700
695
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-5
5/8/2017
~720' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
R-1 10
16 20
@2.5' - Sandy SILT: grey, medium dense, moist
SPT-1 4
4 6
@5' - SILT: gray, medium dense, moist
R-2 6
12 10
@10' - SAND: orangish brown, medium dense, moist,
poorly graded
SPT-2 4
4 5
@15' - Silty SAND: grayish brown, medium dense, moist
R-3 10
16 23
@20' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, dense, moist
SPT-3 5
9 14
@25' - Sandy SILT: brown, medium dense, moist B-1 B-2 Last Edited: 5/22/2017 101.0 22.0
112.5 7.1
123.5 12.2
31.1 15.1
22.9 -#200
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
ML
SP
SM
ML
6714
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft)Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
690
685
680
675
670
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-5
5/8/2017
~720' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
R-4 10
18 32
@30' - SAND: orangish brown, dense, moist, poorly
graded
SPT-4 4
8 13
@35' - Sandy SILT: light brown, medium dense, moist
R-5 8
18 29
@40' - Clayey SAND: orange, dense, moist
SPT-5 11
15 19
@45' - Silty SAND: orangish brown, dense, moist
R-6 25
32 40
@50' SAND: orangish brown, very dense, moist, poorly
graded
Total Depth = 50'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/8/2017 B-3
124.5 11.8
117.1 15.9
116.0 12.3
18.0 9.9
-#200
SP
ML
SC
SM
SP
6715
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft)
Graphic Log
Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)USCS Symbol
DESCRIPTION
Type of Test
Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole LGC-HS-6
5/8/2017
~725' MSL
8"
CME
30"
140 pounds
2R Drilling
Regions South
16158-01
Logged By SHH
Sampled By SHH
Checked By BJE
SPT-1 4
7 7
@2.5' - Silty SAND: light brown, medium dense, moist
R-1 4
8 9
@5' - Sandy SILT: brown, medium dense, moist
SPT-2 3
4 7
@10' - Silty SAND: light brown, medium dense, moist
R-2 8
11 13
@15' - SILT with Sand: light brown, medium dense,
moist
SPT-3 8
12 13
@20' - SAND: light brown, dense, moist, poorly graded
Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 5/8/2017 B-1 Last Edited: 5/22/2017
13.7 11.7
5.5 101.9 22.3
110.4 16.6 CO
Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
SM
ML
SM
ML
SP
6716
Appendix I
Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation Data – Mill
Creek Business Center/Randall (20220‐01
6717
I-1
T.D. = 18'
HS-1
T.D. = 51.5'
HS-2
T.D. = 26.5'
HS-3
T.D. = 51.5'
I-5
T.D. = 20'
I-6
T.D. = 19.5'
CPT-2
CPT-1 T.D. = 50'
T.D. = 50'
CPT-4a
T.D. = 50'
I-4
T.D. = 20'
CPT-5
T.D. = 50' I-3
T.D. = 21.5'
TP-16
TP-20
TP-17
CPT-3
T.D. = 50'
CPT-6
T.D. = 50'
CPT-8
T.D. = 50'
CPT-9
T.D. = 50'
TP-19
TP-18
TP-13
TP-14
TP-12
TP-11
TP-15
CPT-10
T.D. = 50'
CPT-9
T.D. = 25'
CPT-7
T.D. = 25'
CPT-6
T.D. = 50'
HS-8
T.D. = 25'
HS-5
T.D. = 25'
CPT-4
T.D. = 25'
CPT-5
T.D. = 25'
HS-6
T.D. = 50'
HS-4
T.D. = 25'
I-2
T.D. = 16'
HS-4
T.D. = 51.5'
HS-5
T.D. = 51.5'
HS-6
T.D. = 26.5'
HS-7
T.D. = 26.5'
HS-8
T.D. = 26.5'
TP-7
TP-5
TP-10
TP-9 TP-8
TP-6 Soil and Crushed
Concrete Stockpile
LEGEND
Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by
LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet
Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by
LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet (2017)
Approximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Infiltration
Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet
Approximate Location of Geotechnical Exploratory Trench by LGC Geotechnical
Approximate Location of Geotechnical Exploratory Trench by LGC Geotechnical (2017)
HS-8
T.D. = 21.5'
I-6
T.D. = 20'
Approximate Location of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet
Approximate Location of Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in Feet (2017)
Approximate Limits of This Report
CPT-9
T.D. = 50'
TP-20
CPT-10
T.D. = 50'
HS-8
T.D. = 25'
TP-10
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
DATE
SHEET
1 of 3
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200
San Clemente, CA 92672
TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142
Geotechnical Exploration Location Map
With Satellite Image
*See Sheet 3 for Additional Shallow Test Pit Locations
1" = 100'
June 2021
Richland - MCBC
RLD/ARN
20220-01
6718
TP-16
TP-20
TP-17
TP-19
TP-18
TP-13
TP-14
TP-12
TP-11
TP-15
T-41
T-42
T-47
T-46
T-40
T-43
T-44
T-45
T-49 T-55
T-48
T-50
T-51
T-52
T-53
T-54
T-60 T-61 T-62
T-59 T-63
T-57 T-58
T-64
T-66
T-65 T-56
1.0'
0'
1.0'
1.2'
0.8'
0'
0.0'
0.8'
1.5' T-72
2.0'
T-73
1.8'
T-74
T-71
T-22
T-20
T-23
T-6 T-5
T-24
T-7 T-8
T-3
T-4
T-2
T-9
T-13 T-12
T-15 T-14 T-10 T-11 T-1
T-25
TP-7
TP-5
TP-10
TP-9 TP-8
TP-6
1.2' 1.0' 1.0' 1.0' 1.2'
1.0'
1.5'
1.0' 1.0'
0' 0'
0.8'
1.0'
1.2'
1.0'
1.2'
1.2'
1.0'
1.0'
1.5'
1.2'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
0.0' 0.0' 0.0'
0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0'
0.0' 0.0'
TP-20
0.0'
0.0'
LEGEND
Approximate Location of Shallow Exploratory Trench by LGC Geotechnical with Estimated Minimum Depth of High Organic "Soil" to be Exported From the Site, in Feet
Approximate Location of Shallow Exploratory Trench by LGC Geotechnical with Estimated Minimum Depth of High Organic "Soil" to be Exported From the Site, in Feet (2017)
Approximate Location of Geotechnical Exploratory Trench by LGC Geotechnical with Estimated Minimum Depth of High Organic "Soil" to be Exported From the Site, in Feet
Approximate Location of Geotechnical Exploratory Trench by LGC Geotechnical with Estimated Minimum Depth of High Organic "Soil" to be Exported From the Site, in Feet (2017)
Approximate Location of Waste Water Pond Requiring Additional Organic Haul-Off (Removal and Export Depths Estimated to be 5 feet)
Approximate Limits of This Report
T-74
0'
TP-10
T-25
1.0'
ENG. / GEOL.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
SCALE
DATE
SHEET
3 of 3
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200
San Clemente, CA 92672
TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142
1" = 100'
June 2021
Richland - MCBC
RLD/ARN
20220-01
Recommended High Organic "Soil" Export Map
6719
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.8' 9.8 0.8' 15.8 0.8' 13.7 0.8' 10.8
1.2' 0.6 1.2' 0.6 1.2' 0.9 1.2' 3.9
2' 0.5 2.2' 0.6 2.2' 0.4 2.2' 0.9
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics 1' 3.8 0.5' 1.5 0.4 2.8 1.0 2.0
1.5' 0.7 1.2' 1.0 1.5 0.9 1.4 0.9
2.5' 0.5 ‐ ‐ 2.1 0.5 1.6 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.6 6.1 0.7 2.8 0.4 2.0 0.2 2.0
1.6 1.9 1.1 2.1 1.0 2.5 1.1 1.6
2.0 0.8 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.2 1.4 0.6
7.4 0.7 2.4 0.3 3.0 0.7 ‐ ‐
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.5 2.3 0.2 2.4 1.0 1.5 0.2 2.6
1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.0 0.6 1.0 2.2
2.1 0.3 1.9 0.3 3.6 0.5 1.5 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.8' 6.0 1.2' 10.1 0.8' 11.4 1' 20.7
1.5' 0.9 1.8' 2.0 1.2' 1.3 1.5' 1.4
2' 0.4 2.2' 1.1 2.2 0.8 2.5' 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.8' 6.8 0.8' 9.4 0.8' 9.9 0.8' 7.0
1.5' 0.3 1.5' 0.7 1.2' 0.3 1.2' 0.3
‐ ‐ 2.5' 0.5 2' 0.4 ‐ ‐
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.8' 8.0 0.8' 13.5 0.8' 13.3 0.5' 0.7
1.5' 0.3 1.2' 1.5 1.2' 1.1 1.2' 0.4
2.5' 0.3 2.0 1.1 2' 0.5 2' 0.4
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.5' 0.7 1' 9.3 0.8' 16.0 0.5' 19.2
1' 0.5 1.8' 1.1 1.2' 0.8 1' 0.8
1.5' 0.5 2.2' 0.8 2' 0.5 1.5' 0.4
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.8' 9.8 1' 52.0 1' 40.7 1' 10.6
1.2' 2.0 1.4' 0.8 1.5' 1.9 1.5' 0.8
2' 0.4 ‐ ‐ 2' 0.7 ‐ ‐
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.5 2.2 0.5 2.4 .5' 2.5 .8' 1.8
1.5 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.6' 0.8 1.7' 1.0
1.8 0.6 1.8 0.4 2.8' 0.6 2.7' 0.3
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.7 1.9 1.1 2.1 0.3 2.5 0.1 3.6
1.3 1.7 2.1 0.5 0.4 2.8 0.8 1.4
1.7 0.3 3.0 0.6 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.2 2.9 0.5 2.8 0.6 2.9 0.8 2.0
1.5 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.3 1.4
2.1 0.6 2.2 0.7 2.0 0.8 2.1 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.6 1.9 0.7 2.7 0.5 2.4 0.7 2.7
1.2 2.9 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2
1.8 0.6 1.9 0.7 2.0 0.8 1.4 0.8
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.2 2.0 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.4
1.4 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.8 2.3 1.7 1.7
1.7 0.7 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.7 2.1 0.6
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.1 2.7 0.2 2.3 0.3 2.4 0.2 2.5
0.5 2.4 1.1 1.9 1.2 2.7 1.1 1.8
0.7 0.6 1.5 0.3 2.0 0.4 1.6 0.5
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.2 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.2 2.4 0.2 7.6
1.5 2.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.2 12.1
2.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.8
Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics Depth (ft) % Organics
0.3 10.0 0.2 13.4 0.3 9.4
1.7 9.6 1.5 11.2 2.5 3.6
2.2 0.5 2.1 0.8 3.0 0.7
Legend
T‐43 (0')*
T‐49 (0')* T‐50 (0')* T‐51 (0')*
T‐52 (0')* T‐53 (0')* T‐54 (0')* T‐55 (0')*
TP‐17 (0')* TP‐18 (0')* TP‐19 (0')* TP‐20 (0')*
T‐56 (0')*
TP‐5 (0.8')* TP‐6 (1.0')* TP‐7 (1.0') TP‐8 (1.2')
T‐57 (0')*
TP‐9 (0')* TP‐10 (0')* TP‐11 (0')* TP‐12 (0')*
T‐1 (1.2')* T‐2 (1.5')*
TP‐13 (0.8')* TP‐14 (0')* TP‐15 (0')* TP‐16 (0')*
T‐64 (0')* T‐65 (0')* T‐66 (0')* T‐71 (1.5')*
T‐72 (2.0)* T‐73 (1.8)* T‐74 (1.5)*
T‐7 (1.0')* T‐8 (1.0')*
T‐9 (1.0')*
T‐3 (1.0')* T‐4 (1.0')*
T‐5 (1.2')* T‐6 (1.0')*
T‐14 (1.2')*
T‐11 (1.0')* T‐12 (0')*
T‐13 (0')* T‐15 (1.0')* T‐20 (0.8')*
T‐10 (1.0')*
T‐45 (0')* T‐46 (0')* T‐47 (0')*
T‐60 (0')* T‐61 (0')* T‐62 (0')* T‐63 (0')*
T‐58 (0')* T‐59 (0')*
20179-01
ENG./GEOL. RLD/ARN
"High" Organic Content "Soils" Recommended for Export from Site "Transitional" Soils Recommended for Mix/Blend w/ "Clean" Soils "Clean" Soils
Date June 2021
> 5%
2 to 5%
< 2%
Table 8 ‐ Summary of Organic
Content ‐ Organic Removal &
Export Depths
Project Name Richland - MCBC, Ontario
Project Number
T‐22 (1.0')* T‐23 (1.2')* T‐24 (1.2')* T‐25 (1.2')* T‐48 (0')*
Note: (#')* Indicates Recommended Organic Export Depth in Feet. Export depth may exceed the depths highlighted boxes.
T‐42 (0')*
T‐44 (0')*
T‐40 (0')* T‐41 (0')*
6720
Project No. 20220‐01 C‐1 June 10, 2021
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the site soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results.
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on driven samples obtained from the test borings.
The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples.
Grain Size Distribution/Fines Content: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140). Where applicable, the portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D6913 (sieve).
Sample Location Description % Passing #
200 Sieve
HS-1 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 14
HS-2 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 20
HS-5 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 31
HS-6 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand 27
HS-8 @ 5 ft Sand with Silt 6
I-3 @ 1-5 ft Silty Sand with Gravel 17
*HS-4 @ 5 ft Silty Sand 29
*HS-8 @ 10 ft Sandy Silt 65
*testing from LGC Geotechnical (2017)
6721
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results (Continued)
Project No. 20220‐01 C‐2 June 10, 2021
Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg Limits”) were determined per ASTM D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented in the table below. The USCS soil classification indicated in the table below is based on the portion of sample passing the No. 40 sieve and may not necessarily be representative of the entire sample. The plots are provided in this Appendix.
Sample Location Liquid Limit
(%)
Plastic Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index (%)
USCS
Soil
Classification
HS-2 @ 7.5 ft 33 19 14 CL
HS-7 @ 7.5 ft NP NP NP ML
Consolidation: Two consolidation tests were performed per ASTM D2435. Samples (2.4 inches in diameter and 1-inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied.
The samples were allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step were recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curves are provided in this Appendix.
Collapse/Swell Potential: Five collapse tests were performed per ASTM D4546. Samples (2.4 inches in diameter and 1-inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and loaded to their approximate in-situ effective stress. The curves are presented in this Appendix.
Direct Shear: Two direct shear test were performed, one on a driven sample and one on a 90% relative compaction remolded sample. The ring samples were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. The samples were tested under various normal loads using a motor-driven, straincontrolled, direct-shear testing apparatus (ASTM D3080). The plots are provided in this Appendix. 6722
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results (Continued)
Project No. 20220‐01 C‐3 June 10, 2021
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
Sample
Location
Sample
Description
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
HS-2 @ 1-5 ft Brown Silty Sand 112.5 7.5
HS-6 @ 1-5 ft Olive brown Silty Sand 120.0 10.5
*HS-4 @ 2.5-5 ft Light olive brown Silty Sand 118.5 9.0 *testing from LGC Geotechnical (2017)
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected representative samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829.
Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 0 Very Low
HS-6 @ 1-5 ft 3 Very Low
I-3 @ 1-5 ft 0 Very Low
*HS-4 @ 2.5-5 ft 1 Very Low
*HS-6 @ 2.5-5 ft 0 Very Low
*testing from LGC Geotechnical (2017)
R-value Test: R-value test was performed in general accordance with California Test Method 301.
The plot is included in the Appendix.
Sample Location R‐value
HS-5 @ 1-5 ft 65
6723
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results (Continued)
Project No. 20220‐01 C‐4 June 10, 2021
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate content of select samples was determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The test results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location Sulfate Content, %
HS-2 @ 1-5 ft <0.01%
HS-6 @ 1-5 ft <0.01%
I-3 @ 1-5 ft <0.03%
*HS-4 @ 2.5-5 ft <0.02%
*testing from LGC Geotechnical (2017)
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested per CTM 422. The results are presented below.
Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm
HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 50
HS-6 @ 1-5 ft 260
I-3 @ 1-5 ft 110
*HS-4 @ 2.5-5 ft 104
*testing from LGC Geotechnical (2017)
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below.
Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms‐
cm)
HS-2 @ 1-5 ft 8.73 5798
HS-6 @ 1-5 ft 8.08 1600
I-3 @ 1-5 ft 8.57 4650
*HS-4 @ 2.5-5 ft 6.33 737
*testing from LGC Geotechnical (2017)
Organic Matter Content of Soils: Organic matter content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2974 (Test Methods A & C). The results are presented in Table 9. 6724
Project Name: Tested By: GB/JY Date: 07/21/17
Project No.: 17074-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/31/17 Boring No.: HS-4 Depth (feet): 5.0
Sample No.: R-1
Soil Identification: Light olive brown silty sand (SM)
K-2 0.0
474.2 0.0
75.4 1.0
398.8 0.0
K-2
370.9
75.4 295.5
(in.) (mm.)
6" 150.0
3" 75.0
1 1/2 37.5
3/4" 19.0
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.75
#8 2.36
#16 1.18
#30 0.600
#50 0.300
#100 0.150
#200 0.075
GRAVEL: 0%
SAND: 71 %
FINES: 29 %
GROUP SYMBOL: SM
Remarks:
PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION)
ASTM D 6913
Container No.:
Vander Eyk
of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Cumulative Weight
Dry Soil Retained (g)
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil
Wt. of Container No._____ (g)
Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g)
Cu = D60/D10 =
Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) =
0.0 U. S. Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
After Wet Sieve Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)
Container No.
