October 19, 2022
Brian Glenn
Duke CRM
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Rialto Lake (C-0422) Project, San Bernardino County
Dear Mr. Glenn:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
1 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Rialto Lake (C-0422) Project, San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
006070
10/19/2022 03:39 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
10/19/2022
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6306
Fax: (951) 506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 1051
Fax: (760) 749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
2 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Rialto Lake (C-0422) Project, San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
006070
10/19/2022 03:39 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
10/19/2022
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuel-
nsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
[email protected]
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
[email protected]
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Cultural Committee,
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 397 - 0300
Fax: (760) 397-8146
Cultural-
Committee@torresmartinez-
nsn.gov
Cahuilla
3 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Rialto Lake (C-0422) Project, San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
006070
10/19/2022 03:39 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
10/19/2022
DUKE CUltUral rEsoUrCEs ManagEMEnt
Appendix C
Records Search
Confidential Appendix:
Not for Public Review
ReportNum OtherIDs Authors CitYear CitTitle CitPublisher CitPages CitMaps ReportType InventorySize InventoryNotes Resources ResourceCount HasInformals Counties Maps SB-00145 NADB-R - 1060145;
Voided - 73-3.2 WILKE, PHILIP J. and STEPHEN HAMMOND 1973 LA LOMA - MIRA LOMA TRANSMISSION LINE: EXPECTED IMPACT ON
ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUES ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT, UCR [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
REPORT; ROCK ART SITES; PICTOGRAPHS; FOOD PROCESSING
SITES; OPEN HABITATION SITES; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; JURUPA MOUNTAINS; LA LOMA - MIRA LOMA; CA-RIV-615; CA-RIV-616; CA-RIV- 617; CA-RIV-618; CA-RIV-502; CA-RIV-594; CA-RIV-619; CA-RIV-620; CA- RIV-127; CA-RIV-621; CA-RIV-622; CA-RIV-623; CA-RIV-624; CA-RIV-625] 36-000144, 36-000714, 36-000715, 36-
000716, 36-000794, 36-001573, 36-001574 7 No San Bernardino Fontana, San Bernardino South SB-00180 NADB-R - 1060180;
Voided - 73-9.1
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
ASSOCIATION 1973 RIALTO CHANNEL - ZONE 2, ARCHAEOLOGIC EVALUATION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ASSOCIATION [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SANTA ANA
RIVER; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-00508 NADB-R - 1060508;
Voided - 77-6.4A GREENWOOD, ROBERTA S. 1977 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY: WEST COAST - MID CONTINENT PIPELINE PROJECT, LONG BEACH TO COLORADO RIVER GREENWOOD AND ASSOCIATES 75 Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY REPORT; VILLAGES; OPEN HABITATION SITES; BURIAL; LITHIC SCATTER; FOOD PROCESSING SITES; BEDROCK MORTARS; ROCK ART; CEMETERY; TRAILS; SHELL MIDDENS; PETROGLYPHS; BEDROCK SLICKS; POTTERY; GROUND STONE; SCHOOL BUILDING; FLAKED LITHICS; FLAKED GLASS; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; COASTAL PLAINS; CA-LAN-390; CA-LAN-389; CA-LAN-697; CA-LAN-852; CA-LAN-853; CA-LAN-854; CA-RIV-179; CA-RIV-163; CA- RIV-149; CA-RIV-1173; CA-RIV-343; CA-RIV-1185; CHERT; STEATITE; QUARTZITE; BASALT; SCHIST; GRANITE; CHALCEDONY]
36-000715, 36-000716, 36-001573, 36-
001576, 36-001632 5 No San Bernardino Fontana, Redlands, San Bernardino South
SB-00509 NADB-R - 1060509;
Voided - 77-6.4B GREENWOOD AND ASSOCIATES 1978
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY: WEST-COAST - MID-
CONTINENT PIPELINE PROJECT, LONG BEACH TO COLORADO
RIVER, THE AGUA MANSA ALTERNATE PIPELINE ROUTE
GREENWOOD AND ASSOCIATES 12 Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-00711 NADB-R - 1060711;
Voided - 78-12.2A CHAVEZ, DAVID 1978
CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION OF THE RIALTO TANK FARM
LOCATION AND ASSOCIATED PIPELINE AND PUMP STATION
LOCATIONS, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CEMETERY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY;
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY]
36-001578 1 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-00712 NADB-R - 1060712;
Voided - 78-12.2B CHAVEZ, DAVID 1978
CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION OF THE FOUR CORNERS
PIPELINE INTERCONNECT FACILITIES, SAN BERNARDINO AND
RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CEMETERY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY;
SANTA ANA RIVER]
36-001578 1 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-00713 NADB-R - 1060713;
Voided - 78-12.2C CHAVEZ, DAVID 1978
FINAL: CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION FOR THE NAVAL
PETROLEUM RESERVE NO. 1 (ELK HILLS) TO RIALTO CRUDE OIL
PIPELINE
URS COMPANY
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; VILLAGE; LITHIC SCATTERS; OPEN
HABITATION SITES; FOOD PROCESSING SITES; CEMETERY; ROADS; RAILROAD SITE; FLAKED LITHCS; GROUND STONE; SCHIST; QUARTZ MONZONITE; MOJAVE DESERT; TRANSVERSE RANGES; SAN
GABRIEL MOUNTAINS; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY; CA-LAN-676; CA-KER-115; PSBR-5-H]
36-000116, 36-000425, 36-001578, 36-
002419, 36-003430, 36-004411 6 No San Bernardino
Cajon, Devore, Mescal Creek, Phelan,
San Bernardino North, San Bernardino
South, Telegraph Peak
SB-00714 NADB-R - 1060714;
Voided - 78-12.2D CHAVEZ, DAVID 1978
FINAL: CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION FOR THE RIALTO
CRUDE OIL TANK FARM TO THE FOUR CORNERS PIPELINE, KERN
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
URS COMPANY
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; FOOD PROCESSING SITES; ADOBE
FOUNDATION; BEDROCK MORTARS; BEDROCK SLICKS;
ROCKSHELTER; CEMETERY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; CA-RIV-497]
36-000314, 36-001578 2 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-01287 NADB-R - 1061287;
Voided - 82-7.3 LERCH, MICHAEL K. 1982
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SANTA ANA
REGIONAL INTERCEPTOR, REACHES IV-D AND IV-E, SAN
BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ASSOCIATION 23 Field study [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CHAPEL SITE; SCHOOL SITE;
INTERMONTANE VALLEY; PRADO BASIN; SANTA ANA RIVER]
36-001575, 36-004952 2 No San Bernardino Corona North, Prado Dam, San Bernardino South
SB-01750 NADB-R - 1061750;
Voided - 87-12.2 ROMANI, GWENDOLYN R. 1987 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION: PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
THE CITY OF RIALTO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-01828 NADB-R - 1061828;
Voided - 88-9.3
PETER, KEVIN J., JAMES RUDOLPH, TONY
MORGAN, JEAN HUDSON, and CRAIG F.
WOODMAN
1988 ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF SBR- 1576, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA URS CONSULTANTS, INC. [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING;
FLAKED LITHICS; GROUND STONE; SCHIST; GRANITE; QUARTZITE; BASALT; CHERT; FELSITE; OBSIDIAN; RHYOLITE; SANDSTONE;
METAL HARDWARE; CERAMICS; GLASS BOTTLES; INTERMONTANE
VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER]
36-001576 1 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-01951 NADB-R - 1061951;
Voided - 89-10.8 HATHEWAY, ROGER G. and KAREN SWOPE 1989 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED ANGELUS BLOCK PROPERTY HATHEWAY & ASSOCIATES
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CULTURAL HISTORY; CEMETERY;
CANAL; IRRIGATION DITCHES; ADOBE QUARRY; INTERMONTANE
VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; P1074-35-H; P1074-124-H; 19TH- 20TH CENTURIES AD]
36-001578, 36-004952 2 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-02030 NADB-R - 1062030;
Voided - 89-6.13 KIELUSIAK, CAROL 1989 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT - SARI, REACHES IV D & E San San Bernardino County Museum Association 14 Archaeological, Other research [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; CA-RIV-3493; PSBR-1-H; PSBR-25-H; P872-27-H; P872-28-H; P872-51-H; P872-24-H; P872-49-H; P872-26-H; P872-25-H; P1074-35-H; P1074-104-H; P1074-107-H; P1074- 106-H; P1074-88-H; P1074-84-H; P1074-89-H; P1074-90-H; P1074-101-H; P1074-114-H]
36-001575, 36-004952, 36-005241, 36-
005274, 36-006007, 36-006069 6 No San Bernardino Corona North, Prado Dam, San Bernardino South
SB-02117 NADB-R - 1062117;
Voided - 90-7.3 HARMSWORTH ASSOCIATES and CH2M HILL 1990 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
EXPANSION OF THE RIALTO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
[CULTURAL RESOURCE SECTIONS]
HARMSWORTH ASSOCIATES
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; RESOURCES UNKNOWN]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02155 NADB-R - 1062155;
Voided - 90-8.12 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1990
A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED SANTA ANA
RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, SITE 1, AGUA MANSA,
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL. [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; NO RESOURCES] 0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-02156 NADB-R - 1062156;
Voided - 90-9.2 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1990
REPORT ADDENDUM: A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE
PROPOSED SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY (SAWPA)
PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, SAN BERNARDINO TO COLTON, SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SAN
BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02214 NADB-R - 1062214;
Voided - 90-11.10 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1990
UPDATE REPORT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AT THE SAWPA
RIX SITE, SITE 1, COLTON (AGUA MANSA), SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL. 3 Archaeological, Monitoring
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING REPORT; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02215 NADB-R - 1062215;
Voided - 90-12.6 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1990 SUPPLEMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AT THE RIX PROJECT SITE (SAWPA), AGUA MANSA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MCKENNA ET AL. [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING REPORT; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02251 NADB-R - 1062251;
Voided - 91-1.12 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1991 RIX PROJECT AREA ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING MCKENNA ET AL [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02252 NADB-R - 1062252 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1991 CONTINUED ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AT THE RIX PROJECT SITE MCKENNA ET AT.
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02389 NADB-R - 1062389;
Voided - 91-1.16 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1991 RIX PROJECT AREA ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING MCKENNA ET AL. [NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL
MONITORING REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO
VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES]
0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South
SB-02752 NADB-R - 1062752 SEYMOUR, GREGORY R. and DAVID P. DOAK 1992
THE SANTA ANA REGIONAL INTERCEPTOR PROJECT SAWPA-SARI
REACHES IV D & E: A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF A 18-MILE
RIGHT OF WAY FROM MIRA LOMA TO COLTON, RIVERSIDE AND SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CA
THOMAS G. OLSEN ASSOCIATES
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT;
ROAD; CEMETERY; CHAPEL; CANAL; FLAKED LITHICS;
GROUNDSTONE; CPHI-87; P1074-101H; P1074-104H; P1074-117H; P1074-33H; CHL-121; SANTA ANA RIVER; C14; 2790 +/- 80BP] 36-000001, 36-001575, 36-001576, 36-
001578, 36-002623, 36-004952, 36-006007,
36-006069, 36-006858, 36-006859, 36-
006860
11 No San Bernardino
SB-02785 NADB-R - 1062785 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1992
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS AND HISTORIC RESEARCH
FOR THE EXPANDED SANTA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY
SITE 1 PROJECT AREA, AGUA MANSA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA
MCKENNA ET AL 87 ACRES [NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING; SANTA ANA RIVER; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; NO RESOURCES] 0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-02786 NADB-R - 1062786 MCKENNA, JEANNETTE A. 1993
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS AND HISTORIC RESEARCH FOR THE SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY SITE 1
PROJECT AREA AND ASSOCIATED SOIL TESTING AREAS, AGUA
MANSA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA
MCKENNA ET AL 157 ACRES [NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; NO RESOURCES] 0 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-02884 NADB-R - 1062884 MCKENNA, JEANETTE A. 1993
A DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY STUDY: CA-SBR-6859H - THE
WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE
COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL. APPROX. 2 MILES
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE EVALUATION REPORT;
WATER TRANSPORTATION SITE; CANAL; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; HISTORIC; 1887 A.D.]
36-006859 1 No San Bernardino Fontana, San Bernardino South ReportNum OtherIDs Authors CitYear CitTitle CitPublisher CitPages CitMaps ReportType InventorySize InventoryNotes Resources ResourceCount HasInformals Counties Maps SB-02887 NADB-R - 1062887 SCHMIDT, JAMES J. 1994 CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION: CITY OF COLTON NEW SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES GREENWOOD AND ASSOCIATES 6.5 MILES [NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT;
INDUSTRIAL SITE; STANDING STRUCTURES; HABITATION SITE;
FLAKED LITHICS; FOUNDATIONS; FLAKED TOOLS; FLAKES; GROUND STONE; FAUNAL REMAINS; ORNAMENTS; CORES; HAMMERSTONES;
QUARTZITE; GRANITE; SCHIST; BASALT; CHERT; OBSIDIAN; BONE; INTERMONTAINE VALLEY; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC]
36-001576, 36-007976 2 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-02944 NADB-R - 1062944 HARLEY, BRUCE 1991
THE AGUA MANSA STORY, A COLLECTION OF PAPERS COMPILED ON
THE OCCASION OF THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SETTLEMENT
OF AGUA MANSA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ASSOCIATION QUARTERLY 39
(1):1-59 1 ACRE [NADB Keywords: CULTURAL HISTORY; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; SANTA ANA RIVER; CHL-121; HISTORIC] 36-001578 1 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-03214 NADB-R - 1063214 SCHMIDT, JAMES J. 1996 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS: CA-SBR-1576, CITY OF COLTON, NEW SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES. 23PP GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES 4 MILES X 50 M [NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING REPORT; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; NO RESOURCES] 36-001576 1 No San Bernardino San Bernardino South SB-03586 NADB-R - 1063586 LOVE, BRUCE 2000 ONTARIO TO COLTON PIPELINE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 26PP CRM TECH 16 MILES + 9 ACRES
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT;
HISTORIC; CANAL; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; SAN GABRIEL VALLEY;
INTERMONTANE VALLEY]
36-006859 1 No San Bernardino Fontana, Guasti, Ontario, San Bernardino South
SAN COUNTY 1'1USEUM
2024 ORANGE TREE LANE HISTORIC SITE SURVEY RECORD
REDLANDS, CA. 92373
(\ I \ )
SITE NO. SBr-4952 -H
COUNTY San Bernardino
SITE NAME Aqua Mansa Chapel
1. USGS QUAD. San Bernardino South ________ _______ (15)
2. UTM GRID ZONE 11 466640 mE ________ ___
3. Twp. SW\ of SE \ of NE \of SW \ of NW of Sec. 36 (projected)
4. Location On the northwest side of Agua Mansa Road, approximately 4/10 mile northeast of Riverside Avenue. Site is on the northwest bank of the Santa Ana River, between the road and an irrigation canal.
5. Area 30 m (E-W) x 30 m (N-S) 6. Contour __ -=-____ -=-____ _ 2024 Orange Tree Lane
7. CMner San Bernardino County Museum Address Redlands. CA 92373
8. Temporal Period: Circa 1853-1890s Period Mexican RanchO-Early American
9. Activity: Mining Railroad Military Homesteading Exploratioh/ Traveling Settlement xx Ranching Other xx Explain Location of chapel for San Salvador parish and the community of La Placita/Agua
10. Site Type: Town Camp Homestead Road Trail Mine Mansa Railroad Grave Yard Trash Dump Military Other Remains of adobe chapel which measured 50' long x 22' wide (Vickery 1977:73).
11. Previous Site Designation, Published References SBCM-113, La Capilla de San Salvador, Agua Mansa Church. See Defending Eden, by Joyce Carter Vickery, 1977, Riverside Museum Press.
12. Features: Structure xx Dugout Fire Hearth Cairn Rock Alignment Burial
Well
'1:'rash Dump
Spring
Irrigation Trail
R&R Grade (berm)
Road Corral
Tram (road/way) Tailings
Other Explain Adobe remains of leveled structure-foundations of wall and portions of clay floor have been found, plus various artifacts
13. Artifacts: wood (size/type) Glass (color) xx Metal (type) xx Bone xx Ceramic (color) xx Adobe (condition) xx Nails (size/type) Cans (size/
14. 15.
16. 18.
type) ? Ordnancp. Other Explain Wood beams, window and bottle colors; metal can lids, spigot, hinges, etc.; butchered bone from domestic animals (pigs, beef); Chinese ceramics; adobe blocks and melt. Disturbance: Animal Burning Vandalism ORV Other xx Explain Weather has mel ted adobe walls, now covered with dirt & weeds.
Pres e nt Condition: Good Fair xx Poor Explain There still seems to be a fair amount of subsurface detail intact-excavations in progresE by UCR field class (P. Wilke) Spring of 1978, 1980, 1982, report in preparatlon.
Sketch !".ap on file at UCR 17. Photos on file at UCR
"e c order M. K. Le rch 19. Date 3/ 28/82
or.
-- --..,$---
--- ' I .,...$
-- .J ,.' .--!.- lit
- --f-.'"
----- .' - "
,.,t
'/b' . , .
, .' , .' ....
----.
.. "
,.,.
,.to
.' I , .
,t·'
II
! I
1/
1\ .::>..
"
\\\
.,'
I '
I
,."
" , ,; ..,. ,
• •• 103/ ....... ., ..... ... : ....
I ..J ' I I • •
. . .. f: i: I :'
01° _ ! :*: 1 .' :::. ••
-;' 1
0 .1
0 . ,
;.
•. -.
Radio
-TOwer
-I,
o -'
I . I I
; If :- (
I Re s
"
(..
. . .
-I
"
·T
Well [
. .. '
: :.1
Pf{"O'
:.": -
. .•••. ••• '?
... . . . .....
- • • 't,
II ::'.:::
. ' .
. ."
r
J
J
1 1
A H
VIII. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
The field survey of the project area was completed as of October 4, 1989. The results of the field study are as follows:
1.) No prehistoric resources were recorded during the field survey.
2.) The following project area historic resources were noted:
a.) Three irrigation canals. These are of concrete construction, and are almost certainly related to the agricultural development of the property, and the development of the citrus industry. Two of these canals bisect the central portion of the property. The third is located in the northeastern eastern portion of the property beneath the transmission lines. A date of construction has not been established at the present time, but they do represent component of a major irrigation network. It is, however, unlikely that these canals are associated with the Chinese occupation of the old Agua Mansa Church in the early twentieth century, and that they probably date to the 1930s or early 1940s. See Appendix B for photographs, and Appendix C for preliminary site records.
b.) An historic canal on the west side of Agua Mansa. This canal has already been recorded as historic, and is designated as the West Riverside Canal. This canal is discussed in greater detail in section VII of this report, and further documentation is contained in Appendix A, as provided by the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center.
c.) The Agua Mansa Cemetery and Church sites. These two historic sites are outside of the project area boundaries, but they are both immediately adjacent to it. They have both been previously recorded as significant sites, and are owned by the County of San Bernardino. Additional information regarding these sites is contained in Appendix A of this report, and background histories of Agua Mansa and the Agua Mansa Cemetery are contained in sections V and Vi of this report.
Quarry and mixing area for adobe used in the construction of Agua Mansa Church. This site is located on the top of the bluff and to the northeast of the cemetery. It is not known at the present time if this site is within your project area. This site is discussed in section V of this report, and an updated site sketch map is included as Appendix D.
Based upon the results of the field investigation, it would appear that there are no "fatal flaws" in the planning process with regards to cultural resources at this point in time, although it is suggested here that some mitigations measures may be required prior to the implementation of development plans. 10 '""R"8<"" '8 q -/::>' 3
HATHEWAY
PHOTO 6: CHURCH ADOBE nQUARRyn SITE
Y6 Co - 00 z.1 q'SCZ
(11 Sr?ft!. - 'r 9 H
t
., .. -- -- -
----.
--- I
/
RJ.- -- -
/ Set
OV-87 I X 2 Hub
EI 937 .20
/
866 .5
/ i-
,/ 866.5
\ i-
I
/
/
/
I f
8660
8660
86T C
'/ 'v
/ /
/ /
\ /
/
/
86l!. 5 /
/
863 .5
861 5
/, ,/I I I
,/
I "1/ .
..
Xavier
Timoteo
Martinez,
page 226
Captain
Jack,
page 30
Weaverville
Chinese
family,
page 775
Japanese
picture
brides,
page 767
Allensworth
Women,
page 68
George Deukmejian
Governor
Gordon Van Vleck
Secretary for Resources
Henry R. Agonia
Director. Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Kathryn Gualtieri
State Historic Preservation Officer
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 December 1988 ,/
--
... Xavier Timoteo Martinez, page 226 ,.
in California
Jose Pitti, Ph.D.
Professo r of History and Erhnic Srudies
California Stat e Univer sity. Sacramen to
Antonia Castaneda,
Ph.D. Candidate
Stanford University
Carlos Cortes, Ph.D.
Professor of History
University of California, Riverside
1. 2.
3. 4.
* 5.
* 6.
7. 8.
9. * 10.
11. 12.
13. * 14.
15. 16.
* 17.
18. 19.
20. * 21.
* 22.
23. 24.
25. 26.
* 27.
28. 29.
30. Historical Listing
II A History of Our Struggle" Mural, Los Angeles
A. Pereira General Store, Calaveras County
Agua Mansa Cemetery and Church, San
Bernardino County
Aguirre Hotel Site, San Francisco
Anjac Fashion Building, Los Angeles County
Asociacion de Charros Camperos del Valle,
Alameda County
BART Mural, San Francisco
Broderick/Washington City, Yolo County
Camarillo Home and Rancho, Ventura County
Casa Blanca School, Riverside County
Casa de Tableta, San Mateo County
Central Station, Los Angeles County
Centro Cultural de la Mision, San Francisco
Cerro Gordo, Inyo County
Cesar Chavez Family Home, Kern County
Chavez Ravine, Los Angeles County
Chicano Park, Logan Heights, San Diego County
Children's Mural, Los Angeles County
Chili Bar, EI Dorado County
Chualar Railroad Crossing, Monterey County
Cottage Hotel Site, Ventura County
Cuyama District Ranger Station, Ventura County
Death Valley Junction, Inyo County
Death Valley Railroad Construction Camp, Inyo
County
Depot, Butte County
Diaz Lake, Inyo County
Dodson's Rooming House Site, Sacramento County
Dona Santos, San Joaquin County
Drytown, Amador County
Duran's Showboat Bar, Los Angeles County
* Sites included in this report
259
•
. 'f16KH
9-2 .sc.JI Sunday, June 1, 1986 The press-Enterprise
•
-9 at church uln uncovers
brtifacts .Ie ::-: . by Chines.e . ' .
r,.7- Chinese farmers probably
taised crops in the vicinity of the
fJld Agua Mansa · Church after It ' Out of the
;"'as abandoned by Its Spanish-
st>eaking congregation and re-
placed by a new church in south
;;; . This is indicated by the find-
County's
Past
t"'g during a current archeological
of fragments of Chinese pot- Tom Patterson
Chinese fruit jars and bones
had been cut by cleaver.
Philip J. Wilke, head of the
lkR Archeological Research Unit
supervisor of the dig, says
}its suggests that Chinese vegeta-
gardens were situated on
rby rlverbottom land after the
rurch . building was abandoned.
... < The abandonment of the
:Church is believed to be have
;Occurred in 1893. when the It was
)'eplaced by a new one in south
tolton . The date is based on the
.Tlridings of ttie Rev. John Sierra of
who is studying the his-
tory of the Catholic churches of
the area.
Chinese in the 19th century
early in the 20th were not
allowed to own land in the United
States. but they operated "China
gardens" on leased land. primari-
ly; producing vegetables. One
!'luch farm was ne"r River side's
Filirmount Park. Another, operat-
ed by a man remembered as lit-
tle Joe. was In RubidOUX north of
Boulevard. Another. oper-
ated by Vee Lung Ching. called
Big Charlie. was south of Mission
I3oulevard. When the Riverside
s 'ewage disposal area was located
OIT the west side of the river,
before i.ts transriver pipeline was
--------
destroyed by the 1938 flood, Virgil
Chung grew vegetables there, us-
ing the sewer effluent for irriga-
tion.
All these operations were
carried on In the early 190Qs. Big
Charlie and Little Joe gardened
on land leased from the Riverside
Land & Irrigating Co.. a ' major
development firm of early River-
side and West Riverside (now Ru-
bidoux) .
In Riverside and many other
cities of the United States and
Canada. Chinese vegetable ped-.
dlers with horse-drawn wagons
- were traditional. One such ped- '
dler in Riverside was Little Joe
(probably a different Little Joe),
father of George Wong of River-
. side Chinatown fame.
The Agua Mansa Church dig
is an exercise of a class being '
taught at two-year Intervals by
Wilke for the UCR anthropology
department. Karen Swope is
teaching assistant for the project.
Early phases of the dig un-
earthed the foundations of the
church sanctuary, disclosing a
small room, probably a baptistry,
attached to the east wall. No Chi-
nese artifacts were found there.
TWo years ago, the dig was in
. the first part of the rectory, at-
tached to the west wall of the
church. It disclosed "a few" Chi-
nese artifacts, to which little sig-
nificance was attached. The cur-
rent dig is bringing out more frag-
ments, leading Wilke to remark:
"It seems to us that Chinese were
in the building while It was in
ruins."
Presumably, Chinese vegeta-
ble farming there was on leased
land, as In the later operations
nearer Riverside.
The twin villages of La Pla-
cita, on the east bank of river, and
. Agua Mansa (Gentle Water) on
the west bank, were founded in
1844 and 1845, respectively, by
settlers from New Mexico. They
were given the land in exchange
. for their help in fighting maraud-
. ing Indians from · Utah. The
Church of San Salvador was built
In 1852 In Agua Mansa to serve
.' both communities and has been
informally called the Old Agua
Mansa Church.
The great flood of 1862 dam-
aged the community. For that rea-
son, and because of pressure from
subsequent surrounding Anglo set-
tlements, the twin communities
never fully recovered.
The church bell, which had
been cast on the church grounds
In 1866, was moved to the new
Church of the Holy Rosary on
Congress Street in south Colton.
That church was destroyed by fire
in 1917. As part of the fund-rais-
ing effort for a new church. the
Philip Wilke,
hell was sold fo
Mission Inn in RiVE
still exists) . The
church at a new Ie
K Street. Collon. w
September 1918 :
earlier name of
(Holy Savior>.
The appearan ,
Mansa Church t:tas
later gener"tions '
drawing appearin l
"Ingersoll"s Centur:
Bernardino County,
recent years. a re
tl1"t drawing has bE
"
ve 5
were found there.
ago. the dig was in
of the rectory, at-
the west wall of the
disclosed "a few" Chi-
to which little sig-
was attached. The cur-
bringing out more frag-
ing Wilke to remark:
to us that Chinese were
ilding while it was in
mably. Chinese vegeta-
ng there was on leased
in the later operations
'verside.
villages of La Pla-
e east bank of river, and
nsa (Gentle Water) on
bank. were founded in
1845. respectively. by
om New Mexico. They
n the land in exchange
p in fighting maraud-
ns from Utah. The
San Salvador was built
Agua Mansa to serve
and has been
called the Old Agua
rcll,
reat flood of I H62 dam-
munity. For that rea-
use of pressure from
surrounding Anglo set-
the twin communities
y recovered.
hurch bell. which had
on the church grounds
moved to the new
f the Holy Rosary on
Street in south Colton.
was destroyed by fire
part of the fund-rais-
for a new church. the
TOM PATIERSON/The
Philip right. of the UCR archeological unit. supervises the Agua Mansa church dig. " ,
bell was sold for $500 to the
Mission Inn in Riverside (where it
still ' exists). The replacement
church at a new location on West
K Street. Colton. was dedicated ' in
September 1918 and given the
earlier name of San Salvador
(Holy Savior).
The appearance Of the Agua
Mansa Church !,las been known to
later generations chiefly from a
drawing appearing in' the 1940
"Ingersoll's Century Annals of San
Bernardino County. California." In
recent years. a repllca based on
that drawing has been built on the
grounds of the nearby Agua
Mansa Cemetery by the San Ber-
nardino County Museum Associa-
tion.
Archeological and other find-
ings have disclosed minor differ-
ences between the drawing and
the actual building, Including win-
dows and the baptistry addition.
not shown In the Ingersoll book
drawing.
The first dig at the Agua
Mansa site was done by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control
District in the course of a study of
the magnitude of the 1862 floOd ..
Eyewitnesses wrote that tht!
flood reached the church steps,
The steps were located and com-
putations made. which disclosed
that the flow exceeded 300.00Q
cubic feet per second. more than
three times the greatest subse:
quent flow. On this disclosur e;
vast new flood-control measures
have been found necessary.
chief danger is to Orange County.
where the river channel has been
narrowed by levees and where
buildings have been constructe4
on the flood plain .
-
ISOLATED ARCHAEOLOGICAL OCCURRENCE
I"'J(_ f (V«('- (
C.A - S'5r<:.-G oo?-H
I. Hap San Bernar d ino South 7. 5 ( 1 967/73) 2. County __ ______ __
3. Twp. 1 S Range 5 W Nu.f t; of t; of Sw t; of St t; of Sec.
4. Location Situated on t op a ri ve r t e rr ace , a pp rox imate l y 50 H wes t of SBr-157 6 . B e arin gs : S 60° E tb rid ge t op (1 389 '), S 10 0 E t o Qu a rr y P ea k (1 204').