285.2
87.8 PAN
48.5 5.1 98.7
0.5 28.5
182.6 54.2
100.0
99.9 0.1 100.0
6725
0 : 71 : 29
R-1
Jul-17
Boring No.:Depth (feet): 5.0 Soil Type :
Project Name:
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification: Light olive brown silty sand (SM)
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Vander Eyk
Project No.:
HS-4 Sample No.: 17074-01
SAND
FINE SILT
HYDROMETER
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
COARSE COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY
0 102030405060708090
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
"
SA HS-4, R-1 @ 5
6726
Project Name: Tested By: Y. Nguyen Date: 01/05/21
Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 01/14/21
Boring No.: Checked By: J. Ward
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 7.5
Soil Identification:
121234
29 23 18
10.04 9.95 21.28 21.31 20.91
8.58 8.55 16.38 16.29 15.91
0.99 1.11 1.04 1.02 1.05
19.24 18.82 31.94 32.87 33.65
33 19
14 CL
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 9.49
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)
PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST
NO.
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Olive lean clay (CL)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
Ontario
20220-01
HS-2
R-3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)
0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
31 32
33 34
35 10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
6727
Project Name: Tested By: Y. Nguyen Date: 01/14/21
Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 01/20/21
Boring No.: Checked By: J. Ward
Sample No.: Depth (ft.)
Soil Identification:
121234
10 Cannot be rolled: 21.78 Cannot get more than 10 blows:
NonPlastic 18.38 NonPlastic
1.05 19.62
NP
NP
NP
NP
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) =
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)
PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
Ontario
20220-01
HS-7
R-3 7.5
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
Olive silt (ML)
TEST
NO.
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)
0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
18 19
20 21
22 10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
6728
Project Name: Ontario Tested By:GB/YN Date: 01/04/21
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 01/27/21
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 7.5
Sample No.: Sample Type: Ring
Soil Identification: Olive lean clay (CL)
2.415
1.000
188.60
45.53 0.9367
264.45
217.19
59.56 30.0
91.5 90
0.2938
246.28
212.88
61.21 31.47
94.2 100
0.2277
2.87 62.43
0.10 0.2929 0.9991 0.00 0.09 0.956 0.09
0.25 0.2894 0.9956 0.05 0.45 0.950 0.40
0.50 0.2837 0.9899 0.10 1.01 0.940 0.91
1.00 0.2756 0.9818 0.18 1.82 0.925 1.64
1.00 0.2752 0.9814 0.18 1.86 0.924 1.68
2.00 0.2635 0.9697 0.27 3.03 0.903 2.76
4.00 0.2486 0.9548 0.40 4.52 0.877 4.12
8.00 0.2297 0.9359 0.56 6.41 0.843 5.85
16.00 0.2055 0.9117 0.77 8.83 0.800 8.06
8.00 0.2083 0.9145 0.65 8.55 0.803 7.90
4.00 0.2125 0.9187 0.54 8.13 0.809 7.59
1.00 0.2224 0.9286 0.36 7.14 0.825 6.78
0.50 0.2277 0.9339 0.28 6.61 0.833 6.33
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
R-3
20220-01
HS-2
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
6729
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Time Readings
91.5 0.833 90 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.957
Void Ratio
7.5 30.0
Soil Identification: Olive lean clay (CL)
Project No.:
Ontario
01-21
20220-01
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-2 R-3 31.5 94.2
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
6.00 7.00
8.00 9.00
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
6730
Project Name: Ontario Tested By:GB/YN Date: 01/12/21
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 01/27/21
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 7.5
Sample No.: Sample Type: Ring
Soil Identification: Olive silt (ML)
2.415
1.000
181.79
42.94 0.9723
295.00
274.70
69.12 9.9
105.1
44 0.2750
250.56
226.31
57.19 19.22
107.9
92 0.2430
2.70 62.43
0.10 0.2749 0.9999 0.00 0.01 0.604 0.01
0.25 0.2739 0.9989 0.07 0.11 0.603 0.04
0.50 0.2724 0.9974 0.13 0.26 0.602 0.13
1.00 0.2702 0.9952 0.21 0.48 0.600 0.27
1.00 0.2697 0.9947 0.21 0.53 0.599 0.32
2.00 0.2656 0.9906 0.33 0.94 0.594 0.61
4.00 0.2584 0.9834 0.46 1.66 0.585 1.20
8.00 0.2477 0.9727 0.64 2.74 0.570 2.10
16.00 0.2313 0.9563 0.86 4.38 0.547 3.52
8.00 0.2330 0.9580 0.78 4.21 0.549 3.43
4.00 0.2353 0.9603 0.68 3.97 0.551 3.29
1.00 0.2405 0.9655 0.50 3.45 0.557 2.95
0.50 0.2430 0.9680 0.43 3.20 0.559 2.77
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
R-3
20220-01
HS-7
0.540
0.550
0.560
0.570
0.580
0.590
0.600
0.610
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
6731
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Time Readings
105.1 0.559 44 92
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.604
Void Ratio
7.5 9.9
Soil Identification: Olive silt (ML)
Project No.:
Ontario
01-21
20220-01
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
HS-7 R-3 19.2 107.9
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
6732
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/18/21
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 02/03/21
Boring No.: HS-4 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-3 Depth (ft.) 7.5
Sample Description: Olive silty clay with sand (CL-ML)s Initial Dry Density (pcf): 106.5 Final Dry Density (pcf): 107.0 Initial Moisture (%): 11.35 Final Moisture (%) : 19.2
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.5825 Initial Dial Reading: 0.2965 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 52.6
0.100 0.9997 0.00 -0.03 -0.03
1.000 0.9945 0.18 -0.55 -0.37
H2O 0.9939 0.18 -0.61 -0.43
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.06 Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5820
0.5766
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT
POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
Ontario
20220-01
0.5757
0.2962
0.2910
0.2904
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
0.5750
0.5760
0.5770
0.5780
0.5790
0.5800
0.5810
0.5820
0.5830
0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement HS-4, R-3 @ 7.5 6733
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/18/21
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 02/03/21
Boring No.: HS-8 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-2 Depth (ft.) 5.0
Sample Description: Olive gray poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 101.5 Final Dry Density (pcf): 102.5 Initial Moisture (%): 2.58 Final Moisture (%) : 18.6
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.6600 Initial Dial Reading: 0.3140 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 10.6
0.100 0.9998 0.00 -0.02 -0.02
1.000 0.9927 0.07 -0.73 -0.66
H2O 0.9902 0.07 -0.98 -0.91
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.25 Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.6597
0.6491
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT
POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
Ontario
20220-01
0.6449
0.3138
0.3067
0.3042
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
0.6440
0.6460
0.6480
0.6500
0.6520
0.6540
0.6560
0.6580
0.6600
0.6620
0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement HS-8, R-2 @ 5 6734
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/07/21
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 01/27/21
Boring No.: I-3 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-2 Depth (ft.) 5.0
Sample Description: Light olive gray silty sand (SM)
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 103.3 Final Dry Density (pcf): 103.9 Initial Moisture (%): 2.15 Final Moisture (%) : 20.1
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void Ratio: 0.6314 Initial Dial Reading: 0.2597 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 9.2
0.100 0.9998 0.00 -0.02 -0.02
1.000 0.9957 0.11 -0.43 -0.32
H2O 0.9938 0.11 -0.62 -0.51
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.19 Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.6311
0.6261
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL OR SETTLEMENT
POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS
ASTM D 4546
Ontario
20220-01
0.6231
0.2595
0.2554
0.2535
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
0.6220
0.6230
0.6240
0.6250
0.6260
0.6270
0.6280
0.6290
0.6300
0.6310
0.6320
0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell or Settlement I-3, R-2 @ 5 6735
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 07/20/17
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/31/17
Boring No.: HS-4 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-1 Depth (ft.) 5.0
Sample Description: Light olive brown silty sand (SM)
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 105.7 Final Dry Density (pcf): 106.2 Initial Moisture (%): 5.83 Final Moisture (%) : 15.1
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5941 Initial Dial Reading: 0.1924 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 26.5
0.100 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.600 0.9968 0.05 -0.32 -0.27
H2O 0.9959 0.05 -0.41 -0.36
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.09
0.5882
0.1924
0.1957
0.1966
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5941
0.5897
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Vander Eyk
17074-01
0.5870
0.5880
0.5890
0.5900
0.5910
0.5920
0.5930
0.5940
0.5950
0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell-Settlement HS-4, R-1 @ 5 6736
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 07/20/17
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/31/17
Boring No.: HS-8 Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: R-2 Depth (ft.) 10.0
Sample Description: Olive brown sandy silt (ML)
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 94.4 Final Dry Density (pcf): 95.4 Initial Moisture (%): 4.99 Final Moisture (%) : 26.0
Initial Length (in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.7851 Initial Dial Reading: 0.1389 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Diameter(in): 2.415 Initial Saturation (%) 17.2
0.100 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.200 0.9931 0.04 -0.69 -0.65
H2O 0.9898 0.04 -1.02 -0.98
Percent Swell (+) / Settlement (-) After Inundation = -0.33
0.7676
0.1389
0.1458
0.1491
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.7850
0.7735
Final Reading
(in) Void Ratio
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Vander Eyk
17074-01
0.7660
0.7680
0.7700
0.7720
0.7740
0.7760
0.7780
0.7800
0.7820
0.7840
0.7860
0.100 1.000 10.000
Void Ratio
Log Pressure (ksf)
Void Ratio - Log Pressure Curve
Inundate with
Tap water
Swell-Settlement HS-8, R-2 @ 10 6737
Project Name: Ontario Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/18/21 Project No.: 20220-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 02/03/21 Boring No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 1-5
Soil Identification:
2.415 2.415 2.415
1.000 1.000 1.000
190.13 191.20 191.49
45.32 45.72 45.73
Before Shearing
169.11 169.11 169.11
158.16 158.16 158.16
57.18 57.18 57.18
0.0000 0.2644 0.2702
-0.0123 0.2804 0.2941
After Shearing
206.93 218.82 207.01
186.93 199.45 187.98
57.95 69.38 57.32
2.70 2.70 2.70
62.43 62.43 62.43
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Sample Thickness(in.):
Weight of Sample + ring(gm):
B-1
HS-6
Light olive brown silty sand (SM)
Sample Diameter(in):
Water Density(pcf):
Specific Gravity (Assumed):
Weight of Container(gm):
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Ring(gm):
Weight of Container(gm):
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
DS HS-6, B-1 @ 1-5
6738
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
01-21
Project No.: 20220-01
Sample Type:
90% Remold
Light olive brown silty sand
(SM) 53.1
0.9877
15.5 Ontario DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
54.1 0.9761
14.6 1.000
0.902
0.707
0.0025
1.000
2.415
1.000
2.415
2.000
1.776
1.421
0.0025
4.000
3.191
2.798
0.0025
53.8 0.9840
14.9 Soil Identification: 10.84
109.2
10.84 108.7 109.4
1.000
2.415
10.84 Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
HS-6
B-1
1-5
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS HS-6, B-1 @ 1-5
6739
Project Name: Vander Eyk Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 07/19/17 Project No.: 17074-01 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 07/31/17 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 5.0
Soil Identification:
2.415 2.415 2.415
1.000 1.000 1.000
172.75 171.02 177.40
46.05 43.56 45.12
Before Shearing
163.17 163.17 163.17
157.77 157.77 157.77
60.10 60.10 60.10
0.0000 0.2720 0.2789
-0.0079 0.2875 0.2956
After Shearing
206.80 196.37 183.57
184.70 174.67 161.69
69.43 57.12 39.68
2.70 2.70 2.70
Water Density(pcf): 62.43 62.43 62.43
Specific Gravity (Assumed):
Weight of Container(gm):
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Ring(gm):
Weight of Container(gm):
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Sample Thickness(in.):
Weight of Sample + ring(gm):
R-1
HS-8
Olive brown silt with sand (ML)s
Sample Diameter(in):
DS HS-8, R-1 @ 5
6740
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
104.2
1.000
2.415
5.53 Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
HS-8
R-1
5 22.0
0.9845
18.5 Soil Identification: 5.53
100.4
5.53 99.9
1.484
0.0025
4.000
2.694
2.694
0.0025
1.000
0.767
0.767
0.0025
1.000
2.415
1.000
2.415
2.000
1.484
21.7 0.9921
19.2 Vander Eyk DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
24.2 0.9833
17.9 07-17
Project No.: 17074-01
Sample Type:
Ring
Olive brown silt with sand
(ML)s
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS HS-8, R-1 @ 5
phi = 34 deg
c = 100 psf
6741
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
PROJECT NAME: Ontario PROJECT NUMBER: 20220-01
BORING NUMBER: HS-5 DEPTH (FT.): 1-5
SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown silty sand (SM), organics noted DATE COMPLETED: 1/15/2021 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 13.6 14.0 14.9
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.47 2.45 2.50
DRY DENSITY, pcf 113.9 113.1 111.1
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 250 200 175
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 476 375 176
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 26 20 18
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 24 26 30
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.75 4.95 5.20
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 75 72 68
R-VALUE CORRECTED 75 72 68
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.40 0.45 0.51
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.87 0.67 0.60
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 65
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 70
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 65
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
6742
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
740
735
730
725
720
715
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
12/18/2021
~744' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 5
6 8
103.9 1.2 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, medium dense -#200 R-2 5
6 11
105.1 1.1 @5' - SAND with Silt: gray brown, dry, medium dense R-3 5
8 10
107.5 1.7 @7.5' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, medium dense R-4 5
7 10
107.0 8.6 SM @10' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SPT-1 4
7 8
4.8 SP @15' - SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense R-5 7
10 13
108.0 19.3 SM @20' - Silty SAND: brown, very moist, medium dense SPT-2 5
15 13
4.5 SP @25' - SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense; single gravel clast B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021
@0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
SP-SM
6743
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
710
705
700
695
690
685
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1
12/18/2021
~744' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-6 6
12 18
98.1 5.4 SP-SM @30' - SAND with Silt: gray and rusty brown, slightly moist, medium dense; iron oxide mottle
SPT-3 3
5 8
18.0 ML @35' - Sandy SILT: gray with red orange, very moist, stiff; iron oxide mottle
R-7 11
16 21
112.6 15.0 SM @40' - Silty SAND: olive brown, very moist, dense SPT-4 3
4 6
23.1 @45' - Sandy SILT: olive brown, very moist, stiff
R-8 7
17 20
113.2 17.8 CL @50' - Sandy CLAY: dusky brown, moist to very moist, very stiff
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021
6744
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
740
735
730
725
720
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-2
12/18/2021
~745' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 3
4 6
4.5 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, loose -#200, EI,
MD,
R-2 5 CR 7
11 109.8 4.6 @5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense R-3 3
4 6
CL @7.5' - CLAY: olive, very moist, medium stiff
R-4 3
6 10
12.6 SM @10' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense
SPT-1 4
8 11
5.1 SP-SM @15' - SAND with Silt: brown, brown, slightly moist, medium dense
R-5 6
17 13
116.3 6.7 SM @20' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense; iron oxide mottle
SPT-2 3
6 9
19.5 ML Sandy SILT: gray brown; very moist, very stiff; iron oxide mottle
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
AL,
CR
108.4
90.1 30.0
6745
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
735
730
725
720
715
710
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-3
12/18/2021
~736' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 7
8 10
104.9 2.3 SP @2.5' - SAND with Silt: gray brown, dry, medium dense; scattered very coarse sand
R-2 7
12 16
103.2 1.9 @5' - SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-3 4
6 9
109.5 14.6 SM @7.5' - Silty SAND: dusky brown, moist, medium dense; micaceous
R-4 4
4 5
94.6 28.9 ML @10' - Sandy SILT: gray, very moist, stiff SPT-1 6
7 8
3.5 SP @15' - SAND: brown, dry, medium dense
R-5 8
15 16
17.3 ML @20' - Sandy SILT: gray, very moist, very stiff SPT-2 6
9 9
7.1 SP-SM @25' - SAND with SILT: brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
102.6
6746
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
695
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
12/18/2021
~721' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 7
10 12
118.6 12.0 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: olive brown, moist, medium dense R-2 7
9 13
102.2 2.6 SP @5' - SAND: olive brown, dry, medium dense R-3 5
7 10
CL @7.5' - Sandy CLAY: olive brown, slightly moist, stiff; minor caliche
R-4 6
7 12
104.1 12.4 SM @10' - Silty SAND: olive brown, moist, medium dense SPT-1 5
7 9
16.4 ML @15' - Sandy SILT: gray brown, very moist, very stiff R-5 10
13 29
108.5 8.5 SM @20' - Silty SAND: gray and red brown, moist, dense SPT-2 6
8 11
10.4 SM @25' - Silty SAND: gray and red brown, moist, medium dense Last Edited: 1/22/2021
109.8 11.3
@0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
CO
6747
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
690
685
680
675
670
665
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-4
12/18/2021
~721' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-6 14
50/6" 96.0 33.4 ML @30' - Sandy SILT: gray, very moist, hard SPT-3 25
35 50/4"
2.1 SP @35' - SAND with Gravel, gray, dry, very dense
R-7 14
24 20
124.0 4.7 SM @40' - Silty SAND: rusty brown, slightly moist, dense SPT-4 7
8 11
16.8 SC @45' - Clayey SAND: gray brown, very moist, medium dense
R-8 13
50/6" 111.4 14.3 SM @50' - Silty SAND: light brown and brown, very moist, very dense
Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021
6748
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
730
725
720
715
710
705
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-5
12/18/2021
~734' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 6
7 11
100.6 2.3 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: light brown, dry, medium dense R-2 5
9 15
98.4 2.0 SP @5' - SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-3 7
9 15
100.2 7.7 SM @7.5' - Silty SAND: gray brown, moist, medium dense; minor caliche
R-4 8
11 15
106.9 8.4 @10' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense SPT-1 6
6 9
8.7 @15' - Silty SAND: gray, moist, medium dense
R-5 6
12 10
109.3 16.2 ML @20' - Sandy SILT: gray brown, very moist, stiff SPT-2 2
6 6
21.9 @25' - Sandy SILT: gray and red orange, very moist, stiff B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021
@0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
-#200,
RV
6749
60 TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
55 50
45 40
35 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Date:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drilling Company:
Type of Rig:
Drop:
Drive Weight:
Hole Diameter:
30 CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
700
695
690
685
680
675
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-5
12/18/2021
~734' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-6 32
50/6" 110.6 3.4 SP @30' - SAND with Gravel: gray, dry, very dense SPT-3 6
9 14
16.8 SC @35' - Clayey SAND: rusty brown, very moist, medium dense
R-7 9
17 50/6"
112.7 19.2 ML @40' - Sandy SILT: gray and red orange, very moist, hard
SPT-4 7
11 14
20.0 SM @45' - Silty SAND: brown and red orange: very moist, medium dense
R-8 11
13 16
104.6 20.0 CL @50' - CLAY: dusky brown, very moist, very stiff Total Depth = 51.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021
6750
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
725
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-6
12/18/2021
~727' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 11
12 14
SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense R-2 5
9 12
105.2 19.3 @5' - Silty SAND: dusky brown, very moist, medium dense; scattered caliche
R-3 5
6 11
107.8 9.1 @7.5' - Siilty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense R-4 5
10 14
116.0 5.6 @10' - Silty SAND: gray brown, slightly moist, medium dense
SPT-1 4
5 8
18.5 @15' - Silty SAND: gray brown, very moist, medium
dense
R-5 10
13 13
101.1 12.3 @20' - Silty SAND: gray and red brown, moist, medium dense
SPT-2 18
26 36
2.2 SP @25' - SAND with Gravel: gray, dry, very dense
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 CR,
DS,
EI,
MD,
-#200
@0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
114.6 5.5
6751
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
725
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-7
12/18/2021
~729' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 3
5 8
98.3 9.5 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: light gray, moist, medium dense R-2 6
11 13
94.7 1.6 SP @5' - SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-3 5
7 9
@7.5' - SILT: olive, slightly moist, stiff
R-4 4
9 18
102.3 6.1 SM @10' - Silty SAND: gray brown, slightly moist, medium dense
SPT-1 5
7 10
16.4 @15' - Silty SAND: gray brown, very moist, medium
dense
R-5 5
8 14
99.4 17.5 @20' - Silty SAND: gray brown, very moist, medium dense
SPT-2 2
5 8
29.0 ML @25' - Sandy SILT: gray with red orange, very moist, stiff
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 ML AL,
CN
105.5 9.9
@0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6752
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
725
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-8
12/18/2021
~726' MSL
6"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 2
3 7
107.9 2.3 SP @2.5' - SAND: brown, dry, loose
R-2 6
9 15
@5' - SAND with Silt: olive gray, dry, medium dense
R-3 8
12 18
102.8 2.5 @7.5' - SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
R-4 12
10 11
113.5 1.9 @10' - SAND: gray brown, dry, medium dense
SPT-1 8
11 12
8.1 SP-SM @15' - SAND with SILT: moist, medium dense
R-5 5
11 29
109.7 6.9 @20' - SAND: gray and brown, moist, dense
SPT-2 6
14 20
33.2 ML @25' - Sandy SILT: gray with red orange, very moist, hard
Total Depth = 26.5'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 102.5 2.6
@0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
-#200,
CO
SP-SM
SP
SP
6753
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
745
740
735
730
725
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-1
12/18/2021
~750' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 8
9 12
109.9 5.1 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: dusky brown, slightly moist, medium dense
R-2 6
8 12
110.8 1.2 SP-SM @5' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, medium dense SPT-1 3
4 5
5.8 SM @10' - Silty SAND: gray brown, slightly moist, loose R-3 16
14 43
98.5 2.8 SP @16' - SAND: gray brown, dry, dense
Total Depth = 18'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Infiltration Well Installed Per County Guidelines
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/19/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6754
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
745
740
735
730
725
720
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-2
12/18/2021
~749' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 9
11 15
102.6 6.5 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: gray brown, slightly moist, medium dense
R-2 4
6 11
95.7 20.5 @5' - Sandy SILT: light gray brown: very moist, stiff SPT-1 2
3 4
16.6 @10' - Sandy SILT: brown, very moist, medium stiff R-3 11
5 8
108.5 3.5 @14' - Silty SAND: brown, dry, medium dense
Total Depth = 16'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Infiltration Well Installed Per County Guidelines
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
ML
SM
6755
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
735
730
725
720
715
710
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-3
12/18/2021
~736' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 3
9 7
112.0 3.5 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND with Gravel: brown, dry, medium dense, dry
#200,
EI,
CR
7 9
15 SP-SM @5' - SAND with Silt: gray, dry, medium dense
SPT-1 3
5 5
17.1 SM @10' - Silty SAND: brown, very moist, loose
R-3 6
9 14
107.4 16.5 @20' - Silty Sand: gray with red orange, very moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 22'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 B-1 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
R-2 105.0 2.1 CO
6756
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
735
730
725
720
715
710
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-4
12/18/2021
~738' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 3
4 6
100.4 22.0 ML @2.5' - Sandy SILT: gray, very moist, medium stiff R-2 6
12 16
108.8 1.5 SP @5' - SAND: gray, dry, medium dense
SPT-1 3
3 6
22.9 ML @10' - Sandy SILT: olive brown, very moist, stiff R-3 10
15 16
101.2 1.5 SP @18' - SAND: gray brown, dry, medium dense Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6757
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-5
12/18/2021
~725' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 7
9 9
107.4 4.1 SP-SM @2.5'- SAND with Silt: brown, slightly moist, medium dense
R-2 4
7 10
101.9 7.3 SM @5' - Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist, medium dense SPT-1 2
3 3
6.7 SP-SM @10' - SAND with Silt: brown, moist, loose
R-3 6
10 13
111.7 10.0 SM @18' - Silty SAND: gray brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
6758
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS
PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS. CN CONSOLIDATION
CR CORROSION
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CO COLLAPSE/SWELL RV R-VALUE
-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE
DIRECT SHEAR MAXIMUM DENSITY
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
EXPANSION INDEX
TEST TYPES: DSMD
SA
S&H
EI
SAMPLE TYPES: B BULK SAMPLE R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler) G GRAB SAMPLE
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST SAMPLE GROUNDWATER TABLE
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Graphic Log Sample Number Blow Count Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) USCS Symbol DESCRIPTION Type of Test Hole Diameter:
Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map
Drop:
Type of Rig:
Project Number:
Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:
Drilling Company:
Project Name:
Date:
720
715
710
705
700
695
Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole I-6
12/18/2021
~723' MSL
8"
Track Rig
30"
140 pounds
Cal Pac Drilling
MCBC-Richland
20220-01
Logged By ARN
Sampled By ARN
Checked By RLD
R-1 4
5 7
108.6 10.2 SM @2.5' - Silty SAND: dusky brown, moist, loose R-2 3
6 9
112.5 9.6 @5' - Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense
SPT-1 3
4 5
14.6 @10' - Silty SAND: brown, very moist, loose
R-3 4
10 14
107.5 19.2 @18' - Sandy SILT: gray with red orange: very moist, medium dense
Total Depth = 20'
Groundwater Not Encountered
Backfilled with Cuttings on 12/18/2021 Last Edited: 1/22/2021 @0' to T.D. Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits (Qye):
ML
6759
Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.08 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-1
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:41:22 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6760 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.24 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-2
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:42:12 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6761 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.23 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-3
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:42:51 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6762 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.13 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-4A
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:43:34 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6763 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.08 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-5
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:43:57 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6764 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.15 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-6
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:44:19 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6765 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 50.20 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-8
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:45:03 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6766 Project: LGC Geotechnical / MCBC
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Ontario, CA Total depth: 49.02 ft, Date: 12/17/2020
CPT-9
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 6 0 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 2 0
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
41 21 086420 1 81 61
Depth (ft)
5 0
4 8
4 6
4 4
42 4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8 6
4 2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/18/2020, 11:45:25 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\LGC-Ontario12-20\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 6767 SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-1' Silty SAND: medium brown, slightly moist, medium dense; scattered gravel @1'-1.8' Silty SAND: yellow brown; occasional rootlet; scattered pinhole porosity Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @1.8'-4' SAND with SILT: gray brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense @4'-8' Silty SAND: gray brown, slightly moist, medium dense @8'-9.5' Sandy SILT: maroon brown, moist, stiff; minor caliche; minor roots @9.5'-T.D. Silty SAND: gray brown, slightly moist, medium dense Total Depth: 10.3' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/7/20 SM GB-3 @ 2.1' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-11 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 726' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/7/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.5' GB-1 @ 0.4' GB-4 @ 8.4' B SPML SMSM BA GB-5 @ 9.8' Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6768
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-1.3' Silty SAND: medium to dark brown, moist, medium dense; abundant rootlets; occasional gravel; scattered wood chips @1.3'-2' SAND with Silt: brown, slightly moist, medium dense Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @2'-7.1' SAND: gray, dry to slightly moist, medium dense @7.1'-7.7' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense; abundant pervasive caliche; scattered burrows @7.7'-T.D. SAND with Silt: medium brown, slightly moist, medium dense Total Depth: 10.4' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/7/20 SM GB-3 @ 1.6' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-12 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 725' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/7/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.4' GB-1 @ 1' GB-4 @ 6.5' B SPSMSP BA GB-5 @ 7.2' GB-6 @ 8' Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6769
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-0.6' manure mixed with Silty SAND: brown and dark brown, moist, loose; dry vegetation in upper 0.5' @0.6'-1.8' Silty SAND: medium to dark brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense; some organic staining Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @1.8'-5.5' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense; occasional silty beds; some rootlets to 3' @5.5'-7' Silty SAND: dusky brown, moist @7'-7.8' pervasive caliche and very old rootlets @7.8'-T.D. SAND: brown, moist, medium dense Total Depth: 10' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/8/20 SM GB-3 @ 2' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-13 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 730' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/8/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.6' GB-1 @ 0.6' GB-4 @ 7.4' B SP BA Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6770
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-0.5' Silty SAND: brown and dark brown, moist, loose; scattered manure @0.5'-1.2' Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist; abundant rootlets; some organic staining; visible porosity @1.2'-2.2' Sandy SILT: light tan brown, slightly moist, medium dense; abundant pinhole porosity; pervasive old rootlets; some organics Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @2.2'-5' SAND: gray, dry, medium dense; abundant gravel @5'-6' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense @6'-T.D. SAND: brown and gray, slightly moist, medium dense; occasional gravel bed Total Depth: 9.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/8/20 SM GB-3 @ 1.5' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-14 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 727' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/8/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.1' GB-1 @ 0.7' GB-4 @ 2.4' B SMSPSPML BA Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6771
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-1.4' Silty SAND: medium brown, dry, medium dense; scattered rootlet; dry vegetation in upper couple inches; moderately indurated Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @2.2'-8' SAND: gray, dry, medium dense; abundant gravel @8'-T.D. Silty SAND: brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense Total Depth: 11' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/8/20 SM GB-3 @ 1.8' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-15 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 733' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/8/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.0' GB-1 @ 0.4' GB-4 @ 3.0' B SMSP AB Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6772
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-1.2' Silty SAND: brown, dry, loose; slight discoloration; scattered rootlets in upper couple inches @1.2'-3' SAND with Silt @3'-3.4' Silty SAND: yellow brown, dry, occasional rootlet Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits 3.4'-5.5' SAND: gray, dry, medium dense; occasional gravel bed @5.5'-7.5' SAND with Silt: gray, slightly moist @7.5'-T.D. Silty SAND to Sandy SILT: gray brown, moist, medium dense/stiff; fine to very fine grained sand Total Depth: 9.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/9/20 SM GB-3 @ 1.4' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-16 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 735' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/9/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.1' GB-1 @ 0.2' B SMSP AB Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6773
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-1.9' Silty SAND: medium to dark brown, slightly moist, medium dense; scattered rootlets; mild organic staining Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @1.9'-5' SAND with Silt: brown, slightly moist, medium dense; sand by 4 feet @5'-9.5' Gravelly SAND: gray, dry, medium dense @9.5' - T.D. SAND with Silt: brown, slightly moist, medium dense Total Depth: 10.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/9/20 SM GB-3 @ 2.1' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-17 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 737' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/9/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.7' GB-1 @ 0.5' B SP-SM SP AB Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6774
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil / Undocumented Fill @0'-0.7' Sandy SILT: light brown, very dry, loose; scattered dead vegitation @0.7'-1.6' Sandy SILT: medium brown, slightly moist, medium dense; scattered organic mottle @1.6'-3.2' same as above; no organic staining; refuse rope Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @3.2'-4.4' Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense @4.4'-8' SAND: gray, dry, medium dense @8'-T.D. Gravelly SAND: gray, slightly moist; moderate gravel bedding; clasts 3/4-inch in maximum dimension Total Depth: 10.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/9/20 ML GB-3 @ 1.9' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-18 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 738' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/9/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.4' GB-1 @ 0.2' B SP AB SM afu Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6775
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-0.1.7' Silty SAND: medium brown, dry, very loose; occasional gravel; scattered rootlets; organic staining @1.7'-3.4' same as above; no rootlets; no staining Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @3.4'-4.5' SAND with Silt: gray moist, medium dense @4.5'-T.D. Silty SAND: medium brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense; some caliche in siltier bed Total Depth: 9.9' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/9/20 SM GB-3 @ 3.6' Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-19 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 734' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/9/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 2.0' GB-1 @ 1.0' B SPSM GB-4 @ 7.0' AB Project Name: Richland - MCBC 6776
SOIL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW: Geologic Attitudes Engineering Properties: GEOLOGIC UNIT USCS SAMPLE No MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) Unit A Topsoil @0'-1.2' Silty SAND: medium dark brown, slightly moist, very loose; scattered rootlets and organic staining @1.2'-3.5' Sand with Silt: medium brown, slightly moist, medium dense Quaternary Young Eolian Deposits @3.5'-9' Silty SAND: brown, moist @9'-T.D Sandy Silt to Silty SAND: brown, moist, medium dense; abundant caliche Total Depth: 9.5' Groundwater: None Backfilled: 12/9/20 SM GB-3 @ 1.5' Project Name: Richland - MCBC Project Number: 20220-01 Equipment: JCB 3CX Excavator Location: Ontario Trench No.: TP-20 scale: 1in = 5 ft Elevation: 732' MSL Surface Slope: 0 deg. Trend: N-S Logged By: ARN Date: 12/9/2020 Qye GB-2 @ 1.0' GB-1 @ 0.2' B SM ML-SM GB-4 @ 9.0' SP AB 6777
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
18 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 9:30 9:55 25.0 16.20 17.82 1.62
2 10:00 10:25 25.0 16.32 17.85 1.53
Main Test Data
1 1:50 2:00 10.0 15.04 16.71 1.67 8.7
2 2:02 2:12 10.0 14.89 16.64 1.75 8.7
3 2:16 2:26 10.0 15.20 16.58 1.38 7.3
4 2:29 2:39 10.0 15.47 16.62 1.15 6.5
5 2:41 2:51 10.0 15.31 16.67 1.36 7.5
6 2:53 3:03 10.0 15.22 16.55 1.33 7.0
Factor of Safety TBD
Sketch: Notes:
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
20220‐01
Boring Diameter (inches):
I‐1
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name:
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Project Number:
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Date:
*measured at time of test
12/21/2020
Richland‐ MCBC
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):
Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/29/18
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Start Time
(24:HR)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Yes
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
Trial No.