_U:...T:...H.:..:C:..,:...I:...1 :.../ __ ______ 5. Con tou rei e vat i on ___ 9::.,;0:,:0:...' ___ _
6. Owner _____________________ 7. Address N of Ag ua H ansa Roa d and ca nal
8. Present tenant ____________ ____________________________________________ ___
9. Present land use. ________________________________________________________ ___
10. Description of occurrence Seve n she rds o f Tiz on B rO\·m ware f ragmen t s . historic faun a l r ema in s ( s hee p and c at tl e) with saw cu ts . hi sto ri c a 1ass
11. Are a___________________ 1 2. 0 i men s ion 5 __________________________________ _
13. vegetation __ ______________________ ___
14. Nearest water Sant a A na Ri ve r 15. Distance 1/8 m i. so ut h
16. Soil ____ ______________________________________________ __
17. Previous alteration/disturbance/intrusion A concr e t e ca na l run s a l ong th e south s ide and a bul ld oze r cu t r uns th rough the ce nt e r
18. Possibility of destruction Di s tur bed and /o r d es troy e d
19. Explanation or interpretat on Thi s de p os it may rep re se nt a ll t hat rema in s of an hi s tori c tr as h du mo alt Hough t he re i s no s tr a tigr aphi c prof il e e vi den t to illustr a t e a co ntinu ous inJ ens i ve o r intr us ive d epos jt
20. Remarks/suggestions ____________________________________________________ ___ 2 1. Ac ce s s i on No. __ .:..:N::.o.....:c::.o..;,I..;,1 ____________ _'2 2. S ke t c h ma p. ____ :..:.No"'-________ _
23. Date Sep t. 6, 1978 24. Photos __ __________________________ __
25. Recorded by Jo hn Roman i. A I an C o rb i n
26. Project or report G rce nwo d & A s soc. fo r Will iams Bros. \0
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
PAGE: 1 OF 6 PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: (!11-S13R-69'fvt/
DATE OF ORIGINAL RECORD: N/A TEMPORARY NUMBER: SBS-W #6 DATE OF THIS FORM: 12/18/90 AGENCY DESIGNATION: PI074-124H
1. COUNTY: Rive!side- SAJ-l l3C:=«:'Ynz:Dl)..Jo
2. USGS QUAD: San Bern. So. 7.5' 1967 REVISED: 1980
3. UTM COORDINATES: ZONE 11 466260m Easting; 3766500 m Northing
4. TOWNSHIP IS RANGE SW, not sectioned
BASE MER. SBM
5. MAP COORDINATES: 391 mrn S 37 mrn E
6. ELEVATION: 900 ft.
7. LOCATION: From la, take the Riverside Avenue exit and proceed south to Agua Mansa Road. si te is 1 oca ted 20 meters northeast of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Agua Mansa Road.
8. PREHISTORIC HISTORIC X PROTOHISTORIC
9. SITE DESCRIPTION: Irrigation system comprised of an east/west running conc ret e/mortar lined cana 1 (Feature A: Wes t Ri verside Canal); isolated cement standpipes to the west (Feature B); a north/ south running cement 1 ined flume wi th cement standpipes (Feature C), and a concentration of standpipe fragments, barbed wire, wooden beams and associated trash (Feature D).
10. AREA: unknown
Method:
11. DEPTH: surface
m (length) x m (width); N/A
METHOD: N/A
12. FEATURES: Cement standpipes have flow regulators. Standpipes vary in diameter (45, 36, and 23 em.) and construction techniques.
The standpipes and flume of Feature C run north and upslope to (X)
13. ARTIFACTS: None
14. NON-ARTIFACTUAL CONSTITUENTS: None observed.
15. DATE OF ORIGINAL RECORD: N/A DATE OF THIS FORM: 12/18/90
16. RECORDED BY: James J. Schmidt, Kathy VanderVeen, James Kenney, and Lisa LeCount
17. AFFILIATION: Greenwood and Associates, 725 Jacon Way, 725 Jacon Way, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
(213) 454-3091
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
PAGE:2 OF 6
DATE OF ORIGINAL RECORD: N/A
DATE OF THIS FORM: 12/18/90
18. HUMAN REMAINS: None observed.
PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: SB,..::.-6Qf..(""JH
TEMPORARY NUMBER: SBS-W #6
AGENCY DESIGNATION: PI074-124H
19. SITE INTEGRITY: Good.
system.
We 11 preserved, extensi ve i rriga ti on
20. NEAREST WATER:
21 . VEGETATION COMMUNITY (SITE VICINITY): Ruderal.
22 . VEGETATION COMMUNITY (ON SITE): Same.
REFERENCES FOR ABOVE: N/A
23 . SITE SOIL: Coarse brown sand.
24 . SURROUNDING SOIL: Same as 23
25 . GEOLOGY: Granite gravels.
26. LANDFORM: Riverine terrace.
27. SLOPE: 0-5 degrees south 28. EXPOSURE: Open
29. LANDOWNERS(S), (TENANTS), ADDRESS: Unknown.
30. REMARKS:
32. REFERENCES:
33. NAME OF PROJECT: Metropol i tan Water District Inl and Feeder Project Cultural Resource Investigation.
34. TYPE OF INVESTIGATION: Preliminary surface reconnaissance
35. SITE ACCESSION NO.: CURATED AT:
36. PHOTOS: Overviews, B & W prints. TAKEN BY: James Schmidt
37. PHOTO ACCESSION NO. N/A ON FILE AT: Greenwood and Associates
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE LOCATION MAP
PAGE: 3 OF 6/
DATE OF ORIGINAL RECORD:
DATE OF THIS FORM: 12/18/90
U.S.G.B. 7.5' QUADRANGLE: San
PERMANENT TRINOMIAL:
TEMPORARY NUMBER:
AGENCY DESIGNATION:
Bernardino South
,?O,Z - 6 '14---:> H
SBS-W #6
P1074-124H
I-
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE
Permanent Trinomial: - 6/t<t<J II / __ ______ __ __
mo. yr.
MAP Temporuy Numb«: ...... ____________________ __
p. ----1L- of 6 P1074-l24H AQency Designation: _____________________________ _ <ll
> -<
<ll
'"0
' M
U'l
H
<ll
>
'M
0::
o o /
/
/
I I I
I I
o o , B'
I
I
I
E
o
o
I
/
/ I
- --,
I', I
I " I
J Co 11 aps ed
I metal1fence L----- _J
I
I
I
I
/
I
--- ........ " I
I
J
/
J
o
\ I con c en t r a tli
'0' 7 I
Rubble
/ I
\
\.
/
/'
./
- --.....1 I // \
/
\ Bulldozer scrJpe
" / '----""
----- - 39m
Agua Mansa Road
Legend
() Cement standpipes
Area of impact
Letters correspond to site description
Not to scale
Mansa
V Museum
o Flag pole
Standpipes with flume frag
DPR 422F (Rev. 8/821
State of California - The R.,ources Agencv
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Continuation Sheet
Pwmanent Trinomial: - 6'1 '10 /1 / 1 2 90
mo. yr.
______________________ __
P.ge --L of -L . AgencY O_enation:, _________________________________ _ Item No. Continuation
Feature "e"
1. Flume 1+2 . ztt'
r------
9.5"_
14. 2. Standpipe
\---9"
1 1
Water outlet with sliding door
Not to scale
CPR 422C (Re.. 81821
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD - CONTINUATION
PAGE: {iOF 6 PERMANENT TRINOMIAL:
DATE OF ORIGINAL RECORD: TEMPORARY NUMBER: SBS-W #6
DATE OF THIS FORM: 12/18/90 AGENCY DESIGNATION:
CONTINUATION
ITEM NO.
( 12. ) an extensive network of standpipes. The poor 1 y preserved, cement lined flume runs 310 meters northwest to the top of a ridge to a gate (composed of a large threaded screw) which controls water flowing into the flume. The flume contains flow =egulators identical to those found on the standpipes (see profiles) .
The east/west canal (Feature A) is well preserved. This cement lined canal parallels Agua Mansa Road.
Standpipes: The smallest are those associated with the flume.
They appear to be poorly shaped, possibly formed in place.
Larger standpipes were manufactured to a standardized size and form.
I I
1 ]
. J
{I
tI
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Ser. No. __________ _
HABS __ HAER __ Loc ___ SHL No. __ NR Status __ _
UTM: A C --------HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY B 0 ______ _
IDENTIFICATION
1. Common name: A 9 ric u J t u r a 1 I r rig a t ion Can a 1 s
2. Historic name: ____________________________________ _
3. Street or rural ____ _
Citv .... __ .o.JN""I .... A;j...... ___________ Zip __ .:...:.N.J../.:..A:-__ County San Be rna r din 0
4. Parcel number: ______ ____________________________ __
5. Present Owner: ___ J.oC""aI..J1uM;.J.J;j,a...lot ______________ Address: .,.;N:..:..:../..:..A!....-_________ _ City ____ --l.1NJ../.L;lA'--_____ Zip N I A Ownership is: Public _____ Private _.;..;X ____ _
6. Present Use: ___ _____ Original use: ___ ______ _
DESCR IPTION
Architectural style: N / A 7a.
7b. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major al terations from its original condition:
Three irrigation canals are located within the proposed project area. Canal #1 extends from the southwest corner of the property, near the northwest corner of the cemetery, to a point in the north central portion of the project area. Canal #2 extends from the approximate middle of the project area to a point beneath the power lines in the northeast portion of the property. Canal #3 is located beneath the power lines in the central portion of the eastern boundary of the project area. The canals are of open-box concrete construction, measuring approximately 15 inches in width by 8 inches in depth. A portion of canal #2 is built of brick (distribution station), and portions of the canal have been laid with metal pipe .
Attach Photo Envelope Here 8.
9. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS 10.
11. 12.
DPR 523 (Rev. 11/85)
Construction date:
Estimated 1 940 Factual
Architect None
Builder Unknown
Approx. property size (in feet)
Frontage Depth ___ _
or approx. acreaqe._----:;9;,...O=--__ _
Date (s) of enclosed photogr;rph (s)
October 1989
j
J
1 ,
P3G, -
")#
13. Condition: Excellent __ Good __ Fair __ Deteriorated No longer in existence __ _
14. Alterations: Deterioration of system
15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land Scattered buildings __ Densely built·up __ _ Residential __ lndustrial __ Commercial __ Other: AglJa Mansa Cemetery
16. . X Threats to site: None known __ Pnvate development __ Zoning __ Vandalism __ Public Works project __ Other:
17. Is the structure: On its original site? Moved? ___ _ Unknown? ___ _ Three canals and distribution system 18. Related features: ______________ _ SIGNIFICANCE . . .
19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site.) The canals are clearly associated with the agricultural development of the property, and most probably with the development of the citrus industry. A date of construction has not yet been determined, but they were likely constructed during the period extending from the mid-1930s to the mid-1940s.
Earlier use of this property for irrigation purposes has been noted as having been associated with the post-1900 use of the Agua Mansa Church site by Chinese laborers. It is unlikely that these canals are associated with this period of development as they represent a relatrvely substantial capital investment. They are, however, a part of a once large irrigation network, and would appear to have the potential to yield information regarding the development of such systems.
Locational sketch map (draw and label site and
surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks):
20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is checked, number in order of importance.) nNORTH
Architecture Arts & Leisure ______ _
Economic/Industrial LExploration/Settlement ___ _
Government Military ________ _
Religion Social/Edycation _____ _
21. Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews and thei r dates).
22. See Bibliography of
this report.
October 1989 Date form prepared _______ _
By (name) R 0 9 erG. Hat hew a ¥
A . . Hatheway & Assoclates rganlzatlon _ .
Address: 2 3301 - A LaG lor 1 e t
C't Mis s ion Vie J 0 Zip 9269 1
IY , ( 714) 458-1245 Phone : __ ________ _
SEE ATTACHED MAPS
\
Well
-.... , . ,. - ' <rl"
'- "-.I "
'- .-. "
"'''1 ' .
'- -.... :, : !_ ......
. _--... ---
o
Wells
""".
.. :.:.
\. ......... --- ,
.\..# . : " • ..-
\ ;;_:: ---.... '.
..... ··< i .. .
." \->_
\ . .-'.
-" ..... -. . -.
. \
. '-
, -.
.:: . .' : . .. b.. "\
': ',),.' ....
\ . , .
o
<b ;' .
• ·:f=--
"'-\-
\ • Well
.
.J "
:
...
i?'$OlX:, J . . ' .", . . . ' .. . - t .
/ ......
--- . -.... . . . . . . . ' .
.
I .. ·.
]
HATHEWAY
PHOTO 1: PROJECT AREA IRRIGATION CANAL #1
1 1
-{'/t'!-0 II
HATHEWAY
PHOTO 2: PROJECT AREA IRRIGATION CANAL #2
·.
'J
" .
r
•
HATHEWAY
PHOTO 3: PROJECT AREA IRRIGATION CANAL #3
I" .
. . ,
i....
f;'
III\TIt£WI\Y
PHOTO 4: PROJECT AREA CANAL--DETAIL OF CONSTRUCTION
VIII. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
The field survey of the project area was completed as of October 4, 1989. The results of the field study are as follows:
1.) No prehistoric resources were recorded during the field survey.
2.) The following project area historic resources were noted:
a.) Three irrigation canals. These are of concrete construction, and are almost certainly related to the agricultural development of the property, and the development of the citrus industry. Two of these canals bisect the central portion of the property. The third is located in the northeastern eastern portion of the property beneath the transmission lines. A date of construction has not been established at the present time, but they do represent component of a major irrigation network. It is, however, unlikely that these canals are associated with the Chinese occupation of the old Agua Mansa Church in the early twentieth century, and that they probably date to the 1930s or early 1940s. See Appendix B for photographs, and Appendix C for preliminary site records.
b.) An historic canal on the west side of Agua Mansa. This canal has already been recorded as historic, and is designated as the West Riverside Canal. This canal is discussed in greater detail in section VII of this report, and further documentation is contained in Appendix A, as provided by the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center.
c.) The Agua Mansa Cemetery and Church sites. These two historic sites are outside of the project area boundaries, but they are both immediately adjacent to it. They have both been previously recorded as significant sites, and are owned by the County of San Additional information regarding these sites is
contained in Appendix A of this report, and background histories of Agua Mansa and the Agua Mansa Cemetery are contained in sections V and Vi of this report.
d.) Quarry and mixing area for adobe used in the construction of the Agua Mansa Church. This site is located on the top of the bluff and to the northeast of the cemetery. It is not known at the present time if this site is within your project area. This site is discussed in section V of this report, and an updated site sketch map is included as Appendix D.
Based upon the results of the field investigation, it would appear that there are no "fatal flaws" in the planning process with regards to cultural resources at this point in time, although it is suggested here that some mitigations measures may be required prior to the implementation of development plans. 10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
PAGE: 1 OF PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172H/CA-RIV-4791-H OTHER DESIGNATIONS: P1074-11SH/P1074-116H/MFA-4H/
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. COUNTY: Riverside/San Bernardino
Riverside Lower Canal
''j£J-1/tIUj-=R-P3rcrt!JO t 7/79-
USGS QUADRANGLES: San Bernardino, South 7.5 minute (1967:Photorevised-1980); Riverside West, 7.5 minute (1967:Photorevised-1980); Riverside East, 7.5 minute (1967:Photorevised-1980); Corona North, 7.5 minute (1967:Photo- revised-1981; Corona South, 7.5 minute {1967:Photorevised-1988}.
UTM COORDINATES: Zone 11: 468010m-3767200m EASTING/NORTHING (northern terminus); 451610m-3747410m EASTING/NORTHING (southern terminus).
TOWNSHIP: 2S; RANGE: 4W; SECTIONS: Unsectioned portions of Rancho Jurupa; TOWNSHIP: IS; RANGES: 4W/5W; SECTIONS: Unsectioned portions of Rancho Jurupaj TOWNSHIP: 2Sj RANGE: 5Wj SECTIONS: 33, 34; TOWNSHIP: 3S; RANGE 5Wj SECTIONS:
4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19j TOWNSHIP: 3Sj RANGE: 6W; SECTIONS: Unsectioned portions of Rancho El Sobrante de San Jacinto. BASE MERIDIAN: San Bernardino.