Based on Guidelines from: San Bernardino County (2013)
Pit Length (feet):
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Trial No. Time Interval, t
(min)
Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Yes
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 7.0 Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Time Interval
(min)
6778
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
16 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 9:39 10:04 25.0 14.23 15.19 0.96
2 10:08 10:33 25.0 14.32 15.00 0.68
Main Test Data
1 2:00 2:10 10.0 12.76 13.94 1.18 5.0
2 2:12 2:22 10.0 12.60 13.75 1.15 4.6
3 2:24 2:34 10.0 12.68 13.71 1.03 4.2
4 2:35 2:45 10.0 12.59 13.64 1.05 4.1
5 2:47 2:57 10.0 12.00 13.00 1.00 3.3
6 2:59 3:09 10.0 12.55 13.64 1.09 4.3
Factor of Safety TBD
Sketch: Notes:
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland‐ MCBC
Project Number: 20220‐01
Date: 12/21/2020
I‐2
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet): *measured at time of test Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
Yes
Yes
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: San Bernardino County (2013)
Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/29/18
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 4.3 6779
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
21.5 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 8:53 9:18 25.0 17.89 18.62 0.73
2 9:27 9:52 25.0 17.93 18.52 0.59
Main Test Data
1 12:04 12:14 10.0 16.94 17.15 0.21 0.5
2 12:15 12:25 10.0 16.91 17.14 0.23 0.6
3 12:27 12:37 10.0 16.88 17.10 0.22 0.6
4 12:38 12:48 10.0 16.758 16.97 0.212 0.5
5 12:49 12:59 10.0 16.97 17.22 0.25 0.7
6 13:00 13:10 10.0 16.81 17.06 0.25 0.6
Factor of Safety TBD
Sketch: Notes:
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: San Bernardino County (2013)
Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/29/18
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 0.6 Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
Yes
Yes
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
*measured at time of test
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):
Date: 12/21/2020
I‐3
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland‐ MCBC
Project Number: 20220‐01
6780
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
20 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 9:00 9:31 31.0 17.42 18.75 1.33
2 9:35 10:00 25.0 17.32 18.65 1.33
Main Test Data
1 12:09 12:19 10.0 15.70 16.2 0.5 1.4
2 12:21 12:31 10.0 15.65 16.14 0.49 1.4
3 12:32 12:42 10.0 15.53 16.07 0.54 1.5
4 12:43 12:53 10.0 15.59 16.1 0.51 1.4
5 12:55 13:05 10.0 15.61 16.15 0.54 1.5
6 13:07 13:17 10.0 15.61 16.15 0.54 1.5
Factor of Safety TBD
Sketch: Notes:
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: San Bernardino County (2013)
Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/29/18
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 1.5 Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
Yes
Yes
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
*measured at time of test
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):
Date: 12/21/2020
I‐4
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland‐ MCBC
Project Number: 20220‐01
6781
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
20 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 8:58 9:23 25.0 16.26 18.53 2.27
2 9:25 9:50 25.0 17.05 18.55 1.50
Main Test Data
1 9:58 10:08 10.0 17.19 17.67 0.48 2.1
2 10:09 10:19 10.0 17.29 17.65 0.36 1.6
3 10:20 10:30 10.0 17.38 17.73 0.35 1.6
4 10:31 10:41 10.0 17.25 17.64 0.39 1.7
5 10:43 10:53 10.0 17.55 17.95 0.40 2.0
6 10:56 11:06 10.0 17.42 17.79 0.37 1.7
Factor of Safety TBD
Sketch: Notes:
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: San Bernardino County (2013)
Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/29/18
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 1.7 Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
Yes
Yes
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
*measured at time of test
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):
Date: 12/22/2020
I‐5
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland‐ MCBC
Project Number: 20220‐01
6782
Boring Number:
Test hole dimensions (if circular)
19.5 8
3 Pre‐Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*
1 8:49 9:14 25.0 16.45 16.92 0.47
2 9:16 9:41 25.0 16.84 17.24 0.40
Main Test Data
1 10:04 10:34 30.0 16.51 17.00 0.49 0.7
2 10:36 11:10 34.0 16.82 17.33 0.51 0.7
3 11:13 11:43 30.0 16.61 17.09 0.48 0.7
4 11:48 12:18 30.0 16.72 17.14 0.42 0.6
5 12:20 12:50 30.0 16.73 17.09 0.36 0.5
6 12:51 13:21 30.0 16.82 17.18 0.36 0.5
7 13:24 13:54 30.0 16.73 17.12 0.39 0.6
8 13:56 14:26 30.0 16.72 17.08 0.36 0.5
9 14:31 15:01 30.0 16.9 17.24 0.34 0.5
10 15:06 15:36 30.0 16.58 17.03 0.45 0.6
11 15:39 16:09 30.0 16.73 17.06 0.33 0.5
12 16:15 16:45 30.0 16.62 17.06 0.44 0.6
Factor of Safety TBD
Sketch: Notes:
Calculated Infiltration Rate (With Factor of Safety)
Based on Guidelines from: San Bernardino County (2013)
Spreadsheet Revised on: 6/29/18
Final Depth
to Water, Df
(feet)
Change in
Water Level,
D (feet)
Calculated
Infiltration
Rate(in/hr)
Calculated Infiltration Rate (No factors of safety) 0.6 Total Change
in Water Level
(feet)
Greater Than or
Equal to
0.5 feet (yes/no)
No
No
*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre‐soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval, t
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water, Do (feet)
Trial No. Start Time
(24:HR)
Stop Time
(24:HR)
Time Interval
(min)
Initial Depth to
Water (feet)
Final Depth
to Water
(feet)
*measured at time of test
Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):
Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):
Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):
Date: 12/22/2020
I‐6
Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)
Infiltration Test Data Sheet
LGC Geotechnical, Inc
131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369‐6141 Project Name: Richland‐ MCBC
Project Number: 20220‐01
6783
Appendix J
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
for Rough Grading
6784
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading
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 more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (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 the 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 the 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.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor 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, moistureconditioning 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 the project plans and 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 “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1 6785
contemplated 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 personnel will be available for observation and testing. 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 rectified. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). Nesting of the 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, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.
2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 2 6786
2.3 Over-excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations 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 over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. 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 over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 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.
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 8 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 such 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 underground construction.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 3 6787
3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate 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.
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 the American Society of Testing and Materials (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 with uniformity.
4.4 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.
4.5 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).
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 4 6788
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 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.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that 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.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the 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 by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only.
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 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
7.2 All 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 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 5 6789
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 6 the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.4 The 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.
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.
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
BIOLOGICAL REPORT
FOR THE
RICH HAVEN 2022 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT SITE
Prepared for:
APPLIED PLANNING, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310
Corona, CA 92883
Prepared by:
HARMSWORTH ASSOCIATES
31964 Silk Vine Drive
Winchester, CA 92596
(951) 223-3073
July 2022
6800
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Biological Resources Information sources .......................................................... 6
2.2 Vegetation mapping, habitat assessment for special status plant species and general botanical surveys ............................................................................... 7
2.3 Wildlife surveys and habitat assessment for special status wildlife .................... 7
2.4 Wetland Delineation ............................................................................................ 8
3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Soils ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Vegetation communities ..................................................................................... 10
3.3 Plant Inventory ................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Special Status Plant Species .............................................................................. 12
3.5 Wetlands and streambeds................................................................................... 17
3.6 Wildlife overview ............................................................................................... 17
3.7 Special status wildlife species ............................................................................ 17
3.8 Wildlife movement corridors and linkages ........................................................ 19
4.0 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................ 24
4.1 List of the potential biological constraints at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site ................................................................................ 25
4.2 Permits and consultations likely required ......................................................... 26
4.3 Recommended mitigation measures ................................................................... 26
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 28
6.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 33
6.1 Appendix A: Weather data ................................................................................ 33
6.2 Appendix B: Plant species detected at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site, 2022. ..................................................................... 34
6.3 Appendix C: California Native Plant Society Categories ................................. 37
6.4 Appendix D: Wildlife species detected at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site, 2022. ..................................................................... 38
6.5 Appendix E: Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site photographs 2022. ........................................................................................ 40 6801
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site in San Bernardino County, California .................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Location of the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site ........ 4 Figure 3: Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site ................................. 5 Figure 4: Soils at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site ............. 13 Figure 5: Vegetation map of Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Vegetation communities/Land cover types at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment project site. ................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Special status plant species that occurred or have the potential to occur in the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site ......................................... 15 Table 3: Special status wildlife species that occurred or have the potential to occur in the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site. ........................................ 21 6802
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018 and 2021. The current project, The Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project development concept permits a maximum of 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types), a maximum of 990,902 square feet of commercial/office space, a maximum of 1,183,525 square feet of light industrial uses, 27 acres of public parkland, and approximately 20 acres of Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements.
The Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site is located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The site is approximately 590 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60).
Specifically, the site is east of Haven Avenue, south of East Riverside Drive, west of the SCE Mira Loma Substation and Hamner Avenue and north of Edison Avenue (Figures 2 and 3). The site is within NW, SW and SE Section 12 and NW and NE Section 13 of Township 2 South and Range 7 West of the Guasti, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
A site assessment and biological surveys were conducted at the site at the request of Applied Planning. The surveys conducted in late winter/spring 2022 included all of the project site; and consisted of;
a general biological assessment,
general plant and wildlife surveys,
vegetation mapping,
habitat assessment for assessing potential for special status plant species1, habitat assessment for assessing potential for special status wildlife species2, general assessment for Corps Waters/wetlands and CDFW streambeds.
Focused surveys for threatened, endangered and sensitive plant or wildlife species were not conducted as part of this assessment.
The entire Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site consists of approximately 590 acres of existing residential development, roads, disturbed areas, former agricultural areas and agricultural land located within the built-up city limits. The site has a history of disturbance and agricultural use, and has been extensively altered, with the entire area having been cleared, leveled, or otherwise reshaped at some point, which is evident from conditions on the site, and from comparing satellite imagery of the project site over the last several decades. No discernible natural hills, rock formations,
1 Special status plant species = federal or state listed threatened or endangered species, or proposed endangered, threatened or candidate species, California Native Plant Society Species List (CNPS list 1-4), or otherwise sensitive species.
2 Special status wildlife species = federal or state listed threatened or endangered species, or proposed endangered, threatened or candidate species, or otherwise sensitive species. 6803
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 2
natural drainages or water courses remain at the site. Disking occurs regularly on portions not currently in active agricultural use. Earth movement and stockpiling of soils occurred in portions of the site.
The site slopes gently from north to southeast and topography varies from an elevation of approximately 716 feet above msl along the southeastern boundary to 795 feet above msl along the northern boundary of the site (Exhibit 3).
The site has a Mediterranean type climate, with hot dry summers, relatively cool winters and sparse rains. Annual precipitation for the region averages 13.3 inches, and average annual temperature ranges from 500 to 790 F. Rainfall during the 2021/2022 season was below normal throughout southern California (Appendix A). 6804
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 3
Figure 1: Location of the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site in San Bernardino County, California. Source:
USGS Topographical quadrant: Guasti.
6805
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 4
Figure 2: Location of the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site (in red). Source: Google Earth, Inc. 6806
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 5
Figure 3: Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site (in red). Source: Google Earth, Inc. 6807
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 6
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Biological Resources Information sources
In addition to the site visit, field surveys, vegetation mapping, wildlife inventories, and habitat assessments information on the biological resources of the project site was obtained by reviewing existing available data. Databases such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2022) and California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Tibor 2001) were reviewed regarding the potential occurrence of any special status species or sensitive habitat within or in close proximity of the project site.
Biological surveys conducted for the Rich Haven Specific Plan (Draft EIR, SCH Number 2006051081), City of Ontario 2007, were examined as a part of this review.
The resources used in this thorough archival review included the following; California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for the USGS 7.5’ quadrangle which comprised the study area: Guasti and neighboring quads for pertinent data, California Native Plant Society Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California (Tibor 2001; CNPS On-line Inventory),
Special Animals (including California Species of Special Concern), CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, January 2022,
Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List, CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, January 2022,
State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants of California, CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, January 2022,
State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, January 2022,
Published literature (Chesser et. al. 2013, Sibley 2000, Small 1994, Moyle et al. 1995, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Stebbins 1985, Webster et al. 1980, Burt and Grossenheider 1976),
Specific surveys conducted at the project site, including; general biological surveys (City of Ontario 2007), special status plant surveys (Bonterra Consulting, 2005), burrowing owl surveys (Bonterra Consulting, 2005, VCS Environmental, 2022), San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego Desert woodrat habitat assessments (Bonterra Consulting, 2005), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly surveys (Bonterra Consulting, 2005, 2006) and delineation of jurisdictional waters (RBF Consulting, 2006).
6808
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 7
2.2 Vegetation mapping, habitat assessment for special status plant species and general botanical surveys
Vegetation mapping, habitat assessments and general botanical surveys were conducted on 21 February, 1 March, 28 and 30 May and 7 June 2022 by Glen Morrison. Vegetation types within the project site were mapped according the state-wide A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). This is the mapping system recognized and recommend by regulatory agencies. Vegetation was mapped to the association level by hand on an aerial photographic base map conducted while walking throughout the study area. A general plant species list was compiled concurrently with the vegetation mapping surveys (Appendix B). Scientific and common nomenclature in Hickman (1993) was used as the taxonomic resource. The equivalent vegetation community under the old Holland classification system (Holland 1986) was also noted.
Ornamentally planted species, and species found only in gardened areas were not included in the species list and associated numerical calculations if they did not also occur in a wild-growing capacity in the areas noted as supporting substantial amounts of wild plant life.
The habitat assessment for special status plant species was conducted concurrently with the vegetation mapping, and concentrated on habitats with the highest potential for yielding special status species, although all areas of the project site were checked. Each habitat within the study area was traversed on foot, examining the areas for particular features such as seeps, unique geologic types, exposures, etc., that would indicate the presence of a preferred habitat for special status plant species. Methods followed the state guidelines for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018).
2.3 Wildlife surveys and habitat assessment for special status wildlife Field surveys for wildlife and habitat assessment for special status wildlife species were conducted on 11 February, 10 and 24 March, 18 and 26 May, 2 and 26 June 2022 by Paul Galvin. All portions of the site were traversed on foot to survey each vegetation community, look for evidence of wildlife presence and conduct an assessment of potential habitat for special status species. Wildlife species were detected during the field surveys by sight, vocalizations, burrows, tracks, scat, scrapings and other sign. No specialized techniques, such as trapping, mist nets or taped calls, were used during the surveys.
Latin and common names of wildlife referred to in this report follow Powell and Hogue (1979), Hogue 1993 and NatureServe http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/) for invertebrates; NatureServe for fish; North American Herpetology (http://www.naherpetology.org/nameslist) for amphibians and reptiles; American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds - for birds; Baker at al. 2003 for mammals; and Grenfell et al. 2003, California Department of Fish and Game & California Interagency Wildlife Task Group
6809
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 8
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/species_list.pdf) and Perrins et al. 1983 for common names.
2.4 Wetland Delineation
Although a formal wetland delineation was not conducted, the project area was checked in the field for the presence of streambeds, definable channels, wetland and riparian vegetation and hydric soils. All areas of topographic relief suspected of representing historic or current drainage patterns were inspected on-foot.
Field visits were conducted on 11 February, 10 March, 18 and 26 May, 2022 by Paul Galvin.
6810
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 9
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Soils
Historically, the soils on the study area are from the Delhi association and are nearly level to strongly sloping, somewhat excessively drained, very deep soils on alluvial fans in coarse-textured, wind-re-formed granitic material (NRCS Soil Survey 2022, Woodruff 1980).
The site has a history of agricultural use, and site soils have been extensively altered and amended over time. So current soils have been significantly altered compared with historic conditions. The following soils are mapped as occurring within the project area:
Delhi fine sand (Db)
This nearly level to strongly sloping soil is on alluvial fans that have been reworked by wind action. Typically the upper 40 inches consist of pale-brown (10YR 6/3) sand and fine sand, single grained, loose when dry. This soil is used for grapes, pasture plants, alfalfa and some citrus.
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HcC)
This soil consists of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soil on alluvial fans, and is derived from granitic materials. The upper 18 inches consist of grayish-brown (10YR 5/2) and very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) coarse sandy loam. This soil is used for irrigated citrus, truck crops, grapes, dryland grain, pasture and non-farm purposes.
Hilmar loamy fine sand (Hr)
Hilmar loamy fine sand consists of moderately well-drained drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources. They occur on alluvial fans. Surface soils are light grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) when dry, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) when moist; sandy loam. Vegetation is mostly annual forbs and grasses. Soils may be used for dryland crops and pasture.
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB)
This gently to moderately sloping soil occurs on alluvial fans and on flood plains. This soil developed in alluvium predominantly from granitic materials. The upper 36 inches consist of light-gray (10YR 6/1), gray (10YR 5/1) when moist, loamy sand. This soil is used for dryland grain, pasture, range and, if protected from flooding, for irrigated truck crops.
6811
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 10
3.2 Vegetation communities
The Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site has been significantly impacted due to years of disking, dumping, disturbance and agriculture (Photographs 1 through 10, Appendix E). Currently the site contains one vegetation community and three additional land types; Ruderal grassland, agriculture, disturbed and developed.
Vegetation types within the project site were mapped according the state-wide A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) to the extent possible. Since this system focuses on native vegetation communities many disturbed and man-made land covers do not fit cleanly into the system. The best fit possible was made to map and classify the onsite vegetation. The equivalent vegetation community under the old Holland classification system (Holland 1986) is also noted. Dirt roads and disturbed areas were mapped as the vegetation community which they occur.
Ruderal grassland
Ruderal is a low to medium growing herbaceous vegetation type dominated by annual grasses and forbs of Mediterranean origin. It is a type of non-native grassland community, mapped under the semi-natural herbaceous stands by Sawyer et al. (2009).
Ruderal communities occurred in areas that were recently and frequently disturbed.
Holland (1986) classified this habitat type as non-native grasslands.
On the project site, the ruderal grassland is associated with areas of recent disking, old agriculture and frequent disturbances. The dominant species varied across this area, but the most abundant species were Menzies' fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), common red sage (Kochia scoparia) and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio). Other species present included redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum) and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).
Native species Spencer primrose (Camissoniopsis micrantha), bush sunflower (Encelia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) occurred at a few locations.
Within the areas mapped as ruderal grassland were a few Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii), Spanish false fleabane (Pulicaria paludosa), southern cattail (Typha domingensis) and fragrant flatsedge (Cyperus odoratus) that occurred in the old ponds and wet areas associated with former agriculture practices.
A total of 179.7 acres of Ruderal grassland occurred in the project site (Figure 5).
Agriculture
The agricultural areas can include irrigated row crops, exotic trees, fields not in current use, recently disked fields and glass-houses, in addition to sheds, temporary dwellings and other structures.
6812
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 11
On the project site agriculture included dairy areas (with associated buildings and structures) and irrigated fields (that were very strongly dominated by wall barley). There were some old ponds and wet areas associated with agriculture practices. Within this area there were also dirt piles, disturbed areas devoid of vegetation and access roads.
A total of 171.5 acres of Agriculture occurred onsite (Table 1; Figure 5).
Disturbed
Disturbed areas include recently and frequently disked or graded areas lacking vegetation. On the project site, the disturbed areas consisted of former agriculture areas and open areas that are devoid of vegetation. Within this area there were also dirt moving operations, stock-piling of soil and recently graded areas.
A total of 110.1 acres of disturbed occurred onsite (Table 1; Figure 5).
Developed
A significant portion of the site has been developed and was in active use by the residents of the properties onsite. The developed areas are a mixture of residential structures, associated parks and roads. Also included is an area in the southern portion that is under active development for new homes.
A total of 129.2 acres of developed occurred onsite (Table 1; Figure 5).
Table 1: Vegetation communities/Land cover types at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment project site.
Vegetation communities/Land Cover Type PROJECT SITE
Ruderal grassland 179.7
Agricultural 171.5
Disturbed 110.1
Developed 129.2
Site total 590.5
3.3 Plant Inventory
Plant species at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site consisted of species associated with open and disturbed habitats. A total of 68 vascular plant species, representing 31 families were detected at the project site during the current surveys (Appendix B). About 37% (25) were native and the remaining 43 species were exotic or planted. The best represented family was Asteraceae (12 species). 6813
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 12
3.4 Special Status Plant Species
There are no historic site records for any special status plant species onsite (CNDDB 2022). Based on a review of CNDDB, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Tibor 2001, CNPS 2022), and field surveys, a few special status species were identified for additional analysis, although none are expected to occur onsite (Table 1).
No special-status plants were observed on the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site during the 2022 site surveys. Due to the extensive historical, and ongoing human land use on the project site, and the alteration of land features (rocky outcrops, hillsides, creeks, drainages etc) that would typically provide refuge for rare plants and threatened plants amidst human activity, it is exceedingly unlikely that any special status plants could occur on the project site. Furthermore, the lack of any nativedominated plant cover, which would be the typical habitat for any potentially rare species in this area, suggests this is rather unlikely, as well.
In addition, focused surveys for special status plant species were conducted at the site in 2005 (Bonterra Consulting, 2005), and special status plant species were determined to be absent from the site.
6814
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 13
Figure 4: Soils at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site. Source: NRCS Soil Survey 2022. 6815
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 14
Figure 5: Vegetation map of Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site (in red). Source: Google Earth, Inc. 6816
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 15
Table 2: Special status plant species that occurred or have the potential to occur in the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site: Definitions - status: Fed = federal, FE = federal endangered, FT = federal threatened, FPE = federally proposed for listing as endangered, FPT = federally proposed for listing as threatened, FC = federal candidate species, FSC = federal special concern species, state = state of California, SE = state endangered, ST = state threatened, SCE = state candidate for listing as endangered, SCT = state candidate for listing as threatened, SC = state species of concern, FP = fully protected species, none = no federal or state listing, see Appendix C for CNPS Status. Occurrence onsite: Occurs = known to occur onsite, Unlikely = could occur due to presence of suitable habitat onsite but not detected during current survey, Not Expected = does not occur due to limited suitable habitat onsite and not detected.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Occurrence
Onsite Habitat
Abronia villosa var. aurita
NYCTAGINACEAE
Chaparral sandverbena
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 1B.1
Unlikely
Annual herb occurs on sandy soils in desert dunes,
coastal scrub and chaparral. Blooms from JanuarySeptember from 80-1600 meters.
Ambrosia pumila
ASTERACEAE San Diego ambrosia
Fed: none
State: none
CNPS: 1B.1
Unlikely Dry sunny sites, grasslands, disturbed areas, <500ft, blooms June-September.
Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis
ASTERACEAE
Smooth tarplant
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 1B.1
Unlikely Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
POLYGONACEAE
Parry’s spineflower
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 1B.1
Unlikely Coastal scrub and chaparral in open gravelly or sandy areas. Blooms from April-June from 40-1075 meters.
Deinandra paniculata
ASTERACEAE San Diego tarweed
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 4.2
Unlikely Valley and foothill grassland, coastal scrub, typically in non-wetlands
Dodecahema leptoceras
POLYGONACEAE
Slender horned spine
flower
Fed: FE
State: SE
CNPS: 1B.1
Unlikely Sandy places in sage scrub, grassland. Blooms from AprilJune from 200-760 meters.
Horkelia cuneata
ssp. puberula
ROSACEAE
Mesa horkelia
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS: 1B.1
Unlikely
Perennial herb found in dry sandy soils in the outer coast ranges in chaparral, coastal scrub, and cismontane
woodland. Blooms from February through July from 70-
810 meters.
Mucronea californica California spineflower Fed: None Unlikely Coastal strand, chaparral, foothill woodland, northern 6817
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 16
Scientific Name Common Name Status Occurrence
Onsite Habitat
POLYGONACEAE State: None
CNPS: 4.2
coastal scrub, coastal sage scrub, valley grassland/dunes and coastal/annual herb/0-1,000m/March-July
Phacelia stellaris
HYDROPHYLLACEAE Brad’s phacelia
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 1B.1
Unlikely Coastal scrub and dunes in open sandy areas. Blooms from spring.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
ASTERACEAE
White rabbit-tobacco
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 2B.2
Unlikely
Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, sandy, gravelly soil. Blooms from July –
December.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
ASTERACEAE
San Bernardino aster
Fed: None
State: None
CNPS 1B.2
Unlikely Grassland and meadow habitat near water and in disturbed areas.
6818
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 17
3.5 Wetlands and streambeds
A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted onsite; however a general assessment of onsite drainage features was conducted as part of the biological assessment.
The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, temporary rain pools or riparian areas. There are no areas onsite that are subject to the jurisdiction to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Some wet areas, shallow temporary ponds and earthen detention basins did occur within the old and existing agricultural areas. These were all man-made and associated with agricultural activities. They were not associated with any natural drainages, creeks or wetlands and are not subject to the jurisdiction to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Regional Water Quality Control Board.
A formal jurisdictional delineation conducted in 2006 (RBF Consulting, 2006) found no areas of the site subject to the jurisdiction to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Regional Water Quality Control Board.
3.6 Wildlife overview
Wildlife at the study area consisted of common species and species associated with open, disturbed habitats. The most abundant species detected during the site visit were birds such as European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). A total of 39 wildlife species were detected during the site visits, including three reptile, 32 bird and four mammalian species (Appendix D).
3.7 Special status wildlife species
Three special-status wildlife species; California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii); were observed on the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site during the 2022 site surveys. Based on a review of CNDDB (2022), published literature and field surveys and assessments, a number of special status wildlife species were identified as potentially occurring onsite, including some species with historic records from the project vicinity (Table 3). All special status wildlife species with some potential to occur onsite are addressed in Table 3. The three special status species detected and two additional special status species; Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) are additionally discussed below.
6819
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 18
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
California horned larks occur in open areas with little or no ground cover, such as grassland or ruderal vegetation and disturbed areas within scrub habitats. A few California horned larks were observed foraging along dirt roads onsite several times in spring 2022. No horned larks were detected during subsequent site visits, indicating that the larks were non-breeding wintering or migrating individuals. No nesting onsite was detected.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrikes occur in grassland, scrub and other open habitats with perching structures. Nests are placed in trees and shrubs. Two loggerhead shrikes were observed foraging onsite during the February site visit. No loggerhead shrikes were detected during subsequent site visits, indicating that the shrikes were non-breeding wintering or migrating individuals. No nesting onsite is expected.
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit occurs along the coastal side of the southern California mountain ranges. It primarily occurs in open grasslands, agricultural fields and sparse coastal scrub. Nests under bushes or shrubs that have shallow depressions. Two San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit were observed foraging onsite during the February site visit.
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) The federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly is restricted to the Delhi Sands formation, on ancient inland sand dunes. The project site is located within the Ontario Recovery Unit of the Recovery Plan for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (USFWS 1997).
Historically, much of the project site supported Delhi fine sand, which is the soil type required for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly occurrence.
However, the site has a history of agricultural use, and site soils have been extensively altered and amended over time. So current soils are significantly altered compared with historic conditions; and degraded from the perspective of supporting Delhi Sands FlowerLoving Fly.
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly lay eggs in fine sand, where the larva develop over a 1-2 year period. Soil disturbances from agricultural and other activates likely kill the larva, which precludes the fly from these areas.
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly require habitat with vegetation cover from absent (wind blow sand) to sparse (less than 50% vegetation cover). Suitable vegetation includes telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), annual bur-sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and other native or non-native species (USFWS 1997, 2008). All of these plant species are either absent from the site or present in very low numbers and site 6820
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 19
vegetation is typically dense from non-native plant species (in most areas close to 100% vegetation cover).
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly are unlikely to occur onsite for the following reason; Soils are significantly altered and degraded,
Soil disturbances from agricultural and other activates likely kill any fly larva, Suitable native vegetation species are absent from the site, and, Site vegetation is generally too dense to support flies.
In addition, focused surveys for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly were conducted at the site in 2005 and 2006 (Bonterra Consulting, 2005 and 2006), and Delhi Sands flower-loving fly were determined to be absent from the site.
Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) occur in shortgrass prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), prairies, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas as a yearlong resident. They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows. As a critical habitat feature, they require the use of rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover. They can also use pipes, culverts, and nest boxes (USFWS 2003, Haug et al. 1993, Zeiner et al. 1990).
No burrowing owls or their sign were detected during the surveys and there was no evidence that any burrowing owls occur onsite. No onsite burrows showed any evidence of owl occupancy. Burrowing owls are presumed absent from the site.
Focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted at the site in 2005 (Bonterra Consulting, 2005), and several owls were detected. However, owls no longer occur at these locations.
Focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted over the northern portions of the site in 2022 (VCS Environmental, 2022). No burrowing owls or their sign were detected during the surveys and there was no evidence that any burrowing owls occur onsite.
3.8 Wildlife movement corridors and linkages
The terms “wildlife corridors” and “linkages” are based upon fundamental ecological concepts, but can be easily misinterpreted because: 1) universally accepted definitions of these terms have not been established; 2) each term can be interpreted using different time scales (i.e. daily, seasonal, annual and evolutionary) and spatial scales (i.e. microclimate, local, community, and landscape) which changes their meaning; 3) the areas and values change from species to species; and, 4) the understanding of how these processes work is on-going and conclusions are subject to revision. The following definitions are intended to provide a working understanding of corridors and linkages and 6821
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 20
are summarized from several sources (SCWP 2003, USCA9D 1990, Barrett and Livermore 1983, Beier 1993).
Wildlife corridor - Wildlife corridors are areas which animals can use to move from one patch of suitable habitat to another. These areas would be expected to have the least habitat fragmentation relative to surroundings areas. A wildlife corridor establishes connectivity for animals to move, live, reproduce and respond to functional ecological processes during the course of a year to several years. The quality and functionality of a particular wildlife corridor varies from species to species.
Wildlife crossings are generally small, narrow wildlife corridors that allow wildlife to pass through an obstacle or barrier such as a roadway to reach another patch of habitat.
Wildlife crossings are manmade and include culverts, drainage pipes, underpasses, tunnels, and, more recently, crossings created specifically for wildlife movement over or under highways.
Both wildlife crossings and wildlife corridors function to prevent habitat fragmentation that would result in the loss of species that require large contiguous expanses of unbroken habitat and/or that occur in low densities.
Linkages – Linkages are areas that provide for long term movement or interaction of wildlife to maintain natural evolutionary and ecological patterns. Linkages are fundamental for gene flow and large scale ecological processes. These areas are usually defined by the zones of “least resistance” for the genes of a given species to move or “flow” between core reserve populations.
No wildlife corridors or linkages are known at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site. The site is open but much of the project vicinity is already developed and it is unlikely that the site is of any significance to wildlife movement. 6822
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 21
Table 3: Special status wildlife species that occurred or have the potential to occur in the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site. Definitions - status: Fed = federal, FE = federal endangered, FT = federal threatened, FPE = federally proposed for listing as endangered, FPT = federally proposed for listing as threatened, FC = federal candidate species, FSC = federal special concern species, state = state of California, SE = state endangered, ST = state threatened, SCE = state candidate for listing as endangered, SCT = state candidate for listing as threatened, CSC = California species of special concern, FP = fully protected species, CNDDB = species listed under the states CNDDB program, none = no federal or state listing. Occurrence onsite: Occurs = known to occur onsite, Unlikely = could occur due to presence of suitable habitat onsite but not detected during current survey, Not Expected = does not occur due to limited suitable habitat onsite and not detected.
Scientific Name Common Name
ESA/CESA
Status Other Status Occurrence
onsite
Habitat/comments
Invertebrates
Rhaphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands FlowerLoving FlyFed: FE
State: None
CNDDB Ranked Unlikely Restricted to the Delhi Sands formation, on ancient inland sand dunes.
Amphibians
Spea hammondii Western spadefoot ESA: None
CESA: None
DFG: SSC Not Expected, no
pools present
grassland, open habitats with sandy or gravelly soil;
temporary rainpools for breeding
Reptiles
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely sandy washes and open sandy areas within coastal sage scrub, grassland, chaparral, oak and riparian
woodland
Aspidoscelis hyperytha orange-throated
whiptail
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: WL Unlikely open, sparsely covered land, often with well-drained sandy or loose soils in coastal sage scrub, grassland,
chaparral, oak woodland and riparian habitats
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely Semiarid habitats with open sparsely vegetated areas, scrub, chaparral, grassland and woodland habitats
Anniella stebbinis Southern California
legless lizard
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely Sandy, loose loamy soils in chaparral, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
Coast patch-nosed
snake
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely habitat generalist, associated with brushy or shrubby vegetation
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy snake ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral.
Appears to prefer microhabitats of open areas and
areas with soil loose enough for easy burrowing.
Birds
Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: WL Unlikely mature forests, open woodlands, wood edges, river groves, riparian woodland
6823
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 22
Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: WL Unlikely wide variety of habitats used by wintering and migrating birds, but mostly associated with woodland
and scrubland; breeds in mountains, does not breed in
southern California
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC, FP
FW: BCC
Unlikely Open mountains, foothills, plains, open country Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: WL
FW: BCC
Unlikely plains, prairies, grasslands, does not breed in southern California
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk ESA: None
CESA: None
FW: BCC Unlikely prairies, grasslands, more widespread in migration Circus cyaneus northern harrier ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely grassland, marshes, agricultural land, open areas in scrub and chaparral; ground or shrub nesting
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: FP Unlikely forages in grasslands; nests and roosts in oak and riparian woodland
Falco columbarius merlin ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: WL Unlikely nests in open woodlands, savanna, does not breed in southern California, woodlands, open areas in winter,
migration
Falco mexicanus prairie falcon ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: WL
FW: BCC
Unlikely open arid country, grasslands, more widespread in winter
Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine
falcon
ESA: SE
CESA: None
CDFW: FP
FW: BCC
Unlikely nest on cliffs or rock outcroppings, usually near water; forages over open country (grassland, scrub,
marshes)
Asio flammeus short-eared owl ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Potential grasslands, open habitats
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
FW: BCC
Potential grasslands, farmland and other open habitats
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Occurs, nonbreeding
individuals
grassland, scrub and other open habitats with perching
structures; nests in trees and shrubs
Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark ESA: None CESA: None
CDFW: WL Occurs, nonbreeding
individuals
Open areas with little or no ground cover, such as
grassland or ruderal vegetation
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird ESA: None
CESA: ST
CDFW: SSC
FW: BCC
Unlikely Highly social and gregarious bird forms large
colonies, typically in marshes and agricultural
areas
Mammals
6824
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 23
Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely Usually occur in riparian, oak or pinyon-juniper woodland and urban areas, Roosts in trees
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely Coastal sage scrub, oak woodland and chaparral; roosts in caves, mines, rock crevices, trees and
buildings
Macrotus californicus California leaf-nosed
bat
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely roosts in caves or old mines
Corynorhinus townsendii Western big-eared bat ESA: None CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely roosts in caves, old mines or buildings
Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely caves, old buildings
Myotis volans long-legged myotis ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely buildings, pockets and crevices in rocks
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: LM
Unlikely caves, tunnels and buildings in arid areas
Eumops perotis
californicus
California mastiff bat ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC
WBWG: H
Unlikely widespread forager; roosts in cliffs and buildings Chaetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San
Diego pocket Mouse
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely occurs in open scrub and grassland areas, in the valleys and foothills
Onychomys torridus
ramona
southern grasshopper
mouse
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely annual grassland and coastal sage scrub Perognathus
longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles little
pocket mouse
ESA: None
CESA: None
DFG: CSC
CNDDB Ranked
Unlikely occurs in lower elevation scrub and grassland with open ground and fine, sandy soil
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
Fed: none
State: none
CDFW: SSC Unlikely cactus patches and rock outcroppings in coastal sage scrub
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Occurs coastal sage scrub, grassland and chaparral Taxidea taxus American badger ESA: None
CESA: None
CDFW: SSC Unlikely widespread in natural habitats
6825
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 24
4.0 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
There are a number of potential biological constraints at Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site. Any significant impacts to these biological constraints that would result from the proposed project would require appropriate mitigation.
Significance of impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established the following policy of the State of California:
Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below selfperpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities..
Determining whether a project may have a significant effect, or impact, plays a critical role in the CEQA process. According to the CEQA Guidelines, (Section 15064.7, Thresholds of Significance), each public agency is encouraged to develop and adopt (by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation) thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. In the development of thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources CEQA Guidelines provides guidance primarily in Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, and the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Section 15065(a) states that a project may have a significant effect where:
The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, ..
Therefore, impacts to biological resources are considered potentially significant (before considering offsetting mitigation measures) if one or more of the following criteria discussed below would result from implementation of the proposed project; Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the biological resources if the project is likely to:
6826
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 25
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
4.1 List of the potential biological constraints at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site
1. Nesting birds,
2. Special status wildlife species present onsite; California horned lark, loggerhead shrike and San Diego Black-tailed jackrabbit.
a. California horned lark is not federally or state listed as threatened or endangered. It is listed as a state Species of Special Concern (SSC) in California. Although listed as a SSC, the California horned lark is considered widespread and relatively common throughout coastal southern California. It primarily occurs in open grasslands, agricultural fields and sparsely vegetated areas. These habitats are still relatively common in southern California. Due to the presence of suitable habitat throughout southern California and the fact that larks are relatively widespread and common, impacts of the project on the California horned lark would not be considered significant. Potential nesting California horned larks would be protected by Mitigation Measure 1.
b. Loggerhead shrike is not federally or state listed as threatened or endangered. It is listed as a state Species of Special Concern (SSC) in California. Although listed as a SSC, the loggerhead shrike is considered widespread and relatively common throughout coastal southern California 6827
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 26
during the non-breeding season. It primarily occurs in open grasslands, agricultural fields and sparse scrub habitats. These habitats are still relatively common in southern California. Due to the presence of suitable habitat throughout southern California and the fact that shrikes are relatively widespread and common, impacts of the project on the loggerhead shrike would not be considered significant. Potential nesting loggerhead shrikes would be protected by Mitigation Measure 1. c. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is not federally or state listed as threatened or endangered. It is listed as a state Species of Special Concern (SSC) in California. Although listed as a SSC, the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is considered abundantly widespread and relatively common throughout coastal southern California. It primarily occurs in open grasslands, agricultural fields and sparse coastal scrub. These habitats are still relatively common in southern California. Due to the presence of suitable habitat throughout southern California and the fact that jackrabbits are relatively widespread and common, impacts of the project on the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would not be considered significant.