MAP COORDINATES: 214mm NORTH
35mm SOUTH
109mm EAST [northern terminus] (SW corner).
91mm WEST [southern terminus] (NE corner).
6. ELEVATION: 870 feet (northern terminus}j 720 feet (southern terminus).
7. LOCATION: The northern terminus of the Riverside Lower Canal is located along the base of the La Loma Hills on the south side of the Santa Ana River. The canal travels approximately 17.8 miles northeast-southwest to its southern terminus at Temescal Canyon, east of Magnolia Avenue in Home Gardens. The Upper and Lower canals joined at Hughes Alley approximately 5.2 miles northeast of the Temescal Canyon terminus.
8. PREHISTORIC __ ; HISTORIC X PROTOHISTORIC __ ; ETHNOGRAPHIC __
9. SITE DESCRIPTION: Construction of an Upper and Lower Canal systems occurred from 1870 to 1877. The headworks for the canal was located on the south side of the Santa Ana River, about a half a mile downstream from the present Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad bridge, near the base of the La Loma Hills. The canal passed through La Placita, High Grove and Riverside, Arlington Heights and Home Gardens. The section of the canal in La Loma Hills, from the Santa Ana River to Spring Street was abandoned around 1886 where remnants still remain. Portions of the Lower Canal were used {and are still used} as a flood control channel after its abandonment as an irrigation canal in 1913.
10. AREA: 28,455 meters in length (93,900 feet - 17.8 miles].
METHOD OF DETERMINATION: Historic maps; research
11. DEPTH OF DEPOSIT: The open canal was approximately 91 cm. [3 feet] to 122 cm. [4 feet] below ground surface. Underground pipes, conduits and other related features exist along its route. METHOD OF DETERMINATION: Historical research.
12. FEATURES: Earthen and cement-lined canal with headgates; levees; flume remainsj canal intakes; gate controls; intakes; siphons and conduits.
13. ARTIFACTS: See feature description.
14. NON-ARTIFACTUAL CONSTITUENTS AND FAUNAL REMAINS: None observed.
15. DATE RECORDED: 6-11-92 16. RECORDED BY: Robert Wlodarski -001 ) I c7--
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
PAGE: 2. OF PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172H/CA-RIV-4791-H OTHER DESIGNATIONS: P1074-115H/PI074-116H/HFA-4H/
Riverside Lower Canal
17. AFFILIATION: Historical, Environmental, Archaeological, Research, Team, 5516 Las Virgenes Road, Calabasas, California 91302-1080, (818) 880-6338
18. HUMAN REMAINS: None observed
19. INTEGRITY OF SITE/SITE DISTURBANCES: Poor to Good. Although portions of the canal route have been abandoned, other parts exist as either structural remains (La Lorna Hills); partially buried or covered sections; or, as an open canal now used for flood control purposes (Jefferson Street to Temescal Canyon. )
20. NEAREST WATER: Type: Temescal Canyon at the southern terminus and the Santa Ana River at the northern terminus.
21. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (site vicinity): Non-native plants/agricultural crops.
22. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (on-site): Non-native plants/agricultural crops.
23. SITE SOIL: Alluvial fan and terrace deposits; alluvial adobe; gray claYi marly earth; and heavy red mesa soil.
24. SURROUNDING SOIL: Alluvial fan and terrace deposits and gravels.
25. GEOLOGY: Recent alluvium/Pleistocene Non-marine Sedimentary Deposits/Mesozoic Granitic Rocks.
26. LANDFORM: Santa Ana river; floodplain; alluvial fan and terrace.
27. SLOPE: Less than 10 percent. 28. EXPOSURE: !otal.
29. LANDOWNER/TENANT (Address): City of Riverside Public Utilities Department, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, California 92522.
30. REMARKS: The construction of the Upper and Lower Riverside canals allowed Riverside to grow and flourish. Without water, there was nothing but dry, arid, undeveloped land which could not sustain a large settlement. The canal system still appears to possess integrity of location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling and association that have made a significant contribut- ion to local and regional history .
31. REFERENCES: San Bernardino and Riverside 15 min. USGS (1901 editions); Scott (1976) Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California; Tom Patterson, "Cracking the case of the egg-shaped cross section [The Press Enterprise, Sunday, October 27, 1991]; (n.d.) Map of the Upper and Lower Riverside Canals [City of Riverside Public Utilities Department-Ken Anderson] .
32. NAME OF PROJECT: An Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) Documenting the Effects of Widening Interstate 215 (1-215) From the Route 60/1-125 Interchange in Moreno Valley, Riverside County, to Orange Show Road in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California.
33. TYPE OF INVESTIGATION: Phase 1 Archaeological Study.
34. SITE ACCESSION NUMBER: None. CURATED AT: None.
35. PHOTOGRAPHS: None TAKEN BY: N/A
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Continuation Sheet
PAGE: J. or .!! PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172H/CA-Riv-4791-H OTHER DESIGNATIONS: Pl074-115H/Pl074-116H/HrA-4H/
Riverside Lower Canal
LOCATION OF THE
RI VERSIDE LOWER CANAL
N
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT or PARKS AND RECREATION
.i or PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172HiCA-Riy-4791-H
OTHER DESIGNATIONS: Pl074-115HiPl074-116HiHfA-4Hi
Riverside Lower Canal
,s.' / .. / ...• . •
\,/
f' .§O>- '.n
.1'6'
-9,
/ . ......,.--9
. < ' .. <'
/
f.)- 0;>- ?'-
<l-
.".00". -'$I".
o'\. .....
....... " .... .,. ... .......
.J-\ . ;';... L 0 JvJ 110$
' .. ' 600-<_
'. .'.
state of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
Continuation Sheet
OF 1! PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172H!CA-Riv-4791-H
OTHER DESIGNATIONS: PI074-115H!PI074-116H!MFA-4H!
Riverside Lower Canal
'.
8 ---. -........
-State of California - The Resources Agency ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Continuation Sheet DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PAGE: OF §. PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172H/CA-Riv-4791-H OTHER DESIGNATIONS: Pl074-115H/Pl074-116H/MFA-4H/
Riverside Lower Canal
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Continuation Sheet
PAGE: 1 OF PERMANENT TRINOMIAL: CA-SBr-7172H/CA- Riv-4791-H OTHER DESIGNATIONS: Pl074-115H/Pl074-116H/MFA-4H/
Riverside Lower Canal t:
"-
-
. ,.
U I'"
CANAL IN -1,.)1:·
WASH AND t
ro TEMES 4" "
WA)R Co. PIPE LI . ",' if' • • 1"
• I' .,
- ti '
t'" i>l
• , .. ' .,+,
t)
,\"".,
" .,J
.....
",'
0/\
"t..d .,.. "
t t . '1'1.
.' '.. 1 I '. (
,Jf_& " .. (
p-t"'tl
"
'r.· ..
......
%.
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
§. OF §.
.
" ,., '
PERMANENT TRINOMIAL:
OTHER DESIGNATIONS:
/
: i'
r- .
t : .:...".:'
J
' ..
'"
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Continuation Sheet
:rt.
\5
fort 440
State of California Primary # ___ --1....:...
DEPARTMENT F PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# ____________________ __ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________ _
Page _1_of --.L * Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) AMB Property - Agua Mansa, SB Co. (Job 1362) P1. Identifier: Isolated Adobe Bricks
*P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication X Unrestricted
*a. County: San Bernardino and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary .) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Bernardino South Date 1980 R 5W ; NW % of SW % of Sec. ; SB B.M. c. Address Agua Mansa Road City Colton Zip 92324
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11 , mEl mN e . Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Souoth side of Agua Mansa Road; East of Riverside Avenue; Opposite the Agua Mansa Cemetery. ·P3a.Description: (Describe resource and its major elements . Include design, materials, condition, alterations , size, setting , and boundaries) Two relatively small fragments of adobe brick.
·P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AP-16 (Isolated find) *P4. Resources Present: 0 Building 0 Structure 0 Object 0 Site 0 District 0 Element of District X Other (Isolates, etc.) See attached P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) See Attached Continuation Sheet
*P6. Date of Construction/Age and Source
X Historic o Prehistoric o Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
AMB Property Corporation
17777 Center Court Drive N, Suite 100
Cerritos, California 90703
*P8. Recorded by: (Name , affiliation, and address)
Jeanette A. McKenna (McKenna et al.)
6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, California 90601-3724
(562) 696-3852 (562) 693-4059 FAX
·P9. Date Recorded: Oct. 13,2008
*P10. Survey Type: Archaeological Monitoring
·P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none".) McKenna, Jeanette A. (2008) - Results of an Archaeological Monitoring at the AMB Property Corporation Site in Colton, San Bernardino County, California. On file, McKenna et aI., Whittier, California
*Attachments: NONE X Location Map X Continuation Sheet 0 Building, Structure, and Object Record o Archaeological Record 0 District Record 0 Linear Feature Record 0 Milling Station Record o Rock Art Record 0 Artifact Record 0 Photograph Record 0 Other (List):
DPR523A (Revised McKenna et at 3/08) * Reouired Information State of California Primary # __________ _
DEPARTMENT F PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# ______________________ _ LOCATION MAP Trinomial ___________ _
Page ...Lof--L
*Name of Map:
* Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) AMB Property - Agua Mansa, SB Co. (Job 1362) USGS San Bernardino South *Scale: 1 : 24000 *Oate of Map 1980 . 3 0 "
\
;; . ..
V/. ' \ , .,
\
" ,
. .. \t
316& • , <:., \
1 S ,'- • 81';1,,'. .
I
, .. :...91§ _____ + ___________ _
. 2 S t ,: .... :' ,
Ii' " D W,,, \
I,
lr
3165 \
I
11 0000 \ . :0
[ ('J) I . ,
. J
"
.'/
Y
\ »
<.
r
\
\
\ .
,
. '
Well
Rad io
Towe r
()
.g
"--""- ...
, ..... \
" , ' . . ' \
Location of Two Adobe
Brick Fragments
Wei
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
\
\
-...
\
\
I
\
ti l" , ,
, \
)
,
I
I
State of California Primary # __________ _
DEPARTMENT F PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# ____________________ __ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ---------------
* Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) AMB Property, Agua Mansa, SB Co. (Job 1362) Adobe Brick Fragments
•
•
•
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary# o.:;)./rcD3
HRI# __________ --:=::-:-J
Trinomial c:u--PRIMARY RECORD
NRHP Status Code ----------------
Other Listings ______________ -=---:- ________________ ----=,---:-____________ _ Review Code Reviewer Date
Page_1_ of L *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) CNX-1 P1. Other Identifier: S. Riverside Avenue and W. Slover Avenue Tank Farm *P2. Location: 0 Not for Publication [R] Unrestricted
*a. County: San Bernardino and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7 .• Quad San Bernardino South Date 1980 T 1 S; R 5W; .sw-'!. of sw- 'I. of Sec*. B.M. c. Addres 176 E Slover Ave City Colton Zip 92324 -- ;;l{p d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10, 768548 mEl 3916769 mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Between CNX milepost 0-1,0.4 miles south of 1-10. Nearest cross streets are S Riverside Avenue and W Slover Avenue.
Approximately 125ft south of the area of direct impact of the CNX project. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) CNX-1 is a historic-period actively-used storage tank built between 1955 and 1966. The tanks are cylindrical and several have been altered with new caps and improvements to the exterior staircases. The tanks are three stories high and sit back behind a chain link fence and non-historic period concrete block wall. Tanks have been added between 1968 and 1980, and also within the past 15 years. The property has an industrial use and is generally surrounded by open space to the south, similar industrial property uses to the east, single and multi-family residences to the north, and commercial and retail buildings to the west and north. CNX-1 is located almost a half-mile south of Interstate 10 within the City of Colton, and is located approximately 125-to 250-feet south of area of direct impact caused by the CNX project. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ; Industrial Building - HP8 P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
*P4. Resources Present: OBuilding [R]Structure
OObject OSite ODistrict OElement of District
OOther (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #)
View to the East-Southeast, August 2008
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: [R]Historic
OPrehistoric OBoth
1955-1966 per USGS Map Survey
*P7. Owner and Address:
Unknown
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
Jeremy Hollins - URS Corp.
1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108-4314
*P9. Date Recorded:
August 2008
*P10. SurveyType: (Describe) Pedestrian Survey
L-__________________________________________________ -' *Pll. Report Ci ta tion:
(Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Proposed Calnev Expansion Report, California Portion, San Bernardino County, CA. Architectural History Survey *Attachments: ONONE OLocation Map [R]Continuation Sheet [R]Building, Structure, and Object Record OArchaeological Record ODistrict Record OLinear Feature Record OMiliing Station Record ORock Art Record OArtifact Record OPhotograph Record OOther (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
•
•
•
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary ________ _ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ______________ --=---_
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page _2_ of _3 _ *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CNX-1
B1. Historic Name: N/A
B2. Common Name: N/A
B3. Original Use: Heavy Industry
B4. Present Use: Heavy Industry
*85. A rchitectural Style: Industrial, Engineering Structure *8 6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The tanks are cylindrical and several have been altered with new caps and improvements to the exterior staircases. The tanks sit back behind a chain link fence and non-historic period concrete block wall. Tanks have been added between 1968 and 1980, and also within the past 15 years *87. Moved? X No Yes Unknown Date: -------- Original Loc ation: _____ _ *8 8. Related Features:
N/A
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: N/A
*810. Significance: Theme N /A Area Colton, San Bernardino Period of Significance N/A Property Type Industrial
Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The historical significance of CNX-1 within the historic architecture APE was determined by applying the procedure and criteria for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA
Based on site investigations and historic research, CNX-1 does not appear to possess the requiSite significance to be eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR or considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. (See Continuation Sheet)
B11 . Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *81 2. References:
(See Continuation Sheet)
B13. Remarks:
*8 14. Evaluator: Jeremy Hollins - URS Corporation
*Date of Evaluation: September 2008
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 5238 (1/95)
San Bernardino South 7.5-Minute Series USGS Map
*Required information
•
•
•
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary # *--OdlC,03
HRI# ____________________________ __
Trinomial, ______________ __
Page _3_ of _3_ *Resourc e Name or # (Assigned by recorder) CNX-1 *Recorded by: URS Corporation *Date September 2008 X Continuation Update *810. Continued
CNX-1 lacks a distinctive or distinguishing design, and does not appear to have an important association with a specific significant event, pattern of events, or individual. While the tank farm has been in operation for approximately 50 years, it does not reflect the industry's importance in Colton or San Bernardino County. Throughout its existence, it has experienced numerous additions and alterations, which have affected its visual appearance and ability to convey its historic period. In summary, the plant is representative of the utilitarian structures found in similar sites within San Bernardino County. Therefore, CNX-1 does not appear to possess the requisite significance to be individually eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR or considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. An additional and/or subsurface pipeline, which would be located near the north boundary of the property, would not create a new adverse effect or significant impact to CNX-1.
For a property to qualify for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, besides meeting one of the Criteria, it must also retain a Significant amount of its historic integrity. CNX-1 does not appear to retain a significant amount of its historic integrity aspects of design, feeling, materials, and association to be eligible to qualify for listing in the NRHP or CRHR or be considered a historical resource for purposes of CEQA. *812. References
United States Geological Survey. San Bernardino South, 7.5-Minute, 1904, 1967, 1980.