4.2 Permits and consultations likely required
As a result of these potential biological constraints, any proposed project at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project would require the following permits/consultations/co-ordination;
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
CEQA Document
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA);
The MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. No take of migratory birds is allowed under this act. Construction work must comply with the MBTA.
4.3 Recommended mitigation measures
1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City 6828
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 27
and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed.
2) Avoidance of Nesting Burrowing Owls: No more than 72 hours prior to any site disturbances, focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall be conducted. If absence of this species is confirmed, project work can proceed. If however, burrowing owl is located on site, the appropriate resource agencies (CDFW and USFWS) shall be contacted. The Project Applicant shall consult with the wildlife agencies regarding the most appropriate methods and timing for removal of owls.
As necessary, owls will be actively evicted following agency approved protocols (i.e., placing a one-way door at the burrow entrance to ensure that owls cannot access the burrow once they leave). Any such active eviction shall occur outside of the breeding/nesting season. That is, active eviction shall be accomplished between September 1 and February 15. If more than 30 days has elapsed between owl eviction and completion of clearing and grubbing activities, a subsequent survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted to ensure that owls have not re-populated the site. Any reoccupation by owls will require subsequent protocol active eviction.
6829
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 28
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds - 7th Edition and supplements (2017): http://www.aou.org/checklist/index.php3 Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S.
Hoffmann, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Museum of Texas Tech University. OP-229. http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/pubs/opapers.htm Barrett, T.S. and P. Livermore. 1983. The Conservation Easement in California.
Covelo: Island Press.
Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars.
Conservation Biology 7: 94-108.
Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440.
Biggs, K.R. 2000. Common dragonflies of California. Azalea Creek Publishing. 96 pgs.
Bonterra Consulting, 2005. Results of western burrowing owl surveys for the approximately 500-acre Rich Haven Specific Plan Project Site, San Bernardino County, California. August 24, 2005.
Bonterra Consulting, 2005. Results of special status plant surveys for the approximately 500-acre Rich Haven Specific Plan Project Site, San Bernardino County, California. September 6, 2005.
Bonterra Consulting, 2005. Results of San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego Desert woodrat habitat assessments on the approximately 500-acre Rich Haven Specific Plan Project Site, San Bernardino County, California. October 20, 2005.
Bonterra Consulting, 2005. Results of Delhi Sands flower-loving fly surveys for the approximately 500-acre Rich Haven Specific Plan Project Site, San Bernardino County, California. November 18, 2005.
Bonterra Consulting, 2006. Results of Delhi Sands flower-loving fly surveys for the approximately 500-acre Rich Haven Specific Plan Project Site, San Bernardino County, California. October 30, 2006.
Borror, D.J. and R.E. White 1970. A field guide to Insects, America north of Mexico.
Houhton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
6830
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 29
Brussard, P.F., M.S. Gilpin, J.F. O'Leary, D.D. Murphy, and R.F. Noss 1992. Coastal Sage Scrub Survey Guidelines. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Scientific Review Panel.
Burt, H.B. and R.P. Grossenheider 1976. A field guide to the mammals North America north of Mexico. 3rd Edition. Houhton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
California Department of Fish and Game. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. 2010. Sacramento, CA.
September 2010.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2022. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants of California, CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, January 2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2022. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare Animals of California, CDFW, Natural Heritage Division, January 2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2022. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Natural Diversity Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento. Biannual Publication. January 2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2022. List of Special Animals. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento. Biannual Publication. January 2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018
California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] [website]. 2022. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. Available
http://www.CDFW.ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/ tespp.shtmlo California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2022. Online version of California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. http://www.cal.net/~levinel/cgi-bin/cnps/sensinv.cgi
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2001. CNPS botanical survey guidelines.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 2022. Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.
6831
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 30
Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. 2022 Berkeley California: The CalFlora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available http://www.calflora.org
Chesser, R.T., R. C. Banks, F. K. Barker, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J.
Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, D. F. Stotz and K.
Winker. 2013. Fifty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of north American birds. The Auk 130(3):558−571, 2013.
City of Ontario 2007. Rich Haven Specific Plan – Draft EIR, SCH Number 2006051081 Department of Fish and Game 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. March 2012.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 407 pp.
Grenfell, W. E., M. D. Parisi, and D. McGriff. 2003. Complete List of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife & California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.
http://www.CDFW.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/species_list.pdf
Hickman, J.C. (ed). 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Hogue, C.L. 1993. Insects of the Los Angeles Basin. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California 9007. 446 pgs.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Jameson, E.W. and H.J. Peeters 2004. Mammals of California. California Natural History Guides No. 66. Revised edition. University of California Press.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, under Contract 8023.
6832
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 31
Jepson Online Interchange for California Floristics 2019. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html.
Klein, A., J. Evens. 2005. Vegetation alliances of western Riverside County, California.
Unpublished report, revised 2006, prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
McEuen, A. 1993. The Wildlife Corridor Controversy: A Review. Endangered Species Update, 10 (11&12).
Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams and E.D. Wikramanayake 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Final report submitted to the Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division. 272pp.
NatureServe 2019. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2019. Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm).
Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.
Perrins, C. M, and A. L. A. Middleton (Eds.). 1983. The Encyclopedia of Birds.
Andromeda Oxford Limited. 463pp.
Powell, J.A. and C.L. Hogue 1979. California insects. California Natural History Guides:44. University of California Press.
RBF Consulting, 2006. Delineation of jurisdictional waters. Rich Haven Specific Plan Project Site, San Bernardino County, California. January 6, 2006.
Riverside County Integrated Project 2003. Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) http://www.rcip.org/draft_mshcp_2_toc.htm Roberts, F.M., S.D. White, A. C. Sanders, D.E. Bramlet and S. Boyd 2004. The vascular plants of western Riverside County, California. An Annotated Checklist.
Sawyer J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2 nd Edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Small, A. 1994. California birds: Their status and distribution. IBIS Publishing Company.
6833
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 32
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 3rd Edition.
Houhton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Tibor, D.P. (ed.) 2001. 6th Edition. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
The Center for North American Herpetology 2019.
http://www.naherpetology.org/nameslist
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States, 3rd Edition, Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidasterminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan.
USFWS 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United States. Biological Technical Publication. BTP-R6001-2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008. Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA.
VCS Environmental, 2022. Results of a Pre-construction Burrowing Owl and Nesting Bird Survey Conducted for the Mill Creek Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. April 7, 2022.
Williams, D. F. 1986. Mammal Species of Special Concern in California, Timton Kangaroo Rat. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Woodruff, George 1980. Soil survey of San Bernardino County southwestern part, California. United States department of Agriculture.
Zeiner, D. C., W., F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, M. White. Editors. 1990.
California’s Wildlife. Volume 2. Birds. State of California, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. 731 pp.
6834
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 33
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 Appendix A: Weather data
Public information national weather service San Diego CA; 2021-2022 rainfall season in review, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate
A dryer than normal rainfall season ended on 30 June 2022. Winter was dryer than average across all of California.
Areas 2020-2021 Total Normal Total % of Normal
Santa Barbara 10.5 17.73 59
Lancaster 3.63 5.1 71
downtown Los Angeles 12.39 14.77 84
Long Beach Airport 7.34 12.72 58
John Wayne Airport 7.09 12.76 56
Fullerton 6.65 14.72 45
Riverside 4.99 10.12 49
Oceanside Airport 7.87 10.54 75
San Diego 6.81 10.13 67
Palm Springs 2.81 5.49 51
CORONA, CALIFORNIA (042031)
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary
Period of Record : 7/ 1/1948 to 7/31/1988
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max.
Temperature (F) 66.1 69.0 70.4 74.9 79.1 84.8 91.6 91.6 89.0 82.1 73.3 67.5 78.3 Average Min.
Temperature (F) 40.2 41.6 42.9 46.0 50.6 54.6 58.6 59.3 56.7 50.8 44.4 40.0 48.8 Average Total
Precipitation (in.) 2.52 2.18 1.82 0.93 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.30 0.31 1.38 1.67 11.49 Average Total
SnowFall (in.) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Average Snow Depth
(in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record.
Max. Temp.: 99.1% Min. Temp.: 99.4% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 100% Snow Depth: 100%
Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmsca.html
6835
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 34
6.2 Appendix B: Plant species detected at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site, 2022.
SCIENTIFIC NAME (SYNONYM) COMMON NAME
ANGIOSPERMS - DICOTYLEDONES DICOTS
ADOXACEAE MUSKROOT FAMILY
Sambucus nigra spp. caerulea (= S. mexicana) Blue Elderberry
AMARANTHACEAE AMARANTH FAMILY
Amaranthus albus* Tumbling Pigweed
Amaranthus palmeri Palmer's Pigweed
Amaranthus retroflexus* Rough Pigweed
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC or CASHEW FAMILY
Schinus molle* Peruvian Pepper Tree
APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY
Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaved Milkweed
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia acanthicarpa Sand-bur or Annual Bur-sage
Centaurea melitensis* Tocalote
Encelia californica California Brittlebush
Erigeron bonariensis* flax-leaved horseweed
Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph Weed
Lactuca serriola* Prickly or Wild Lettuce
Layia platyglossa Common Tidy Tips
Oncosiphon piluliferum* Stinknet
Pseudognaphalium stramineum (= Gnaphalium
s.) Cotton-Batting Plant
Pulicaria paludosa* Spanish Sunflower
Verbesina encelioides* (= V. encelioides ssp.
exauriculata) Golden Crownbeard
BIGNONIACEAE TRUMPET-CREEPER FAMILY
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda
BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Amsinckia menziesii (= A. m. var. m.) Rigid Fiddleneck
Amsinckia tessellata var. gloriosa Devil's Lettuce
BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Capsella bursa-pastoris* Shepherd's Purse
Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod or Summer Mustard
Sisymbrium irio* London Rocket
CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Chenopodium album* (= C. missouriense) Lamb's Quarter
Chenopodium berlandieri Pitseed Goosefoot
Kochia scoparia* Kochia
Salsola tragus* Russian Thistle
CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY
Convolvulus arvensis* Field Bindweed
CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY
Crassula connata Sand Pygmy-Stonecrop
6836
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 35
EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Euphorbia maculata* spotted spurge
FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY
Acmispon americanus var. americanus (= Lotus
purshianus var. purshianus) American Lotus
Medicago sativa* Alfalfa, Lucerne
Melilotus officinalis* Yellow Sweet-Clover
Parkinsonia aculeata* Jerusalem-Thorn or Mexican Palo Verde
GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium brachycarpum* Short-Fruited Filaree
Erodium cicutarium* Red-Stemmed Filaree
LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
Marrubium vulgare* Common Horehound
MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY
Malva parviflora* Cheeseweed
MYRSINACEAE MYSINE FAMILY
Lysimachia arvensis* Scarlet Pimpernel
MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus camaldulensis* River Red Gum
OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY
Olea europaea* European Olive
ONAGRACEAE EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissoniopsis hirtella (= Camissonia h.) Field Sun Cup Camissoniopsis micrantha (= Camissonia m.) Small-flowered Evening Primrose
POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum California Buckwheat
Persicaria lapathifolium* (= Polygonum l.) Pale Smartweed Polygonum aviculare* Knotweed, Smartweed
Rumex crispus* Curly Dock
PORTULACACEAE PURSLANE FAMILY
Portulaca oleracea* Common Purslane
SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Salix gooddingii Goodding's or Black Willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow
SAPINDACEAE SOAPBERRY FAMILY
Cupaniopsis anacardioides* Carrotwood
SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Nicotiana glauca* Tree Tobacco
Solanum americanum* White Nightshade
URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY
Urtica dioica American Stinging Nettle
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE CALTROP FAMILY
Tribulus terrestris* Puncture Vine
ANGIOSPERMS - MONOCOTYLENDONES MONOCOTS
ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
Washingtonia filifera† California Fan Palm
Washingtonia robusta* Mexican Fan Palm
6837
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 36
CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY
Cyperus odoratus Fragrant Umbrella-Sedge
POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Arundo donax* Giant Reed
Bromus catharticus* Rescue Grass
Bromus diandrus* Common Ripgut Grass
Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda Grass
Festuca perennis* (= Lolium multiflorum) Italian Ryegrass Hordeum murinum* Wall Barley
Leptochloa fusca ssp. uninervia (= L. uninervia) Dense-Flowered Sprangletop Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbitfoot Grass
TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha domingensis Southern or Slender Cattail
KEY: Asterisk (*) = non-native species or cultivated; †Planted/horticultural; += sensitive species; Sources: Taxonomy - Hickman (1993), http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html, March 2022; Common names and non-native species designations according to Roberts (1998), then Hickman (1993) 6838
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 37
6.3 Appendix C: California Native Plant Society Categories CNPS Status based on California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Tibor 2001):
List 1A: Plants Presumed Extinct in California
The plants of List 1A are presumed extinct because they have not been seen or collected in the wild for many years.
Although most of them are restricted to California, a few are found in other states as well. There is a difference between "extinct" and "extirpated." A plant is extirpated if it has been locally eliminated. It may be doing quite nicely elsewhere in its range. All of the plants constituting List 1A meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing.
List 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere The plants of List 1B are rare throughout their range. All but a few are endemic to California. All of them are judged to be vulnerable under present circumstances or to have a high potential for becoming so because of their limited or vulnerable habitat, their low numbers of individuals per population (even though they may be wide ranging), or their limited number of populations. All of the plants constituting List 1B meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing.
List 2: Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere Except for being common beyond the boundaries of California, the plants of List 2 would have appeared on List 1B.
Based on the "Native Plant Protection Act," plants are considered without regard to their distribution outside the state.
All of the plants constituting List 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code and are eligible for state listing.
List 3: Plants About Which We Need More Information—A Review List The plants that comprise List 3 are an assemblage of taxa that have been transferred from other lists or that have been suggested for consideration. The necessary information that would assign most to a sensitivity category is missing.
List 4: Plants of Limited Distribution—A Watch List
The plants in this category are of limited distribution in California and their vulnerability or susceptibility to threat appears low at this time. While these plants cannot be called "rare" from a statewide perspective, they are uncommon enough that their status should be monitored regularly. Many of them may be significant locally. Should the degree of endangerment or rarity of a plant change, they will be transferred to a more appropriate list.
Threat Code Extensions and their meanings:
.1- Seriously endangered in California
.2- Fairly endangered in California
.3- Not very endangered in California
6839
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 38
6.4 Appendix D: Wildlife species detected at the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site, 2022.
FAMILY/SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME
REPTILIA REPTILES
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE
ZEBRA-TAILED, EARLESS, FRING-TOED,
SPINY, TREE, SIDE-BLOTCHED AND HORNED
LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard
Uta stansburiana Common Side-blotched Lizard
COLUBRIDAE HARMLESS EGG-LAYING SNAKES
Pituophis catenifer Gopher Snake
AVES BIRDS
CATHARTIDAE NEW WORLD VULTURES
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES AND ALLIES
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk
RECURVIROSTRIDAE STILTS AND AVOCETS
Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt
CHARADRIIDAE LAPWINGS AND PLOVERS
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
LARIDAE GULLS, TERNS AND SKIMMERS
Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull
COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS AND DOVES
Columba livia Rock Pigeon
Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared-Dove
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird
FALCONIDAE CARCARAS AND FALCONS
Falco sparverius American Kestrel
TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe
Sayornis saya Say's Phoebe
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird
LANIIDAE SHRIKES
Lanius ludovicianus+ Loggerhead Shrike
CORVIDAE JAYS AND CROWS
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow
Corvus corax Common Raven
ALAUDIDAE LARKS
Eremophila alpestris actia+ California Horned Lark
HIRUNDINIDAE SWALLOWS
Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow
MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
6840
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 39
STURNIDAE STARLINGS
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling
MOTACILLIDAE WAGTAILS AND PIPITS
Anthus rubescens American Pipit
PARULIDAE WOOD-WARBLERS
Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler
EMBERIZIDAE EMBERIZIDS
Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow
Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow
ICTERIDAE BLACKBIRDS
Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird
Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark
Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole
FRINGILLIDAE FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES
Haemorhous mexicanus House Finch
PASSERIDAE OLD WORLD SPARROWS
Passer domesticus House Sparrow
MAMMALIA MAMMALS
LEPORIDAE RABBITS & HARES
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail
Lepus californicus Black-Tailed Jackrabbit
SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS, CHIPMUNKS & MARMOTS
Otospermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel
CANIDAE FOXES, WOLVES & RELATIVES
Canis latrans Coyote
Sources:
Invertebrates: Powell and Hogue (1979) and Hogue 1993.
Butterflies: NatureServe, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Fish: NatureServe, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Reptiles and amphibians: North American Herpetology (NAH) nomenclature updates:
http://www.naherpetology.org/nameslist
Birds: American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North American Birds - 7th Edition (2017):
http://www.aou.org/checklist/index.php3
Mammals: Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffmann, C.