View to the South
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
IState ofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#36—025601 DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#________________________________ PRIMARYRECORDTrinomialH
NRliPStahisCoäe6Z
OtherListings________________________________
ReviewCodeReviewerDate
Pagelof3*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder)CEMTECH2712—2 P1.OtherIdentifier:
*p2.Location:NotforPublicationUnrestricted*a.CountySanBernardino and(P2bandP2corP2d.AttachaLocationMapasnecessary.)
*b.USGS7.5’QuadSanBernardinoSouth,Calif.Date1980photorevisedin1979 T1SR5WNW/NESec30S.B.B.M.(aportionoftheJurupa[Stearnsllandgrant) Elevation:Approximately885feetabovemeansealevel
c.Address650AguaMansaRoadCityColton,CAZip92316
d.UTM:(Givemorethanoneforlargeandlorlinearresources)Zonell;467312mEl3767517mN UTMDerivation:USGSQuadIGPS
e.OtherLocationalData:(e.g.,parcel#,directionstoresource,etc.,asappropriate)APN0260—072—02; onthesouthsideofAguaMansaRoadatDunnRanchRoad.
*p3a.Description:(Describeresourceandtsmajorelements.Includedesign,mateñals,condition,alterations,size, setting,andboundaries)Theone—storyresidentialbuildingat650AguaMansaRoad appearstobetheproductofjoininganolderrectangularwood—framedmassand apre—formedrectangularmoduleofsimilarsizebutaboutafootlesstall.
Thesetwohalvesareslightlyoffsetbyaboutthreefeet,withbothhalves surmountedbyflatroofsendinginmediumeaveswithexposedraftersand fasciaboardspaintedblue.Theexteriorwallsonthefrontmassarevertical boards,whiletherearportionwallarehorizontalboardswith(Continuedon p.3)
*p3b.ResourceAttributes:(Listattributesandcodes)HP2:Singlefamilyproperty *4ResourcesPresent:‘IBuildingStructureObjectSiteDistrictElementofDistrict Other(isolates,etc.)
________________________________
P5b.DescriptionofPhoto:Photo
takenonMay17,2013;viewto
thenortheast
*p6.DateConstructed!AgeofSources:
‘HistoricPrehistoricBoth
Ca.1912/1970s(seeItemsB6
andB12fordetails)
*7OwnerandAddress:Aguq
MansaProperties,Ontario,CA
*p8.Recordedby(Name,affiliation,and
address):TernJacquemainand
DanielBallester,CRMTECH,
1016EastCooleyDrive,Suite
A/B,Colton,CA92324
p9DateRecorded:May17,2013
*p1O.SueyType:Intensive—
levelsurveyforCEQA—
compliancepurposes
*P11.ReportCitation:(Citesurveyreportandothersources,orenter“none.”)Tang,Bai“Tom,Tern Jacquemain,andDanielBallester:Historical/ArchaeologicalResourcesSurvey Report:Assessor’sParcelNumbers0260—072—01to—04,0260—072—15and—016, CityofColton,SanBernardinoCounty,California.Onfile,Archaeological InformationCenter,SanBernardinoCountyMuseum,Redlands.
P5a.PhotographorDrawing(Photographrequiredforbuildings, structures,andc’’’—.)
I
*Aftachments:
______None
LocationMap‘IContinuationSheet‘IBuilding,Structure,andObjectRecord ______Archaeological
RecordDistrictRecordLinearResourceRecordMillingStationRecord ______Rock
ArtRecordArtifactRecordPhotographRecordOther(List):___________________________ DPR523A(1/95)*Requiredinformation
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#36—025601
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#______________________ jDI
STRUCTURE,
AND
OBJECT
RECORD
Page2of3*NRHPStatusCode6Z
*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder)CBMTECH2712—2
91.HistoricName:B2.CommonName:_____________________________ B3.OriginalUse:ResidenceB4.PresentUse:Vacant
*B5.ArchitecturalStyle:
*B6.ConstructionHistory:(Constructiondate,alterations,anddateofalterations)TheSanBernardino CountyAssessorrealpropertydatabaseindicatesthata948square—foot residencewasfirstconstructedonthepropertyin1912,aproperty improvementthatneverthelesswasnottaxeduntilaround1926,whenW.E.
Heatlieacquired(Continuedonp.3)
*B7.Moved?NoYes
‘1UnknownDate:_____OriginalLocation:____________________________ *B8.RelatedFeatures:SeeItemP3a.
B9a.Architect:Unknownb.Builder:Unknown
*Blo.Significance:ThemeEarly—20thcenturyresidentialdevelopment AreaAguaMansaPeriodofSignificance1912—1945
PropertyTypesingle-familyresidenceApplicableCriteriaN/A (Discussimportanceintermsofhistoricalorarchitecturalcontextasdefinedbytheme,period,andgeographic scope.Alsoaddressintegrity.)Thebuildingat650AguaMansaRoadishasbeen extensivelymodified,evidentlyincludinganoriginalcomponentthatmaydate to1912,andamodernmodularunitthatlikelydatestothe1970s.Extensive historicalresearchyieldedlittleinformationregardingitsearlyownersor (Continuedonp.3)
Bi1.AdditionalResourceAttributes:(Listattributesandcodes)___________________________________________________ *B12.References:Bortin,Harry(1965):GreatDuckWeatherAin’tWhatIt’sQuackedUp ToBe.ThePasadenaStar-NewsNovember23:3;CountyofSanBernardino,County Assessorrecordsandpropertyinformationdatabase;Scauzillo,Steve(2012) FormerOwnerof605DuckFarmNowaPasoRoblesVintner.TheWhittierDaily NewsFebruary2;O’Neill’sGhostories(2008)TheBarrens:DogWalker
6...(submittedbyM.E.)Http://www.blakbirdz.com/barrensusaguamansa.htm B13.Remarks:Thebuildinglieswithin
themappedboundariesof36—
015221(AguaMansa),it’s
constructiondatepostdatesthe
1862floodthatdestroyedthe
townsite.
*B14.Evaluator:TernJacquemain
*DateofEvaluation:May2013
DPR523B(1/95)
(SketchMaowithnortharrowrecnjired.)
(Thisspacereservedforofficialcomments.)
*equjj.information
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#36-025601
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#______________________ CONTINUATIONSHEETTrinomial
Page3of3Resourcenameor#(Assignedbyrecorder)CRMTECH2712—2 Recordedby:TernJacquemain,DanielBallester
*Date:May2013ContinuationUpdate
*P3aDescription(continued):areasofverticalskirting.Theentirebuildingis paintedgreywithpeelingbluetrimandrestsonaraisedconcretefooting.
Thefrontofthebuildingfacesnorthwest,withacenteredentryway filledwithawhitepaneldoorcoveredbyablacksteelsecuritydoor.The entryisapproachedbytwoconcretestepsandshelteredbyadoors—width, corrugatedmetalcanopypaintedwhiteandsupportedbymetalbracketsattached atthetop ofthedoorframe.Arearentrywaylocatedinanearthesouthwest cornerisapproachedbythreewoodensteps,andfilledwithawhitepaneldoor coveredbyanaluminumscreendoor.Theexteriorwallaroundtheentryis slightlyrecessedfromtherestoftherearwall.
Fenestrationconsistsmostlyofaluminum—framedsliders,somewithwood trim,othersuntrimmed.Alargewindowtotheeastofthefrontentry featuresacentraldividedpaneflankedbytwodouble-hungs,whichappearsto have beensalvagedandusedhere,likelyprocuredfromthepartofthe buildingthatwasremovedtoaddthepre—formedportion.Thebuildingis vacantandinfairydilapidatedcondition.
*B6ConstructionHistory(continued):thepropertyfromA.Pellissier.Heatliewas acarpenteratCalPortlandCementCompany.Heremainedownerthrough1947, addingSarahE.Heatlietothetitlein1945.Sarahbecamesoleownertwo yearslater,afterwhichJohn0.andBettyJ.Tuntland,andOle0.and FlorenceD.Tuntiandbecamepropertyowners.
Foratimeinthe1950sand1960sthepropertywasinuseasabranch
operationoftheWard DuckCompany,foundedinPetalumain1906.The enterprisewasfoundedbythefatherofPatriciaWoodland,whosehusband RichardWoodlandwasaskedtoassumethehelmofthecompanyin1960s,after servinginthemilitary.WardDuckCompanywasrenamedWoodlandFarms,and thecoupleremainedpropertyownersuntil2004,whenitwasacquiredbyAgua MansaProperties.TheWoodland’smainduck—raisingoperationwaslocatedin theLaPuentearea,wheretheWoodlandsalsolived.Itclosedin2000.A seriesofupgradestothepropertyin1978bytheWardDuckCompanyincluded electricalwork,a30’x60’barnwithametalroof,andtheinstallationofa mobilehomefor“officesandsecurity,”whichisalikelyindicatorofthe arrivalofthepre-formedportionofthebuilding.
*810.Significance(continued):uses,buthasrevealedthatthepropertyinthel950s and1960sservedasastockfarmfortheWardDuckCompany,foundedin Petalumain1906andheadquarteredinLaPuenteuntilclosingin2000.Asa minorstructureinaperipheralpartofalargeanimalagriculturaloperation, itdoesnotdisplayaparticularlycloserelationshiptothisrelatively uniquebusinessorappeartobecloselyassociatedwithanyimportant historicalevents,personsofrecognizedsignificanceinnational,state,or localhistory.Thebuildingdoesnotstandoutasanimportantexampleofits style,type,period,region,ormethodofconstruction,orexpressany particularidealsordesignconcepts,andinfactthealteredappearanceof thebuildingsignificantlycompromisesitsabilitytorelatetoits1912 constructiondate.Assuch,thisbuildingdoesnotmeetanyofthecriteria forlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesortheCalifornia RegisterofHistoricalResources.
DPR523L(1195)*Requiredinformation
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#36—025602
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#_______________________________ PRIMARYRECORDTrinomialH
NRliPStatusCode6Z
OtherListings________________________________
ReviewCodeReviewerDate
Pagelof3*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder)CPMTECH2712—3 P1.OtherIdentifier:
*P2Location:NotforPublicationIUnrestricted*a.CountySanBernardino and(P2bandP2corP2d.AttachaLocationMapasnecessary.)
*b.USGS7.5’QuadSanBernardinoSouth,Calif.Date1980photorevisedin1979 T1S;R5WNW/NESec30S.B.B.M.(aportionoftheJurupa[Stearns]landgrant) Elevation:Approximately885feetabovemeansealevel
c.Address656Agua MansaRoadCityColton,CAZip92316
d.UTM:(Givemorethanoneforlargeandlorlinearresources)Zonell;467259mEl3767475mN UTMDerivation:USGSQuad’IGPS
e.OtherLocationalData:(e.g., parcel#,directionstoresource,etc.,asappropriate)APN0260—072—01; onthesouthsideofAguaMansaRoadatDunnRanchRoad.
*P3a.Description:(Describeresourceariditsmajorelements.Includedesign,materials,condition,alterations,size, setting,andboundaries)Theone—storysingle—familyresidenceat656AguaMansa Road facesnorthtoAguaMansaRoadbutissetbackonthepropertyabout600feet fromtheroad.Thiswood—framedstructurerestsonaconcretefoundationand issurmountedbyacross—gableroof,withLheroom—sizedadditionsonthe (Continuedonp.3)
*p3b.ResourceAttributes:(Listattributesandcodes>HP2:Singlefamilyproperty *4ResourcesPresent:‘IBuildingStructureObjectSiteDistrictElementofDistrict s.etc.)
DateConstructedlAgeofSources:
‘IHistoricPrehistoricBoth
Ca.late1940s(seeItems36
arLdB12fordetails)
*p7OwnerandAddress:Brigette
DeLaura,2024MiraMonteCt.
ChinoHills,CA
*
Recordedby(Name,affiliation,and
address):DanielBallester,CPM
TECH,1016EastCooleyDrive,
SuiteA/B,Colton,CA92324
*p9DateRecorded:May17,2013
Type:Intensive—
levelforCEQA-compliance
purposes
P5b.Description ofPhoto:Photo
takenonMay17,2013;viewto
thesouthwest
ReportCitation:(Citesurveyreportandothersources,orenter“none’)Tang,Bai“Tom,Tern Jacquemain,andDanielHallester:Historical/ArchaeologicalResourcesSurvey Report:Assessor’sParcelNumbers0260—072—01to—04,0260—072—15and—016, CityofColton,SanBernardinoCounty,California.Onfile,Archaeological InformationCenter,SanBernardinoCountyMuseum,Redlands.
*Aftachments:
______None
LocationMap‘IContinuationSheet‘JBuilding,Structure,andObject Record ______Archaeological
RecordDistrictRecordLinearResourceRecordMillingStationRecord ______Rock
ArtRecordArtifactRecordPhotographRecordOther(List):__________________________ orDrawing(Photographrequiredforbuildings,
*P11.
*
DPR523A(1195)*Requiredinformation
*NRHPStatusCode6Z
*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder)CRMTECH2712—3
SCALE1:24,000
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#36—025602
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#______________________
BUILDING,STRUCTURE,ANDOBJECTRECORD
Page2of3
Bi.HistoricName:_____________________________B2.CommonName:_____________________________ B3.OriginalUse:ResidenceB4.PresentJse:Vacant
*B5.ArchitecturalStyle:Ranch
*B6.ConstructionHistory:(Constructiondate,alterations,anddateofalterations)Archivalproperty recordsindicatebuildingfirstoccurredonthepropertyaround1934,some threeyearsafterGeoffreyPeplowacquiredthepropertyfromFilomena Martinez.Peplowimmigratedto theUnitedStatesfromEnglandin1923andwas workingasafarmlaborerin1930.Around1943,Peplowdeededthepropertyto ElmerL.andSybilE. Dunn,wholivedinRiversideinthe1930s-1940s. (Continuedonp.3)
*87.Moved?‘JNoYesUnknownDate:_____OriginalLocation:____________________________ *B8RelatedFeatures:SeeItemP3a.
B9a.Architect:Unknownb.Builder:Unknown
*B1o.Significance:ThemeMid—2Othcenturyresidentialdevelopment AreaAguaMansaPeriodofSignificance1945—1961
PropertyTypeResidentialApplicableCriteriaN/A
(Discussimportanceintermsofhistoricalorarchitecturalcontextasdefinedbytheme,period,andgeographic scope.Alsoaddressintegrity.)Evidentlyoriginallydatingtothelate1940s,this buildingappearstohavebeenexpandedinalldirectionsexceptinthefront centralportion.Theseadditionsandremodelingeffortshaveincludedthe additionofmodernwindowreplacements,doors,stuccowork,androofing, leavingthebuildingmoderninoverallappearanceandsignificantly diminishingitsabilitytorelatetothehistoricperiod.Itdoesnot demonstrateany(Continuedonp.3)
BitAdditionalResourceAttributes:(Listattributesandcodes)_______________________________________________ *B12References:SanBernardinoCountyrealpropertyassessmentrecords(1935—1945); U.S.FederalCensusrecords(1930);RiversideCityDirectory(1939,1941); Gravefinders.com
813.Remarks:
*B14Evaluator:
*Dateof Evaluation:
TernJacquemain
May2013
arrow
25 (Thisspacereservedforofficialcomuients.)
gO
\.
gP-:
;-
r
‘:.
.•1••
-.
I—
:‘
(,c—
--t I.,L•
_______
I‘;.:
.1
•:
010002000feet
DPR523B(1195)*Requiredinformation
StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#36-025602
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#______________________
CONTINUATIONSHEET
____
Trinomial
Page3of3Resourcenameor#(Assignedbyrecorder)CPMTECH2712—3 Recordedby:TernJacquemain
_____
*Date:May2013ContinuationUpdate
*p3a.Description(continued):rearandbothsidessportinghippedroofsthatareslightly lowerthanthemainroof.Theentireroofissheathedwithbrowncomposition sheetsandendsinmediumeavesandfasciaboardspaintedwhite.Theexterior wallsaretanstucco.
TheadditionscreateafootprintthatgenerallyT—shaped,withthe centralportionoftheprimaryfacadeextendingout.Themainentrywayis here,filledwithawhitepaneldoorwithafanlight.Itisshelteredbya largeoverhangmadeofwoodboardsattachedunderthegablepeakandsupported bysixmetalpolewithpeelingwhitepaint.Belowthecoveringisaconcrete slabpatioarea,paintedred,thatextendsbeyondthecovering.Aredbrick chimneywithanattachedbrickovenisfoundonthewestsideofthecentral extension,andtwo-foothighredandwhitebrickplantershighlinemostof therestoftheextendedportionoftheprimaryfaçade.Lowrectangularwood planterboxesarelaidoutoneithersideofthecentralportion.Allofthe plantersarecurrentlyemptyorweedy.
Fenestrationconsistsofuntrimmed,whitealuminum,multi—pane replacementwindowsofvarioussizeandorientation,andafew,smaller aluminumsliders.Twolarge32—panedwindowsarefeaturedtothewestofthe mainentryandontheeasterlysideofthecentralportion.Twoeight-paned windowsontheeastern addition,andoneonthewesternportion,alongwithan high—setaluminumslider,completesthefenestrationontheprimaryfacade.A northeast—facingrearentrywayfilledwithawhite paneldoorisfoundtucked ontherearadditionwhereitmeetsthemainmass.
Outbuildingstothenortheastoftheresidenceincludetwoweathered, sheet—metalandconcreteblockbuildingswithaflatroofs,asmallersheet metalbuildingwithapitchedmedium—pitchedmetalroof,andasmallshedon thewesternsideoftheresidence.Thehouseisvacantandneglected,with dormantandovergrowngrassesandweedssurroundingthebuildings. *B6.ConstructionHistory(continued):Inthemeantime,thecoupleapparentlyconstructed otherbuildingsontheAguaMansaproperty,asreflectedinimprovementtax increasesfrom$150to$310in1947,andto$460in1948.Theresidence currentlyextantat656AguaMansaRoadlikelyrepresentsoneoftheselater structures.Despitetheevidentconstructionontheproperty,nopermitswere foundonfileincitybuildingrecords.Accordingtoasourceonhandduring thefieldinspection,theDunn’spropertywasaworkingranchwithlivestock andhorses,andhostto theoccasionalsmall—scalerodeo.
ElmerDunnservedintheU.S.MarineCorps,andalsoworkedasan
attendantattheRiverside ShellOilstationlaterasamilloperator.Both Elmer(1910—1984)andSybil(1914—1990)areburiedinRiversideNational Cemetery.FamilymembersJamesandSandraDunnbecamepropertyownersaround 1991, andremainedownersuntilaround1998.
*Blo.Significance(continued):notablearchitectural,artistic,orestheticmerits,and noneofthepropertyownersidentifiedinthearchivalrecordsappearstohave attainedrecognizedsignificanceinhistory,norhaveanyeventsofhistorical interestbeenidentifiedinthebuilding’spast.Consequently,thebuilding isdeterminednottomeetanyofthecriteriaforlistingintheNational RegisterofHistoricPlacesortheCaliforniaRegisterofHistorical Resources.
DPR523L(1195)*Requirinformation
DPR 523A (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Other Listings:
Review Code: 6Z Reviewer: Jeanette A. McKenna Date: 5/21/17
P1. Other Identifier: Bandini Donation Lots 13 to 22 *P2. Location Not for Publication X Unrestricted *P2a. County: San Bernardino
P2b. USGS 7.5’ Quad: San Bernardino South Date: 1980 T1S ; R4W; SW ¼ Sec. 30 and T1S ; R5W; SE ¼ Sec. 25 ; S.B.B.M.
P2c. Address: Agua Mansa Road City: Colton Zip: 92324 P2d. UTMs: Zone: 11 See Continuation Sheet mE mN
P2e. Other Locational Data: (e.g.: parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) South side of Agua Mansa Road, between Riverside Avenue (west) and Rancho Road (east); just west of Sewage Treatment Plant and south of Slover Mountain
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.)
See Continuation Sheet
P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes.) HP-32 (Rural Open Space); HP-33 (Farm/Ranch) *P4. Resources Present: □ Building □ Structure □ Object X Site □ District □ Element of District X Others (Isolate, etc.) Artifact Scatter P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo Required for Buildings, Structures, and Objects.)
P5b: Description of Photo:
Aerial (2017)
*P6. Date of Construction/Age
X Historic □ Prehistoric □ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
California Portland Cement Co.
Agua Mansa Road
Colton, California 92324
*P8. Recorded by: McKenna et al.
Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal
Whittier CA 90601
(562) 696-3852
*P9. Date Recorded: May 21, 2017
*P10. Survey Type: Phase I CEQA
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “None.”) McKenna, Jeanette A. (2017) – A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Portland Cement Co. Project Area on Agua Mansa Road, City of Colton, San Bernardino County, California. On file, McKenna et al., Whittier, California. *Attachments □ NONE X Location Map X Sketch Map X Continuation Sheet □ BSO Record X Archaeological Record □ District Record □ Linear Feature Record □ Milling Station Record □ Rock Art Record □ Artifact Record □ Photographic Record X Other (List): Photos 36-031378
DPR 523C (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
A1. Dimensions: a. Length: ½ mile (E/W) b. Width: 1/8 mile (N/S) Method of Measurement: □ Paced □ Taped □ Visual Estimate X Other Method of Determination : (check any that apply) X Artifacts X Features □ Soil □ Vegetation □ Topography □ Cut bank □ Animal Burrow □ Excavation X Property Boundary □ Other:
Reliability of Determination: □ High X Medium □ Low □ Explain:
Limitations: (Check any that apply) □ Restricted Access □ Paved/Built Over X Vegetation □ Disturbances □ Site Limits Incompletely Defined □ Other: (Explain) A2. Depth: □ NONE X Unknown Method of Determination:
A3. Human Remains: □ Present X Absent □ Possible □ Unknown (Explain) A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) See Continuation Sheets
A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.) See Continuation Sheets
A6. Were Specimens Collected? □ No
X Yes (If yes, attach Artifact record or catalo and identify where specimens are curated.) McKenna et al., Whittier, CA
A7. Site Condition: □ Good □ Fair X Poor
Describe Disturbances: Structural demolitions, disking, grading, other earth moving activities A8. Nearest Water: (Type, distance, and direction.) Santa Ana River (adjacent) A9. Elevations: 870-900 feet AMSL
A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.) Primarily along Santa Ana River Bank and Flood Zone
A11. Historical Information: Part of Bandini Donation (1850s and 1860s; post-1895 occupation) A12. Age: □ Prehistoric X Protohistoric □ 1542-1769 □ 1769-1848 X 1848-1880 X 1880-1914 X 1914-1945 X 1945-1965 □ Post-1965 □ Undetermined A13. Interpretations: (Discuss data potential, function(s), ethnic affiliation, or other interpretations) Part of the Manuel Soares properties, est. after 1895 to include recently research project area A14. Remarks: Property slated for redevelopment by California Portland Cement Company
A15. References (Documents, Informants, Maps, and other references) McKenna, Jeanette A. (2017) A16. Photographs (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photographic Record.) Original Media/Digital Files Kept At: McKenna et al., Whittier, CA A17. Form Prepared by: Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Affiliation and Address: 6008 Friends Avenue
Whittier, California 90601-3724
(562) 696-3852
[email protected]
Date: May 21, 2017
36-031378
DPR 523J (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Map Name: USGS San Bernardino South *Scale 1:64,000 *Date of Map 1980
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523K (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SKETCH MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Drawn by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier CA *Date May 21, 2017
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
The earliest known records of European contact with Southern California Native Americans date to the mid- 1500s, representing minor contact during early explorations by the Spanish. Intensive contact was not established until the 1770s, when Father Garces traversed the Mojave Desert and entered coastal Southern California through the Cajon Pass (Walker 1986).
In the 1770s, the Spanish padres, under the direction of Junipero Serra, began the process of establishing a series of missions throughout Alta California, as California was then known. Noted earlier, the project area is within the boundaries of lands held by the Mission San Gabriel de Archangel. The mission continued to hold these large tracts until the Mexican government declared its independence from Spain and issued orders for the secularization of the Missions (ca. 1824).
By 1833-34, the majority of Mission lands were taken from the Catholic Church and reissued to individuals who had served as either Spanish or Mexican soldiers, settlers, financiers, etc. The Mexican government hoped to initiate a pattern of settlement in Alta California by relocating populations from other Mexican settlements to recently established Alta California settlements (Hanna 1951; McWilliams 1973; Dumke 1944; and Scott 1977).
Maps provided by Avina (1932); the Bureau of Land Management; and Beck and Haase (1977) illustrate the extent of the Rancho/Grant system. In this case, the project area is within the historic Rancho Jurupa (Stearns), originally confirmed to Juan Bandini by Governor Alvarado in 1838. The rancho consisted of approximately seven square leagues in San Bernardino County (now including a portion of Riverside County).
Bandini’s grant was approved on May 22, 1840 (Avina 1932:53). Gudde (1998:188) describes Jurupa as follows:
The name was applied because the range and the railroad station are situated on the territory of the Jurupa land grant, dated Sept. 28, 1838. Jurupa, even earlier, had been a rancho of Mission San Gabriel. The origin must be Gabrielino ... “sagebrush-place” (Munro), or a similar form in a related language, with a “place” suffix -pa. Jurupa is mentioned as a place by Ord in 1849 (p. 119) and is shown on his sketch of the Los Angeles plains.
Riverside was apparently first called Jurupa ... however, the von Leicht-Craven map of 1874 shows the two names in different locations.
Summarizing a discussion presented by McKenna in 1990 and 2007, the Rancho Jurupa was originally under the jurisdiction of the Mission San Gabriel and used for cattle grazing and, with the assistance of “neophytes” (Native American converts), small gardens. The neophytes continued with many of their ancestral ways, despite the influences of the Mission padres. After the declaration of independence by Mexico from Spain, the secularization of the Missions opened large tracts of land for settlement. Following the prior policies of Spain, the Mexican government continued to issue large land grants and supported the settlement of Alta California. Hanna (1951:249-250) notes:
The ranchos of California comprised one of the quartette [sic] of elements by which Spain accomplished the conquest of the province, the others being missions, presidios and pueblos. The principal of granting lands to encourage settlement and colonization of undeveloped areas is an ancient custom of empire-minded nations, which found its counterpart in the more recent homestead and railroad grant laws of our United States. In the 36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
beginning, as W.W. Robinson so aptly points out in his “Rancho Become Cities”, the ranch grants of California were merely grazing or pasturage permits which entitled the grantees to the use but not the ownership of the land. Eventually these permits became actual transfers of ownership by the regnant sovereign or political jurisdiction. And so California’s more than 500 private land grants came into being.
Juan Bandini held the majority of his rancho until his death in 1859 (Newmark and Newmark 1930:254).
However, when he needed funds, he sold a large portion of the Rancho Jurupa to Louis Rubidoux, resulting in the identification of the Rancho Jurupa (Rubidoux). The Rancho Jurupa (Stearns) was acquired by Bandini’s daughter and son-in-law (Dona Arcadia and Don Abel Stearns) following Bandini’s death. Again, citing Newmark and Newmark (1930: 254-255):
Surrounded by most of his family, Don Juan Bandini, a distinguished Southern Californian and a worthy member of one of the finest Spanish families here, after a long and painful illness, died at the home of his daughter and son- in-law, Dona Arcadia and Don Abel Strearns, in Los Angeles, on November 4, 1859. Don Juan had come to California far back in the early twenties, and to Los Angeles so soon thereafter that he was a familiar and welcome figure here many years before I arrived ... Don Juan married twice. His first wife, courted in 1823, was Dolores, daughter of Captain Jose Estudillo, a comandante at Monterey; and of that union were born Dona Arcadia, first wife of Abel Stearns and later of Colonel R.S. Baker; Dona Ysidora, who married Lieutenant Cave H. Couts, a cousin of General Grant; Dona Josefa, later the wife of Pedro C. Carrillo (father of J.J. Carrillo), formally marshal here and now Justice of the Peace at Santa Monica), and the sons, Jose Maria Bandini and Juanito Bandini. Bandini’s second wife was Refugio, a daughter of Santiago Arguello and a granddaughter of the governor who made the first grants of land to rancheros of Los Angeles ... By Bandini’s second marriage there were three sons: Juan de la Cruz Bandini, Alfredo Bandini and Arturo Bandini.
With the exception of the sale to Rubidoux, the Rancho Jurupa remained intact into the 1880s. As early as 1840, however, Don Juan Bandini offered a portion of his land as a place of settlement for the displaced population from Politana. Politana was a small community of Native Americans from Abiquiu, New Mexico, bought to California by the Lugos of the Rancho San Bernardino. This gift of land was known as the “Bandini Donations,” consisting of approximately 2,200 acres of land along the Santa Ana River in the northeastern portion of the Rancho Jurupa. Various accounts describe this land as covering an area of six miles along the River and one half mile wide along both sides of the River (McKenna 1990:20). These two settlements were named “Agua Mansa” (gentle water) and “La Placita” (small town). Agua Mansa was northwest of the River and La Placita was southeast of the River. [Note: the current project area is within the boundaries of Agua Mansa.]
La Placita was the larger of the two communities and included many of the original families from New Mexico.
Both communities were established as pueblos, with small central plazas, a church, and dwellings surrounding the plaza. Individual lands were established along the river frontage and included approximately 550 feet of frontage on the River and approximately 1,300 feet deep, although the frontages varied). The current project area involves all or portions of Bandini’s Lots 13, 13 ½ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
20, 21, and 22. Farming was conducted near the water source(s) and livestock was kept slightly further away from the River. The community of Agua Mansa was established along the road established to connect Riverside with San Bernardino (later referred to as the Agua Mansa Road). Hayes (1929) suggests the church within the Cemetery at Agua Mansa was the third church built for the community and likely dates to ca. 1854. This structure and the associated Cemetery are located north of Agua Mansa Road and atop the bluff overlooking the community of Agua Mansa (northwest of the current project area).
The floods of the 1860s destroyed the community of Agua Mansa (and La Placita). In 1862, a wall of water estimated to be between thirty and fifty feet tall overran the communities on the Santa Ana River, destroying everything except the church and a single residence near the church (the bluff being above the flood line).
In 1868, a second flood destroyed the reestablished community and left many feet of silt and debris atop the community’s lands. Following the second flood, the community was officially abandoned and the church fell into ruins.