A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Museum of Texas Tech University. OP-229. http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/pubs/opapers.htm
Common names: Grenfell, W. E., M. D. Parisi, and D. McGriff. 2003. Complete List of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals in California. California Department of Fish and Game & California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/species_list.pdf; and Perrins, C. M, and A. L. A. Middleton (Eds.). 1983. The Encyclopedia of Birds. Andromeda Oxford Limited. 463pp.
6841
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 40
6.5 Appendix E: Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project site photographs 2022.
Photograph 1: From corner of Haven Avenue and Edison Avenue, looking east, May 2022.
6842
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 41
Photograph 2: From corner of Haven Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road, looking east, May 2022.
Photograph 3: From corner of Hamner Avenue and Edison Avenue, looking west, May 2022.
Photograph 4: Along Hamner Avenue, looking west, May 2022. 6843
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 42
Photograph 5: North of corner of Hamner Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road, looking northwest, May 2022.
Photograph 6: Along Ontario Ranch Road, looking north, June 2022. 6844
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 43
Photograph 7: Along Haven Avenue, looking south, June 2022.
Photograph 8: From corner of Haven Avenue and East Riverside Drive, looking southeast, June 2022.
6845
Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Biological Report – July 2022 Harmsworth Associates #1343 44
Photograph 9: Northern portion (south of Colony High School) of site looking northwest, June 2022.
Photograph 10: Northern portion (south of Colony High School) of site looking southeast, June 2022.
6846
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:
Ross Geller
Applied Planning, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310
Corona, California 92883
Prepared by:
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
Qualified Archaeologist and Architectural Historian
Contributions by Timothy Blood, M.S.
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. APP2201
Data Base Information:
Type of Study: Intensive Survey
Resources Recorded: P-36-12621, -12622, -12623, -25440, -26051 Keywords: Dairy, Historic-Period Buildings, Dairy, Transmission Alignment USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Guasti, California (1981); Corona North (1981) August 18, 2022
6847
A U G U S T 18 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Applied Planning to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. A cultural resources records search, additional research, intensive-level pedestrian field survey, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search, and vertebrate paleontological resources overview were conducted for the project in partial fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Please note that the current study updates Historic Architecture Assessment for the Rich Haven Specific Plan prepared by Michael Dice for the project in 2006. While the original study was deemed adequate in 2006, per CEQA the current effort is necessary to:
• Update the cultural resources records search to ensure that expectations for historic-period and prehistoric resources are accurate; • Update the field survey to assess potential for significant historic and prehistoric cultural resources due to changing field conditions;
• Update significance evaluations of all cultural resources to determine whether eligibility status has changed since the original study; • Evaluate any resources that have become historic in age (i.e. 45 or more years old) since the original study took place.
The current study also relies on The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area by Galvin & Associates (2004) for historical context.
The records search has revealed that 16 previous cultural resource studies have taken place, and five cultural resources have been identified within one half-mile of the project site.
Two of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural resources (only Dice’s included significance evaluations), and all five of the resources in the records search radius were identified within the project site boundaries. During the field survey, each of the five resources identified by the records search were recorded and evaluated or updated for California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) listing eligibility (i.e. significance under CEQA). Each of the five resources are recommended not eligible for the California Register. Therefore, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated and no further investigations are recommended for the proposed project unless:
• The proposed project is changed to include areas that have not been subject to this cultural resource assessment;
• Cultural materials are encountered during project activities.
The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site. Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist should have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), plans for the treatment, 6848
A U G U S T 18 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T iii
evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• Historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• Historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• Prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• Groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • Dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• Human remains.
Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The results of the Sacred Lands File search are provided in Appendix C. The State Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) that took effect July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.
To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report.
However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.
According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix E has recommended that:
The geologic unit underlying this project are mapped as young Eolian sand and dune deposits from the Holocene period (Morton and Miller, 2006). Eolian units are considered to be of some preservation value, but any material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
The Western Science Center does not have any localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.
Should excavation activity associated with the development of the project area extend beyond the current project into the surround alluvial units, paleontological resources would be possible. However, under current project parameters, and with the geologic units described, it would be unlikely for fossil material to be preserved. 6849
A U G U S T 18 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T iv
If human remains are encountered during any project activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. 6850
A U G U S T 17 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING…………………………… ....................................…………………..1 NATURAL SETTING...............................................................................................................5 CULTURAL SETTING.............................................................................................................5 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT ...............................................................................................5 HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 6 PERSONNEL..........................................................................................................................8 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................8 RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................8 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH…………………………………………………………………….. 8
FIELD SURVEY ................................................................................................................9 RESULTS................................................................................................................................9 RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................9 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................................. 11 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS ..........................................................................................13 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA.............................................................................................13 EVALUATIONS...............................................................................................................14 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................17 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................19
FIGURES
1: Project Location Map ........................................................................................................2 TABLES
A: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site........................9
APPENDICES
A: CULTURAL RESOURCE LOCATIONS AND RECORD SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY B: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
C: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH D: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
E: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW
6851
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 1 INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to Applied Planning to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. The project occupies approximately 584 acres and is bounded a plant nursery to the west, dairy properties to south, a high school to the east, and residential properties and a preschool to the north. A cultural resources records search, additional research, intensive-level pedestrian field survey, Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and paleontological overview were conducted for the project in partial fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is located in Sections 12 and 13 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. It is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Guasti, California (1981) and Corona North (1981) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles (Figure 1).
Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)).
State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code § 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).
The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource.
6852
6853
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 3 Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one or more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for Designation:
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered and addressed. CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
6854
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Appendix G includes significance criteria relative to archaeological and historical resources. These have been utilized as thresholds of significance here, and a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 10564.5;
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 10564.5;
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
City of Ontario Designation Criteria. In addition to evaluation for California Register listing eligibility, the City of Ontario Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation (Section 9-
1.2615) provides the following designation criteria for a property to qualify as a City Historic Landmark:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
Cultural resources would be subject to evaluation for the above City Historic Landmark designation criteria.
Tribal Cultural Resources. The Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) that took effect July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is 6855
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 5 traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff are available to answer questions and address comments as necessary.
Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor.
Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix E.
NATURAL SETTING
The project is located in the Chino Valley, which is bounded on the west by the San Jose Hills, on the south by the Chino Hills, on the north by the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains (USGS 1981), and on the east by La Sierra and the Jurupa Mountains. Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37). The area containing the project site exhibits a gradual southerly slope, and lies on a flood plain that feeds the Santa Ana River approximately four miles to the south (USGS 1981). The native biology of the region is difficult to reconstruct due to recent and historical agricultural, municipal, and industrial impacts. However, the project site is situated in the Upper Sonoran Life Zone, which is locally present between approximately 500 and 5,000 feet AMSL. This zone typically comprises cismontane valleys and low mountain slopes dominated by mixed coastal sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities (Williams 2008).
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The project site is located within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other brief encounters took place over the years and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978).
Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and 6856
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 6 often administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).
History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).
Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino, crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).
Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes (Beattie and Beattie 1974).
American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period.
Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that continue to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1941).
Ontario. Ontario, California was founded as a township in September 1882 by George and William B. Chaffey, named after their home of Ontario, Canada. The brothers purchased 6,218 acres of land with water rights and set aside 640 acres for the community of Ontario. 6857
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 7 Half of the initial 640 acres was deeded to the Chaffey Agricultural College as an endowment.
On December 10, 1891, Ontario was incorporated as a city under the California Constitution with a City Council-City Manager form of government. In 1903, Ontario was proclaimed a “Model Irrigation Colony” by an Act of Congress. Ontario had many modern innovations, many of which still show their value today. An impressive two-hundred feet wide and eight miles long, Euclid Avenue (on the National Register) was the stately back-bone of the colony.
Provisions for an electric railway, water rights for each landowner, a local educational institution, electric lights, one of the first long distance telephone lines, and public access to water and transportation set a new standard for rural communities and irrigation practices and ensured the success of the Model Colony. Water originating from the nearby San Gabriel Mountains was readily available. In addition to accessible water, climate conditions in Ontario were similar to those in the Mediterranean with dry, hot summers and cool, moist winters as regular occurrences. Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, largely, but not exclusively, devoted to the citrus industry. In addition to oranges, the production of peaches, walnuts, lemons, olives and grapes were also important to the growth of Ontario and neighboring cities (City of Ontario; Galvin & Associates 2004:7).
In 1923, airplane enthusiasts Waldo Waterman and Archie Mitchell established Latimer Field.
From that point on, Ontario became an aviation town. Urban growth pushed the fliers east until they took up their permanent residence located at the Ontario World Airport. During WWII, this airport was a busy training facility for pilots. After WWII, construction boomed in Ontario as the city’s growth more than doubled by the end of the 1950s. In 1954, four new schools were built, with land for three more being purchased. That same year, the Interstate 10 opened for public use, diminishing or altering commercial traffic through Ontario. The downtown area found competition in neighborhood shopping centers that featured large parking lots and national brand chain stores (Rounds 1999:125-126). As the citrus industry declined, large tracts of orange groves gave way to new housing for settlers to the region. Following the 1960s and 1970s, the city’s population had grown from 46,617 to 87,300 residents as Ontario expanded its boundaries eastward to encompass Guasti and the large tracts of vineyards beyond it (Rounds 1999:130). Ontario has become a diversified community with approximately 173,000 residents in 2015. Although the City boundaries have been extended from 0.38 square miles in 1891 to almost 50 square miles today, Ontario’s Historic Downtown still retains the original subdivision pattern established by the Chaffey brothers (City of Ontario 2018).
Local Dairies. Dairies within the Chino Valley followed three distinct phases: Free grazing of cattle (1900-1930), mechanization of milking (1931-1949), and scientific, large capacity dairies (Post-1950). The first phase from 1900 to 1930, was marked by the free grazing of cattle with dairies that were situated around the perimeter of population centers to service those areas.
The second phase of dairies was spurred by the growing population and saw the transition from free grazing to dry-lot dairying that utilized mechanization in the milking process. Due to a combination of labor shortage caused by World War II and subsequent population increase throughout the 1950’s and 60’s, dairies were forced to move onto smaller plots of land and utilize machinery. Technological advancements allowed for feeding and breeding techniques that produced larger herds which could be handled more efficiently by mechanization (Galvin and Associates 2004). The dairy industry in the Chino Valley had its peak in production during the 1980’s, but as residential needs collided with agricultural land uses developers began to buy up the dairy properties and convert the land to residential subdivisions and other 6858
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 8 commercial and industrial uses (Allen 2018; see also Dice 2006 and Galvin & Associates 2004).
PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the current study. Mr. Brunzell meets the United States Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Architectural History. Mr. Brunzell completed the Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and wrote the technical report with contributions from BCR Consulting Staff Archaeologist Timothy Blood, M.S. BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nick Shepetuk, B.A. and Archaeological Field Technicians John Defachelle, B.A. and Fabian Reyes-Martinez, B.A. conducted the field survey.
METHODS
This work was completed pursuant to CEQA, the Public Resources Code (PRC) Chapter
2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5. The work is also completed pursuant to City Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation. The pedestrian cultural resources survey was intended to locate and document previously recorded or new cultural resources, including archaeological sites, features, isolates, and historic-period buildings, that exceed 45 years in age within defined project boundaries. The project site was examined using 15-meter transect intervals, where accessible. This study is intended to determine whether cultural resources are located within the project boundaries, whether any cultural resources are significant pursuant to the abovereferenced regulations and standards, and to develop specific mitigation measures that will address potential impacts to existing or potential resources. Tasks pursued to achieve that end include:
• Cultural resources records search to review the results of any studies conducted within a half-mile radius of the project boundaries;
• Additional research through various local and regional resources; • Systematic pedestrian survey of the entire accessible project site; • California Register eligibility evaluation for resources identified; • Development of recommendations and mitigation measures for cultural resources documented within the project boundaries, following CEQA; • Completion of DPR 523 forms for any discovered cultural resources.
Research
Records Search. On March 10th, 2022 (prior to the field survey) a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. This archival research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports completed within one halfmile of the project site. Additional resources reviewed included the National Register, the California Register, and documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation. These include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.
6859
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 9 Additional Research. BCR Consulting performed additional research through City of Ontario permit records, the Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room of the Ontario Library, the San Bernardino County Historical Archives, and through various internet resources.
Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on February 25 and 28, and June 13, 2022. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across the accessible project site.
Inaccessible areas such as fenced yards, building interiors, and livestock enclosures and feeding areas were not subject to systematic survey. Cultural Resources were recorded on DPR 523 forms. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project site.
These included overviews as well as detail photographs of all cultural resources. Cultural resources were recorded per the California OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources in the field using:
• Detailed note taking for entry on DPR Forms (see Appendix B) • Hand-held Garmin Global Positioning systems for mapping purposes • Digital photographic overviews and photographs of all cultural resources (see Appendix B and D).
RESULTS
Research
Records Search. Data from the SCCIC revealed that 16 previous cultural resources studies have taken place, and five cultural resources have been recorded within one half-mile of the project site. One of the previous studies from the record search and another provided by Applied Planning (Dice 2006) have assessed the project site for cultural resources revealing that five cultural resources have been previously recorded within its boundaries. The records search results are summarized in Table A, and a cultural resources location figure and complete records search bibliography are provided in Appendix A.
Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site USGS 7.5 Min
Quad Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of Project Site Studies W/in OneHalf-Mile Guasti (1981),
Corona North
(1981)
P-36-12621: Hist.-Period Residence (NW Corner of project) P-36-12622: Hist.-Period Residence (S Portion of Project) P-36-12623: Hist.-Period Residence (SE Corner of Project) P-36-25440-Hist.-Period Transmission Line (Central Project) P-36-26051-Hist.-Period Transmission Line (SE corner of Project) SB-1029, 1358,
1499, 2162, 4134,
4677, 5701, 5976,
6095, 6818, 7655,
7756, 7956, 7968*,
7977; Dice 2006*
*Previously assessed a portion of the project site. SB-7968 did not include evaluations and has not been used as heavily the comprehensive study completed by Dice (2006).
Additional Research. Additional research was performed for the project site to provide the background for the historic-period cultural properties within its boundaries (see also Field Survey Results, below). Please note that figures for this section are provided in Appendix B. 6860
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 10 P-36-12621. This property occupies the northwest corner of the project site. It was originally developed as a dairy farm complex between 1956-57 with a residence that was followed by the construction of two barns (Dice 2006). The property was purchased by dairy farmers Frank and Lois Hilarides in 1976 when another residence was built on the parcel and dairy production was expanded. Frank and Lois had operated a dairy farm in Cerritos since soon after their engagement in 1952. Population increases made dairy farming difficult in L.A. county which prompted the Hilarides to relocate the Chino Valley (Long Beach PressTelegram 1952; Independent Press Telegram 1976). They built the 1976 residence on the property and Frank subsequently won awards for milk quality and was a member of the California Milk Advisory board (Chino Champion 1978; Chino Valley News 1980). Assessor records indicate that Frank and Lois remained at the property until selling in 1998.
P-36-12622. This property is located in the southwest corner of the project site. Lester J.
Scritsmier developed the 38.99-acre plot of land in 1947 as a hog farm for the Standard Feeding Company. Three single-family residences were built and most likely used to house workers. The dominant industry at the time in the City of Ontario was citrus which makes it probable that this was the first hog ranch in the area. Scritsmier held onto the land until his death in 1985, after which it was sold by his wife, Sandra Scritsmier, in 2005 (Dice 2006).
The property continued as a hog ranch until its demolition between 2006 and 2022.
P-36-12623. This property is located in the southeast corner of the project site. The buildings were constructed on a narrow 3.08-acre property in 1953. The adjacent 18.2 acre parcel likely comprised the dairy operation formerly connected with this property.
Documentation indicates that John and Wilma Dykstra owned the property, and that it comprised a portion of the Dykstra Brothers Dairy. John died in 1994 although the dairy continued to operate. In 2003 it was sold to Ronald and Kristine Pietersma and the Bidardt family (Dice 2006).
P-36-25440. This resource is a segment of an east-west oriented approximately 12-mile 220kV electrical transmission alignment that crosses the southern portion of the project site.
The alignment connects SCE Chino and Mira Loma Substations. It was originally built in 1937 as a parallel two-line single circuit but had several towers replaced in 1940. Insulators were replaced and other maintenance was performed on the greater alignment in 1953 (Tinsley Becker 2010). Topographic maps and aerial photos do not show the subject segment on the project site prior to 1981. It appears next to a second modern alignment between 1981 and 1985 (USGS 1981; United States Department of Agriculture 1985).
P-36-26051. This resource is a segment of the Hayfield-Chino 220kV electrical transmission alignment that crosses the southeast corner of the project site. The greater alignment was constructed between 1945 and 1946 as a three-phase single circuit line between Chino and east of Coachella. As substations were added, segments of the transmission line were renamed to match the names of their substations (Tinsley Becker 2014). One tower from this alignment is located in the subject segment. It is visible on aerials after 1959 and as such does not appear to be original (United States Department of Agriculture 1959, 1966).
According to recent documentation, the original transmission line had been completely removed and replaced by modern transmission lines by 2014 (Tinsley Becker 2014). 6861
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 11 Field Survey
BCR Consulting Archaeological Crew Chief Nick Shepetuk, B.A. and Staff Archaeologist Johnny Defachelle, B.A. completed the field survey on February 25 and 28 and June 13, 2022. The project site has been completely disturbed by modern residential developments, historic-period and modern dairy and agricultural developments, and by the installation of public utility alignments. Vegetation included seasonal grasses and ornamental plants.
Average visibility was approximately 50 percent and sediment comprised sandy silt with very few rocks. Each of the five previously-recorded cultural resources identified during the records search were revisited during the field survey. These are described in detail below.
No additional cultural resources were identified.