Harley (1989), Diocesan Archivist for the Diocese of San Bernardino, notes that they “pioneers” of Agua Mansa were the first true settlers along the Santa Ana River and established the first Catholic parish in the area (following secularization of the Missions). Following the floods of 1862 and 1868 (and the demise of the community of Agua Mansa), the Rancho Jurupa was “finally confirmed” to Abel Stearns. All surficial evidence of the New Mexican Native Americans was buried or destroyed.
Later, in 1893, when San Bernardino County was divided into San Bernardino County and Riverside County, the boundary line was established along the line separating the Rancho Jurupa Rubidoux from the Rancho Jurupa Stearns. Lippencott’s Water Supply Paper (1898) illustrates the project area and the presence of Agua Mansa Road and other maps of the late 1800s identify the Bandini Donation by name. In 1898, there were two structures illustrated north of the road (presumably the Agua Mansa Church and adjacent residence) and one structure south of the road - in the vicinity of Lot 43.
A review of historic maps illustrated two structures within the project area in ca. 1901; eight structures in 1942; and only three structures in 1980. At the time of this investigation, no structures remained.
Research completed at the San Bernardino County Archives documented property ownerships from 1895.
The data for the general area showed various lots now comprising the project area was held by the estate of M. Byrne and P.J. Stockman. No improvements were noted. In a biography of Stockman, Harley (n.d.; on file, McKenna et al.) states:
Polydore Justin Stockman ... served as pastor at the “mother church” of St. Bernardine’s for over two decades. Was a missionary to the Indians before Father Hahn arrived in banning in 1890, and founded ten Catholic churches and chapels plus the first parochial school in today’s Inland Empire area ... Father Stockman was born on July 3, 1843, in Belgium, and moved to California from the Diocese of Ghent in December, 1873, after completing his seminary studies ... he was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Thad- deus Amat ... he was reassigned to be in charge at San Bernardino ... Father Stockman inherited as a mission San Salvador Chapel at Agua Mansa, the third structure for that location which was finished in 1853. This farming community had been in economic de- 36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
cline singe the late 1860's ... Somehow, Father Stockman as a community leader found the time for numerous non-clerical activities. Two examples will suffice to illustrate this dacet of his many-sided career. It was an unfortunate circumstance that the Agua Mansa settlers had continuing problems with their land titles on the tract known as the “Bandini Donation.” Juan Bandini only gave each family a paper designating it property, but did not follow through with recorded deeds. Abel Stearns, a son- in-law of Bandini, purchased Rancho Jurupa in 1857. After several dulsatory [superficial] efforts at eviction, Stearns increased the pressure for the people either to leave the land or pay for the property originally granted free. He decided to enter a lawsuit in 1869 to recover the entire tract of the Donation. The pioneers, he claimed, by moving temporarily from their home sites after the disastrous flood of 1862, had thereby forfeited their property rights. Referee T.G.
Howard upheld the defendants’ cause: “My opinion is that (they) are entitled to the land in dispute, (and) that the plaintiff has not now and never had any title thereto.” Howard’s decision was later confirmed by Judge Morrison of the 17 District Court in San Bernardino just before Father Stockman appeared on the scene ... although this decision established finally the legal ownership of the village tract, it did not really determine the boundaries.
Complicated litigation against the Riverside Lands and Irrigation Company lasted for another quarter of a century. To facilitate matters, the later colonists who had as yet not satisfied the requirements of settlement, conveyed their titles in 1886 to the St. Bernar- dine’s/Agua Mansa pastor so that he could act as trustee. Once the suits were settled in favor of the settlers, the titles were returned by their priest if the families desired to retain ownership. By that time, however, economic pressures had caused many of the descendants to move elsewhere. Fat her Stockman as a result ended up retaining title to 12 contiguous lots later termed Agua Mansa Rancho. At his death, the property reverted to the Bishop of Los Angeles-San Diego (created in 1922) and thence in 1936 to the Bishop of San Diego when that diocese was created. Finally, California Portland Cement Company bought the dozen parcels in 1977.
Ownership documentation for the lots now identified as being associated with the current project area are as follows:
Lot 13 M.A. Murphy (East 13.58 acres; 1 895-1904)
Lot 13 Juan Salazar (West 2.95 acres; 1895- 1904)
Lot 13 Ampora Salazar (NW .25 acres; 1895- 1904)
Lot 13 ½ J.D. Castillo (12.58 acres; 1895- 1904)
Manuel Soares (1905-1951)
Lot 13 Daniel Salazar (Lot 3 od Subdivision; 1 acre; 1905- 1941) Manuel Soares (1942-1951)
Lot 14 Alex Frazier (NE 13 acres; 1895- 1898)
E.D. Robert (1899- 1903)
Manuel Soares (1904-1951)
Lot 14 J.D. Castillo (SE 6 acres; 1895-1897)
William T. Holladay (1898)
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
E.D. Robert (1899- 1903)
Manuel Soares (1904-1951)
Lot 14 W.L. Burnett and M.L Henderson; E ½ W ½; (1895- 1896) W. Burnett est. (5/8), W.L. Burnett (3/16), M.L. Henderson (3/16; 1895-1903)
E.D. Roberts (1904)
Manuel Soares (W ½ W ½; 12.08 acres; 18 99-1951)
Lot 15 Est. of D. Belardes (1895-1899)
E.D. Roberts 1899-1903)
Lot 15 Juan Valdez (NE ½; 1895)
E.J. Grieger (1896-1899)
Manuel Soares (1900-1951)
Lot 15 E.J. Grieger (1 acre; NW ½; 1895)
Juan Valdez (1896-1899)
Manuel Soares (1900-1951)
Lot 16 Manuel Soares (16.85 acres; 1895-1951)
Lot 17 Juan Valdez (W ½; 9.25 acres; 1895-1912)
Lot 17 Manuel Soares (E ½; 9.25 acres; 1895-1951; purchased Valdez half)
Lot 18 Mercedes Flores (14.6 acres; 1895-1907)
Manuel Soares (1908-1951)
Lot 19 E. Robinson (1895-1900)
W.E. Pedley (1901-1912)
L.M. Davenport (1911-1912)
John Mynes (1913)
Carl Hirt (1914)
Manuel Soares (1915-1951)
Lot 20 Christian Tongis (1895-1904)
Heirs of Christian Tongis (1905- 1907)
Manuel Soares (1908-1951)
Lot 21 Christian Tongis (1895-1904)
Heirs of Christian Tongis (1905-1907)
Manuel Soares (1908-1951)
Lot 22 J.R. Brunn (1895-1914)
Manuel Soares (1915-1951)
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
As noted, there were various owners of the lots within the project area from 1895 to 1951 (the extent of the records as the Archives). However, the pattern shows Manuel Soares began purchasing lots as early as 1895 (Lot 16; possibly earlier) followed by:
Lot 15 - 1900 Lot 17 - 1912
Lot 14 - 1904 Lot 19 - 1915
Lot 18 - 1908 Lot 22 - 1915
Lot 20 - 1908 Lot 13 - 1942
Lot 21 - 1908
For all intents and purposes, Manuel Soares owned all of the project area by 1942, as well as other properties in the general area. He maintained ownership until at least 1951. Subsequent owners of all or parts of the project area have been identified as:
The Dioceses of San Diego (pre-1977)
The Portland Cement Company of California (1977)
Cal Mat (1987)
ReAccommodations Co. (1992)
Onoda California, Inc. (1994)
Onoda USA (2013)
The Portland Cement Company of California (2013)
In 1954, structures are still illustrated (3 within the project area). These structures are just north/northwest of the modern well illustrated on the 1980 USGS San Bernardino South Quadrangle. This area appears to equate with the location of Lot 15, as illustrated on the current Assessor Parcel map. As such, this property can be associated with Manuel Soares (by 1900), but also E.J. Grieger (1895) and Juan Valdez (1896-1899). A $100 structural improvement was noted in 1895, suggesting this property was occupied prior to 1895. Any subsequent improvements would have been attributed to Soares.
In 1915 there was a $150 noted improvement and in 1919, improvements increased to $700. A greater listing of over $1500 was noted in 1946, suggesting Soares was still improving the property after World War II (e.g the three noted on the 1954 map). By 1980, seven structures (two older – pre-1969; and five newer – post-1974) were depicted. These, also, are tentatively attributed to the Soares family, pending filling in the data gap between 1951 and 1977.
No structures remained at the time of this survey. A review of historic aerial photographs show the residential/ranching complex intact in 1980, but only one structure remaining in 1995. This structure was demolished just after 2012. Physical evidence of this complex yet still be identifiable in the form of foundations or artifact scatters and these remains may date as early as 1895 (+/-).
As a result of the physical examination of the property, it was confirmed that no standing structures remain with the property boundaries. There was scant evidence of one foundation with the previously identified structure locations illustrated on maps and aerial photograph. The survey confirmed the presence of 36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
numerous examples of historic artifacts scattered throughout the property. The property boundaries were recorded in NAD 27 UTM reading as follows:
SW Corner 467778E/3767446N
SE Corner 468814E/3767576N
NE Corner 468747E/3767884N
NW Corner 467619E/3767698N
Bend on Road 468085E/3767788N
East Bend in Road 468251E/3767895N
Gate on Road 468421E/3767882N
The eastern portion of the project area was crossed by two secondary power lines and the “well” noted on the USGS quadrangle was relocated (468444E/3767760N). There was no visible evidence of the blue- line water course illustrated on the USGS quadrangle. McKenna et al. noted the presence of three shallow earthen basins ringed by thick reeds. These appears to be relatively recent water retention basins.
Following the weed abatement activities, evidence of scattered glass, plastic, terra cotta pottery (modern), bricks, concrete fragments, white ceramic fragments, tile fragments, rubber, and a single metal can were identified. These items were sparsely scattered and simply represented the occupation of the property and the dislocation of materials following demolition activities and periodic weed abatement. To illustrate the more readily identifiable features and/or isolated artifacts identified within the property, McKenna et al. recorded the following:
1. Well. The well noted on the USGS quadrangle was identified as a abandoned structure with associated pump and tank assemblages. The 8 ½’ shaft is still present, supported by five small concrete footings. Located at 468444E/3767760N, the well is at a surface elevation of 878 feet AMSL.
2. Ceramic Sherd . This isolated ceramic sherd is a small fragment of a brownware clay pot.
Measuring 3.6 cm x 2.4 cm x .8 cm, this item could be representative of an early pot associated with the New Mexican Native American presence in the area (pre-1862), but could also be associated with the late 1800s presence of the Mexican population. As an isolated artifact with no contextual associations, it is not considered significant, but indicative of the potential for other artifacts of a similar nature to be present. This artifact was recovered from an area along an old dirt access road at 468448E/3767695N.
3. Glass Scatter. Found near the isolated ceramic sherd, this glass scatter consists of worn and tumbled opaque glass fragments mixed with some more recent (modern) fragments. Some fragments were amethyst, indicating a late 1800s to early 1900s manufacturing period. There were approximately 50 to 75 fragments. This scatter was quite sparse, given it covered an area of 365 feet east/west and 50 feet north/south. The core area was recorded as 348403E/3767694N.
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
4. Water Outfall Structure . Located at 368338E/3767783N, this feature consists of a reinforced steel pipe with no identifiable markings. It appears to provide drainage from an area near or on Agua Mansa Road and feeds into the Santa Ana River. Given the material, it is considered to be a modern addition to the property.
5. Concrete Pipe. This segment of reinforced concrete pipe connects the easternmost retention basin (A) to the central basin (B). The northern extent at Basin A was located at 468294E/3767750N. The southern extent at Basin B was located at 468288E/3767736N.
6. Concrete Pipe . This pipe was placed vertically on the western boundary of Basin B (468190E/3767680N. Measuring 19 ½’ in diameter, the walls were 2” thick. Again, there were no markings on the pipe, but it is considered modern.
7. Concrete Pipe. This pipe connects Basin B with the westernmost Basin C. It is 36 inches in diameter and the eastern extent at Basin B was located at 468162E/ 3767716N. The western extent at Basin C was located at 468156E/3767711N. It, too is considered modern.
8. Concrete Sewer Access/Manhole. Marked “Sewer” and “Concrete Conduit Co. 150”, this 50 inch diameter manhole was identified in an area of tall grass at 468337E/ 3767791N. It is steel reinforced and considered to be another modern addition to the general area and one associated with the other concrete pipes previously noted.
9. Collapsed Wooden Pier . This plank structure appears to have once spanned the area in the southwestern portion of Basin B, permitting access to likely check depths of retained water. It measures roughly 20 inched wide and 8 feet long, with round common nails. It was located at 468204E/3767664N and, with the association to the basins, is considered modern.
10. Amethyst Glass Fragment . This partial base was identified at 467919E/3767565N and is representative of the late 1800s and early 1900s manufacturing period. As such, it is indicative of the historic occupation of the property and not an unusual find.
11. Amber Bottle Base. Located at 467892E/3767576N, this bottle fragment exhibited no stippling indicative of modern manufacturing and, therefore, is considered another example of glass dating to the historic period and representing the historic occupation of the area – likely the Soares ownership period.
12. Concrete Slab. This “L” shaped concrete pad was located directly west of the main site entrance gate on Agua Mansa Road; 468375E/3767838N. This pad measured 43 inches east/west and 28 inches north/south (at its maximum). There are no markings and no indications of use.
13. Concrete Structure. This low-profile concrete structure was mostly obscured by weeks, but was identifiable as consisting of three discernable sides approximately 48 inches tall. Located at 468433E/3767934N, the longest wall (east/west trending, measured approximately 24 feet. There was evidence of a superstructure (boards and bolts), and the size suggests it may have served as a garage or storage shed. Located within the identified historic structural complex, this feature appears to represent a later addition to the Soares complex (e.g. 1940s-1950s). 36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
14. Amethyst Glass Fragment. This small fragment was identified with the core area of the historic structure location, at 468598E/3767846N. As previously noted, this item is indicative of later 1800s- early 1900s manufacturing and indicative fo the historic occupation of the property.
15. Hurricane Lamp Glass Fragment. This amethyst glass fragment has been identified as a rim shard from a Hurricane lamp/lantern. Located at 468432E/3767806N, this item is also indicative of the late 1800s-early 1900s and was likely an oil and wick lamp. No other fragments were noted.
16. Aqua Bottle Finish. This partial bottle finish is indicative of the “bead lip” closure often associated with crown caps. Its color suggests a post-1917 manufacturing, consistent with the Soares ownership period. It is roughly finished, exhibiting some tool marks, so may date slightly earlier (not machine made). It was located at 468490E/3767850N.
17. Aqua Bottle Finish. This partial bottle finish is indicative of the “bead lip” closure often associated with crown caps. Its color suggests a post-1917 manufacturing, consistent with the Soares ownership period. It was located at 468505E/3767861N.
18. Glass Marble. This very pale green marble is relatively large (1.05 inches) and exhibits impurities that suggest it is a home-made toy. It is slightly off-centered and exhibits evidence of melting and molding. It was located at 468438E/3767852N and recovered by McKenna et al. Its presence suggests children was on-site at some point, likely Soares children during the first half of the 20 th
century.
19. Field Fence. This fence is represented by a hollow steel poles set into a concrete footings and attached to strung wire (not barbed wire). This fence line runs north to south from Agua Mansa Road for approximately 230 feet and averages four feet in height. The northern point was marked at 468284E/3767885N and the southern point at 468284E/3767815N.