P-36-12621. This resource includes a parcel comprising one single-family residence built circa 1957 and two hay shelters and a detached garage built after 1980. The residence was built in the Minimal Traditional style and features a moderately pitched hipped roof, smooth stucco cladding and horizontal wood board siding below the façade windows, decorative wood shutters flanking a façade window, narrow rectangular wood vent below the façade gable pitch and porch supports with decorative brackets. The building windows, doors, roof, and possibly the wood porch supports on the north elevation have been replaced (Dice 2006:8). One building that occupies the project site was constructed in 1976. In 2006 the building was not old enough to be a potential historical resource because it was not yet 45 or more years old (i.e. historic in age). Since it is now over 45 years old, it warrants recordation and evaluation as a potential historical resource. It comprises a 1976 singlefamily residence that features a rectangular layout and a stucco finish. The house has two steep pitched front-gabled elevations, a cross-gabled second story with roof dormers featuring side walls and two single-hung windows flanked by decorative shutters on the north elevation, and a gabled inset dormer on the south elevation. Composite shingles cover the roof which features wide eaves that are boxed without brackets. Most of the windows on the front elevation are also single-hung modern windows with decorative shutters, but there is a bay window that is flanked by two single-hung windows to the left of the main entrance.
A shallow porch supported by unelaborated square columns makes up the front entrance to the building which is accessed through a wood-paneled double-door. The porch exhibits a decorative brick façade. The building has an attached three-car garage, and a brick chimney sits near the center of the building. It has been re-roofed and the windows do not appear to be original.
P-36-12622. This resource comprised 12 buildings and structures, and 27 animal pens/barns/shelters (Dice 2006:9). It included three single-family residences that were built circa 1947 in the Minimal Traditional Style, two garages and two prefabricated buildings that were also built in 1947, and several ancillary structures for animal feed and storage (Dice 2006). All buildings and structures have been demolished and the property is occupied by new condominiums.
P-36-12623. Ben Taniguchi and Rebecca Smith recorded P-36-012623 in 2006 as four buildings constructed in 1953 that comprised part of a dairy (Dice 2006). Building A was originally described in 2006 as a vernacular style barn built in 1953 that sat on a concrete foundation with a single-story, timber frame. It had one bay on its principal façade with the main entrance consisting of a large wood sliding door on the east elevation. The building 6862
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 12 featured a front gable roof with composition shingles that was moderately pitched. There were also four stalls located on the south elevation that were most likely used for hay storage. Building A was revisited by BCR Consulting on June 13, 2022 and it was in poor condition with the roof caved in and the walls slumped.
Building B was originally described in 2006 as a vernacular style barn built in 1953 that featured a timber framed, one-story, modified box plan with a side gable addition. The building featured a moderately-pitched, double front gabled roof with a side-gable addition constructed at an unknown date. The building was in fair condition, but had a side-gabled addition to the west elevation. BCR Consulting revisited the barn on June 13, 2022 and discovered that the side gable addition was the only part intact. The main barn was in poor condition with a roof that had caved in and walls that had slumped.
Building C was originally recorded in 2006 as a residence constructed in the Minimal Traditional style. It featured an L-shaped plan with an asymmetrical principal façade that has five bays. The building is covered by a moderately-pitched, hipped roof covered with composition shingles. The building is clad in stucco. The majority of the windows are wood sash double-hung type. The building exhibited no visible alterations and was in good condition. When BCR Consulting revisited the building on June 13, 2022, the building was in good condition and had undergone minimal alterations since 2006.
Building D was originally recorded in 2006 as a Minimal Traditional style, single-family residence built in 1953. It featured a single story and rectangular plan with an attached garage. It had an exterior of smooth stucco and moderately-pitched, side gable roof that consisted of composite shingles. There were four windows on the primary façade that are square wood sash fixed windows. Two of the windows were flanked by decorative wood shutters. The windows and doors had been replaced, and the building was in good condition. When BCR Consulting revisited the building on June 13, 2022, it was in good condition and had undergone minimal alterations since 2006.
P-36-25440. This resource was originally recorded as an approximate 12-mile 220kV electrical transmission line that connects the SCE Chino and Mira Loma substations (Tinsley Becker 2010). The segment within the project site comprises five 90-foot tall double-circuit lattice steel towers with four legs resting on simple concrete footings. The towers appear to be modern, which is consistent with the aerial photo review that indicates a 1981-1985 construction date (USGS 1981, United States Department of Agriculture 1985).
P-36-26051. This resource was originally recorded as the Hayfield-Chino 220kV Transmission Alignment that was constructed between 1945 and 1946. It runs between Colton at the Highgrove substation (renamed Vista) and ends in Chino at the SCE Chino Substation. One tower from this segment was identified within the project site. Although aerial photos show a tower in that location between 1959 and 1966, recent documentation indicates that the original transmission line had been completely removed and replaced by modern transmission lines by 2014 (Tinsley Becker 2014). 6863
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 13 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS
During the field survey, three historic-period residential/agricultural properties and two historic-period transmission lines were identified. CEQA calls for the evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register.
Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation under a local ordinance. One of the residential/agricultural properties (designated P-36-12622) was identified during the records search, but it is excluded from evaluation because it has been demolished and replaced by modern condominiums. Also, while the electric transmission alignment designated P-36-25540 appeared in the records search, additional research has shown that the segment that crosses the project site is not historic in age. Since the segment is not historic in age, it does not warrant further consideration as a potential historical resource for the current study.
Significance Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register or as a City Landmark, one or more of the following criteria must be met:
1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).
The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
City of Ontario Designation Criteria. In addition to evaluation for California Register listing eligibility, the City of Ontario Development Code Article 26: Historic Preservation (Section 9-
1.2615) provides the following designation criteria for a property to qualify as a City Historic Landmark:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; 6864
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 14 d. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
Evaluations
P-36-12621 California Register Evaluation. Although the subject property fits within a local dairy context of the second half of the 20th century, considerable research has failed to associate it with important events related to the founding and/or development of the industry. It is therefore not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2:
Due to a lack of documentation, it was not possible to ascertain who was the original owner of the building when it was constructed between 1956 and 1957. Research has shown that Frank and Lois Hilarides purchased the property and constructed a residence there in 1976.
While Frank Hilarides was an award-winning dairyman who sat on the California Milk Advisory Board, research did not indicate that he had any particular impact on the progression of the dairy industry, nor was he notable in local, state, or national history. It is therefore not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3: One residence was built in the Minimal Traditional style and still maintains some of those elements such as a moderately pitched hipped roof, smooth stucco cladding with horizontal wood board siding below façade windows, decorative wood shutters flanking a façade window, a narrow rectangular wood vent below a façade gable pitch and porch supports with decorative brackets. However, there have been alterations to the building that include replacement of windows, doors, roof shingles and possibly the wood porch supports of the north elevation.
These alterations have diminished its integrity as an example of the Minimal Traditional style. Also, the builder and architect are unknown and it does not appear to be the work of a master. With these considerations in mind, the 1956-1957 building does not appear to qualify for the California Register under Criterion 3 (see also Dice 2006:29). The 1976 residence remains in good condition, but it does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, and does not represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. With these considerations in mind, the 1976 building does not appear to qualify for the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4: Extensive research has exhausted this resources data potential, and as such the resource has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. The subject property and its constituent historic-age buildings are therefore recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register, and as such the property is not recommended a historical resource under CEQA.
P-36-12621 City Historic Landmark Evaluation. While the property is a part of the dairy industry that developed in the mid to late 20th century in the Chino Valley, it is not currently 6865
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 15 operational as a dairy and does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City of Ontario (City Designation Criterion A). Research failed to connect any important people or events with the property (City Designation Criterion B). Research has not linked the property with a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist (City Designation Criterion C), and the buildings do not exhibit distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction (City Designation Criterion D). The property and its constituent buildings utilize common materials and methods that do not demonstrate noteworthy examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship (City Designation Criterion E).
The buildings were not architecturally significant, and the dairy facilities are reflective of common dairy farming strategies that lack any significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation (City Designation Criterion F). The property lacks unique characteristics or visual features that would qualify the property under City Designation Criterion G. Although few dairies remain from this era, the property exhibits a mix of styles that lack integrated features or distinguishing characteristics of a particular architectural or historic type or specimen (City Designation Criterion H). Based on the above evaluation, the subject property and its constituent buildings do not qualify as a City Historic Landmark.
P-36-12623 California Register Evaluation. Although the subject property fits within a local dairy context of the second half of the 20th century, considerable research has failed to associate it with important events related to the founding and/or development of the industry. It is therefore not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2:
Although the Dykstra family who owned the property apparently operated a successful dairy business, research did not indicate that any family members made a significant impact on the dairy industry, nor were any of the family notable in local, state, or national history. It is therefore not eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3: The two residences were built in the Minimal Traditional style and still maintain some of those elements. However, the buildings are not outstanding representations of the style. Also, the builder(s) and architect(s) are unknown and the residences do not appear to be the work of a master. The barns are utilitarian, lack architectural distinction, and are in poor condition.
Finally, the property does not exhibit distinctive characteristics (such as Ranch-style milk parlor and circular driveways) that have been established as hallmarks of post 1950 dairy farms (see Dice 2006:24). Therefore, the property does not appear to qualify for the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4: Extensive research has exhausted this resources data potential, and as such the resource has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. The subject property and its constituent historic-age buildings are therefore recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register, and as such the property is not recommended a historical resource under CEQA.
P-36-12623 City Historic Landmark Evaluation. While the property is a part of the dairy industry that developed in the mid to late 20th century in the Chino Valley. It does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City of Ontario (City Designation Criterion A).
Research failed to connect any important people or events with the property (City Designation Criterion B). Research has not linked the property with a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist (City Designation Criterion C), and the buildings to not exhibit distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction 6866
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 16 (City Designation Criterion D). The property and its constituent buildings utilize common materials and methods that do not demonstrate noteworthy examples of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship (City Designation Criterion E). The buildings were not architecturally significant, and the dairy facilities are reflective of common dairy farming strategies that lack any significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation (City Designation Criterion F). The property lacks unique characteristics or visual features that would qualify the property under City Designation Criterion G. Although few dairies remain from this era, the property does not exhibit distinctive characteristics (such as Ranch-style milk parlor and circular driveways) that have been established as hallmarks of post 1950 dairy farms (see Dice 2006:24; (City Designation Criterion H). Based on the above evaluation, the subject property and its constituent buildings do not qualify as a City Historic Landmark.
P-36-26051 California Register Evaluation. Research has not connected the HayfieldChino Transmission Line with any important events in local, county, state or national histories and it does not directly connect to any important infrastructure like the “Third Boulder Line” or the Colorado River Aqueduct (see Tinsley Becker 2014). Consequently, the Hayfield-Chino Transmission Line is not eligible under Criterion 1. Research also failed to associate the resource with significant people. It is therefore not eligible under Criterion 2.
The resource consists of a common steel lattice tower and as such does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. As a result, the Hayfield-Chino Transmission Line is not eligible under Criterion 3. Criterion 4: Extensive research has exhausted this resources data potential, and as such the resource has not and is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. It is therefore not eligible under Criterion 4. Based on these results, P-36-26051 recommended not eligible under any of the four criteria for listing on the California Register, and as such the property is not recommended a historical resource under CEQA.
P-36-26051 City Historic Landmark Evaluation. The property does not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City of Ontario (City Designation Criterion A). No significant persons or events were associated with the Hayfield-Chino Transmission Line (City Designation Criterion B). Research has not linked the property or any of its elements with a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist (City Designation Criterion C), and it lacks distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction (City Designation Criterion D). The structure utilizes common materials and methods that do not exhibit a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship (City Designation Criterion E). The architectural features are minimal and utilitarian, and are reflective of common electrical infrastructure of the day that do not point to any significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation (City Designation Criterion F). This is a ubiquitous type of resource and as such does not qualify under City Designation G or H.
RECOMMENDATIONS
BCR Consulting conducted a cultural resources assessment of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan Project in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Five cultural resources were identified within the project site, but none are recommended eligible for the 6867
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 17 California Register or as a City Landmark. Therefore, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated and no further investigations are recommended unless:
• The proposed project is changed to include areas that have not been subject to this cultural resource assessment;
• Cultural materials are encountered during project activities.
The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site. Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register, plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• human remains.
Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The results of the Sacred Lands File search are provided in Appendix C. The Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) that took effect July 1, 2015. AB52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.
To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report.
However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary. 6868
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 18 According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix E has recommended that:
The geologic unit underlying this project are mapped as young Eolian sand and dune deposits from the Holocene period (Morton and Miller, 2006). Eolian units are considered to be of some preservation value, but any material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits.
The Western Science Center does not have any localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.
Should excavation activity associated with the development of the project area extend beyond the current project into the surround alluvial units, paleontological resources would be possible. However, under current project parameters, and with the geologic units described, it would be unlikely for fossil material to be preserved.
If human remains are encountered during any project activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. 6869
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 19 REFERENCES
Allen, David
2018 Cows Moove Out As One of Chino’s Last Dairies Closes. Daily Bulletin. 5 August.
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.
Cerritos Dairyman Keeps Battling for Improvements
1976 Independent Press-Telegram. 3 January: 9.
Chino Champion
1978 Grant’s Warning: Too Much Milk Could Be Problem. 6/2/78:25. Electronic Document: Newspapers.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
Chino Valley News
1992 Milk Advisory Board Marketing Plans. 3/11/92:13. Electronic Document:
Newspapers.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
1980 Frank Hilarides Nominated to Milk Advisory Board. 10/22/80:1. Electronic Document: Newspapers.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
City of Ontario
2018 Ontario’s History. Electronic Document: https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/ historic-preservation/ontarios-history. Accessed December 21, 2018.
Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library.
Dice, Michael
2006 Rich Haven Specific Plan City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Frank Hilarides Nominated to Milk Advisory Board
1980 Chino Valley News. 22 October: 1.
6870
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 20 Galvin & Associates
2004 Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area. Sacramento, California.
Grant’s Warning: Too Much Milk Could Be Problem
1978 Chino Champion. 2 June: 25.
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. SW Museum, Los Angeles.
Independent Press Telegram
1976 Cerritos Dairyman Keeps Battling for Improvements. 1/3/76:3. Electronic Document:
newspapers.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted 1976, Dover Publications.
Long Beach Press Telegram
1952 Uncredited Article. Electronic Document: Newspapers.com. Accessed Multiple Dates.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.
Rounds, Michael
1999 Ontario: The Gem of the Foothills. Heritage Media Corp.
Tinsley Becker, Wendy L.
2010 Site Record for P-36-025440. On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California Tinsley Becker, Wendy L.
2014 Site Record for P-36-26051. One File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California United States Department of Agriculture
1985 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed Multiple Dates.
1966 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com. 6871
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T 21 Accessed Multiple Dates.
1959 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.
Accessed Multiple Dates.
United States Geological Survey
1981 Corona North, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. 1981 Guasti, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
6872
A U G U S T 1 8 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G
C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
R I C H - H A V E N S P E C I F I C P L A N A R E A S O F C H A N G E P R O J E C T
APPENDIX A
CULTURAL RESOURCE LOCATIONS AND RECORD SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY 6873
6874
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources APP2201
SB-01029 1980 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW FOR
THE SERRANO SUBSTATION TO MIRA
LOMA SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION
ROUTE ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR RIGHTOF-WAY
GREENWOOD AND
ASSOCIATES
FOSTER, JOHN M. and
ROBERTA S.
GREENWOOD
36-000270, 36-000897, 36-000898,
36-000899, 36-000900, 36-000902,
36-001543, 36-001570, 36-001608,
36-002067, 36-002068, 36-002259,
36-002260, 36-002317, 36-003023,
36-003690, 36-004032, 36-060002
NADB-R - 1061029;
Voided - 80-9.15
SB-01358 1983 FINAL REPORT: MIRA LOMA-SERRANO
500 KV DC AND SERRANO-VILLA PARK
220 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
APPLIED CONSERVATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.
MACKO, MICHAEL E.,
EDWARD B. WEIL, JILL
WEISBORD, and JOHN
COOPER
36-003690, 36-004032, 36-005096,
36-005097, 36-006030
NADB-R - 1061358;
Voided - 83-2.6
SB-01499 1985 CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW:
CALIFORNIA PORTION, PROPOSED
PACIFIC TEXAS PIPELINE PROJECT
GREENWOOD AND
ASSOCIATES
FOSTER, JOHN M. and
ROBERTA S.
GREENWOOD
NADB-R - 1061499;
Voided - 85-7.4A-B
SB-02162 1979 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND THE
DEVERS-MIRA LOMA 500 KV
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE (VALLEY TO
MIRA LOMA SECTION) A STUDY OF THE
PALEONTOLOGY, HISTORY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE VICINITY OF THE
LINE
CULTURAL SYSTEMS
RESEARCH, INC.
BEAN, LOWELL JOHN
and SYLVIA BRAKKE
VANE
NADB-R - 1062162;
Voided - 79-3.12
SB-04134 2003 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF 71.5
ACRES, PINHEIRO PROPERTY PROJECT,
CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CA. 19PP
NADB-R - 1064134 FULTON, PHIL LSA
SB-04677 2005 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE
(NADB) INFORMATION SHEET,
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE RICH
HAVEN PROJECT, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SCOTT, KIM and
SHERRI GUST
NADB-R - 1064677
SB-05701 2006 A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory and a Paleontological Assessment for the 111-Acre
Avenue Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario,
San Bernardino County, California.
Wetherbee, Matthew and Stantec Consulting Inc.
Sarah Siren
NADB-R - 1065701;
Paleo -
SB-05976 2007 Cultural Resource Assessment New Model
Colony East Backbone Infrastructure, City of
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Wetherbee, Matthew, Stantec
Sarah Siren and Gavin
Archer
NADB-R - 1065976 36-012533
SB-06095 2009 Confidential Cultural Resources Specialist Report for the Tehachapi Renewal
Transmission Project.
Applied Earthworks Applied Earthworks 36-003690, 36-019845, 36-019846, 36-019847, 36-019848
NADB-R - 1066095