20. Amethyst Glass Fragment . Located on the edge of Basin C, 468104E/3767714N, this small fragment is another example of pre-1917 glass representative of the early occupation of the property. It was found in a disturbed area, suggesting other examples may be present, but in a buried context.
The scatter of historic artifacts and scant evidence of structural remains area all located in areas known to have been occupied by 1895 (likely earlier) and through the 1950s. Despite the extent of the occupation – attributed primarily to the Manuel Soares family - the extent of the artifact scatter is considered to be quite sparse. Likewise, the demolition of the residential/ranch complex was extensive and little remains of any buildings. Archaeologically, the identified remains are negligible. However, they are indicative of the early occupation of the area and there is evidence to suggest there may be buried archaeological elements within the property, some dating as early as the pre-1862 occupation of the area.
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
DPR 523L (1/13) * Required Information
State of California
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Jeanette A. McKenna, McKenna et al., Whittier, CA *Date May 21, 2017 X Continuation Update
36-031378
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial #
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P1. Other Identifier: AM-001-i
*P2. Location: _ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino *b. USGS: San Bernardino South Date: 1967 rev 1980 T; 1N R 5W of Sec 36 San Bernardino B. M. c. Address: N/A City: Colton Zip: 92324
d. UTM: NAD 83; Zone:11; 466771 mE 376687 mN
e. Other Locational Data: Elevation: 872 feet AMSL Directions: From the Rancho exit of Interstate 10, head south to Agua Mansa Road and turn right. Take Agua Mansa Road for 1.9 miles to Miguel Bustamante Parkway and turn left (southeast). Travel 0.17 mile on Miguel Bustamante Parkway to the entrance of the Agua Mansa Power Plant. Turn left onto the road leading into the power plant and travel for .09 mile. The isolate is located .03 mile bearing 319 degrees northwest from the end of the road.
*P3a. Description: This historic-period isolate consists of a green glass oval bottle base fragment, embossed with “S”. It contains light stippling around the heel and gas seeds in the glass, suggesting a pre-1950s date of manufacture.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: AP16: Other (isolate)
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District _Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
Green glass bottle base, Photo #AM-
008 Detail view.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: _Historic
Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
City of Colton Electrical Department
150 S. 10th Street
Colton, CA 92324
*P8. Recorded by:
K. Lindgren, R. Cunningham
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
215 N. 5
th Street
Redlands, Ca 92373
*P9. Date Recorded: 10/29/2013
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
pedestrian archaeological survey
*P11. Report Citation:
Lindgren, Kristina and Roger D. Mason.
2014 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Agua Mansa Substation Project, City of Colton, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc., Redlands, CA.
*Attachments: NONE _Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and O bject Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
36-031676
*Map Name: San Bernardino Soutn (1980) *Scale: *Date of Map: 10/30/2013 State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
DPR 523J (1/95)
*Required Information
!(
AM-001-I
1:24,000
Location: N:\2013\2013-133 Agua Mansa Substation 6 sub to Z Global City of Colton\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Location_Maps\AM-001_Location.mxd ()-mguidry 10/30/2013 0 500 1,000250 Meters
I
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
36-031676
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial #
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P1. Other Identifier: AM-002
*P2. Location: _ Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Bernardino *b. USGS: San Bernardino South Date: 1967 rev 1980 T; 1N R 5W of Sec 36 San Bernardino B. M. c. Address: N/A City: Colton Zip: 92324
d. UTM: NAD 83; Zone:11; 466809 mE 3766830 mN
e. Other Locational Data: Elevation: 872 feet AMSL Directions: From the Rancho exit of Interstate 10, head south to Agua Mansa Road and turn right. Take Agua Mansa Road for 1.9 miles to Miguel Bustamante Parkway and turn left (southeast). Travel 0.17 mile on Miguel Bustamante Parkway to the entrance of the Agua Mansa Power Plant. Turn left onto the road leading into the power plant. The site is located approximately 133 meters at the end of this road on the right.
*P3a. Description: This site consists of one-historic period barn (Feature 1), one historic-period concrete horse rehabilitation pond (Feature 2), and 1 glass artifact. Feature 1 is a wood-frame corrugated metal barn, Feature 2 is an empty concrete horse training pond with an isolated glass bottle base fragment, partially embossed with a Duraglas maker¶s mark located on the northern edge.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP4: Ancillary Buildings
*P4. Resources Present: _Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
Overview of Feature 1 and 2, Photo
#186, 9iew southeast,
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: _Historic
Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
City of Colton Electrical Department
150 S. 10th Street
Colton, CA 92324
*P8. Recorded by:
K. Lindgren, R. Cunningham
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
215 N. 5
th Street
Redlands, Ca 92373
*P9. Date Recorded: 10/29/2013
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
pedestrian archaeological survey
*P11. Report Citation:
Lindgren, Kristina and Roger D. Mason.
2014 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Agua Mansa Substation Project, City of Colton, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc., Redlands, CA.
*Attachments: NONE _Location Map _Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and O bject Record _Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record _Photograph Record Other (List):
36-031677
DPR 523C (1/95) *Required Information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Primary # :
Trinomial :
*A1. Dimensions: a. Length: 77 meters ( NE/SW) × b. Width: 42 meters ( NW/SE ) Method of Measurement: Paced Taped _Visual estimate (with Google Earth) Other:
Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): Artifacts _Features Soil Vegetation Topography Cut bank Animal burrow Excavation Property boundary Other (Explain):
Reliability of Determination: _ High Medium Low Explain:
Limitations (Check any that apply): Restricted access Paved/built over Disturbances Site limits incompletely defined Vegetation Other (Explain):
A2. Depth: None _ Unknown Method of Determination:
*A3. Human Remains: Present Absent Possible _Unknown (Explain): Not tested
*A4. Features (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.):
Feature 1 is a historic-period wood frame building, referred to by Agua Mansa Power Plant employees as “the Barn”. It is covered in corrugated metal sheets, and is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 57 feet northeast/southwest by 31 feet northwes t/southeast. It has a gable roof approximately 25 feet tall from foundation to roof, and two large sliding doors, one on the southwest façade and one on the northeast façade. One plywood door in an unfinished wood frame is located on the southeast façade. The door is approximately 6’ high. Three visible utility poles have been incorporated into the construction of the building, and are located in the door on the southe ast façade, in the east corner and in the south corner. The utility pole incorporated into the door on the southeastern face is located to the left of the door frame, which is fixed to this pole. The pole near the door is dark and looks to be treated with creosote. The height of the pole is unknown as it terminates inside of the structure. The second utility pole is incorporated in the structure frame on the east corner and is connected to an outside utility line.
The third utility pole is incorporated into the south corner. One large industrial light is mounted on the southeast façade. The barn has a poured- concrete slab foundation. There are two poured-concrete pads located at both large sliding doors on southwest and northeast facades.
Feature 2 is a circular, concrete-lined horse rehabilitation pond, which is currently empty of water. It is approximately 105 feet in diameter.
The pond has a central “turret” constructed from concrete that is approximately 8 feet tall from the pond bottom and four courses of cinder blocks. The turret is topped with approximately 2 ½’ metal railing. The turret has a steel and plywood gang plank extending to northeast edge of horse pond. The gang plank is mounted to a cinderblock base on the northeast edge of horse pond. The base is supported by four utility type poles. The base is approximately 3 feet high at the northeast end and approximately 8 feet high at the southwest end, due to slope of pond. A horse holding area is attached to the base. The holding area is located to the north, and consists of two cinder block walls approximately 8 feet high, on a concrete pad. The area is lined with rubber mats. The walls are 9 courses of cinder blocks. The concrete leading into the pond from the holding area is undulated for traction, creating seven steps into the pond. This is also lined with rubber mats. Rubber m ats are located south of the gang plank base, but the lining is only slightly undulating here. The pond contains two pump mounts located within pon d, both approximately 5 feet from the outer edge of the pond. The mounts consist of 5-7 courses of concrete cornered brick capped by a concrete pad.
Height ranges from 1 foot, 7 inches to 2 feet, 3 inches (due to slope of pond). The mounts measure 2 feet 8 inches by 2 feet across. A concrete encased pipe leads from rear of mount to edge of pond.
*A5. Cultural Constituents (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.):
A brown glass bottle base fragment partially embossed with a scripted Duraglas maker’s mark was found on the northwestern edge of the horse pond. This maker’s mark was in use from 1940-1963 (Toulouse 1971).
A6. Were Specimens Collected? _ No Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.)
*A7. Site Condition: Good _ Fair Poor (Describe disturbances.):
*A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Santa Ana River located 585 meters to the southeast
*A9. Elevation: 870 feet AMSL
A10. Environmental Setting (Describe culturally relevant variables such as: vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): Vegetation consists of a planted lemon tree between features, and an ornamental tree of unknown species located outside the northwest façade.
A11. Historical Information: McKenna states in an oral interview with previous owner Mr. Beckett in 1993 that all structures on this property were built approximately 25 years ago (in 1993), in support of the horse breeding and rehabilitation facility. (McKenna 1993)
*A12. Age: Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880 1880-1914 1914-1945 _ Post 1945 Undetermined (Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historical dates if known):
36-031677
DPR 523E-Test (12/93)
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Primary # :
Trinomial :
A13. Interpretations (Discuss data potential function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations):
A14. Remarks: These structures were recorded and evaluated because they are slated for demolition under the proposed Agua Mansa Substation Project. AM-002 was evaluated for the CRHR using the four standard eligibility criteria and seven elements of integrity criteria outlined in Section 4.6 Evaluation Methods . According to the archival research, Feature 1 (the corrugated metal barn) was built in 1966- 1967 and is therefore 46-47 years old. Feature 2 (the horse pond) was built immediately after, most likely late 1967, making it also 46 years old. A s these fall close to the 50-year historic period threshold, they were both evaluated.
Archival research and additional fieldwork did not show that these two features were related to an event that was significant in the region’s history. The most significant historic event in the region was related to Santa Ana River flooding and the New Mexican pioneers dat ing over 100 years prior. Therefore, site AM-002 is not significant under Criteria 1.
Research into the previous owners of the property did not reveal any persons identified with significant events in the regions’ history.
Therefore, the two features of site AM-002 are not eligible under Criteria 2 of the CRHR. The corrugated metal and wood frame structure (Feature 1) and the concrete horse pond (Feature 2) are of conventional design, lacking architectural distinction, and do not strongly embody the distinctive characteristics of any period, type, or method of construction. These were utilitarian structures designed for use in breeding and rehabilitating horses. Thus, site AM-002 is not considered eligible under Criteria 3 of the CRHR.
The two features as they stand alone do not provide additional information into their former use as a horse breeding and rehabilitation faci lity and therefore, do not provide information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Therefore, the site AM-002 is not considered eligible under Criteria 4 of the CRHR.
A15. References (Documents, informants, maps, and other references):
McKenna, Jeanette
1993 Cultural Resources Investigations and Historic Research for the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Site 1 Project Area and Associated Soil Testing Areas, Agua Mansa, San Bernardino County, CA. On file at the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino, CA
Toulouse, Julian Harrison
1971 Bottle Makers and their Marks. Thomas Nelson, Inc: New York.
A16. Photograph (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.): Camera C12-11Photos 159, 161 and 178
Original Media/Negatives Kept at: ECORP Consulting, Inc.
*A17. Form Prepared by: Kristina Lindgren Date: November 4, 2013
*Affiliation and Address: ECORP Consulting, Inc., 215 N. 5 th Street, Redlands, CA 92373
36-031677
DPR 523L (1/95) * ReTuired information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary #:
CONTINUATION SHEET HRI#/Trinomial:
*Recorded by: ECORP Consulting, Inc. *Date: 10/29/2013 _ Continuation Update
Feature 1 (AM-002): Southwest and Southeast Facade. Photo # 159
Feature 1 (AM-002): Southeast and Northeast Façade. View West. Photo # 161
36-031677
DPR 523L (1/95) * ReTuired information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary #:
CONTINUATION SHEET HRI#/Trinomial:
*Recorded by: ECORP Consulting, Inc. *Date: 10/29/2013 _ Continuation Update
Feature 2 (AM-002): Overview of Horse Rehabilitation Pond, with Barn in Background. View Northeast Photo # 178
36-031677
*Drawn By: Kristina Lin dgren *Date: 10/29/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SKETCH MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
DPR 523K (1/95)
*Required Information
EE
Feature 1
Feature 2
0 500250 Meters
I
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000200 Feet
Location: \\Rocklin\MAPPING DATA\2013\2013-133 Agua Mansa Substation 6 sub to Z Global City of Colton\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Sketch_Maps\AM-002_Sketch_v2.mxd ()-mguidry 11/1/2013 36-031677
*Map Name: San Bern ardino Soutn (1980) *Scale: *Date of Map: 10/30/2013 State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
DPR 523J (1/95)
*Required Information
AM-002
1:24,000
Location: N:\2013\2013-133 Agua Mansa Substation 6 sub to Z Global City of Colton\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\Location_Maps\AM-002_Location.mxd (MGuidry)-mguidry 10/30/2013 0 500 1,000250 Meters
I
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
36-031677
DPR 523A (9/2013 adapted) *Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: Agua Mansa Ditch
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County San Bernardino and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) * b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Bernardino South, Calif. Date 1980 T1S; R5W; S.B. B.M. [a portion of the Jurupa (Stearns) land grant] c. Address N/A City Colton Zip 92324 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 11; A:467,593 mE/ 3,767,808 mN B:467,262 mE/ 3,767,441 mN
UTM Derivation: USGS Quad √ GPS (NAD 83)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) The segment of the ditch reported on here is located in the field between Agua Mansa Road and the Santa Ana River, beginning approx. 1 mile west of S. Rancho Avenue, within APNs 0260-072-01 to -04, -15, and -16. The northeast end (Point A)is about 400 feet south-southeast of Agua Mansa Road while the southwest end (Point B)is about 700 feet south-southeast of the road. The alignment is approx. 880 feet above mean sea level. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The site consists of a portion of the Agua Mansa Ditch. The ditch was encountered at depths varying from 6 inches to 1 foot below the ground surface. The ditch would have originally been an unlined open channel with, possibly, some portions being rock-lined. The segment encountered here is now concrete-lined. The sloping sidewalls often contain rounded river rocks that were split, with the flat surfaces set in a layer of mortar 0.5 to .75 inches thick. Smaller rocks were used to support these larger split rocks. The concrete bottom of the ditch is typically approx. 26 inches wide and 3 inches thick. The sloping side walls are about 12 inches high. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP20: Canal (segment) *P4. Resources Present: ☐ Building ☐ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (isolates, etc.) P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
P5b. Description of Photo (view, date,
accession #): Facing
northeasterly; 07/09/2015
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric ☐ Both
Ca. 1862 (see Items L3 and
L7 for details)
*P7. Owner and Address:
N/A
*P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and
address): John Goodman, CRM
TECH, 1016 East Cooley
Drive, Suite A/B, Colton, CA
92324
*P9. Date Recorded:07/8-10/2015
*P10. Survey Type (describe):
Archaeological monitoring
for CEQA-compliance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") See Continuation Sheet, page 9
*Attachments: ☐None ☒ Location Map ☒Sketch Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☐Building, Structure, and Object Record ☒Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☒Linear Resource Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☒Other (List): Easement map 36-03171
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
A1. Dimensions: a. Length 1,700 feet b. Width 30 inches Method of Measurement: ☐ Paced ☐ Taped ☐ Visual estimate Other: GIS / USGS quad.
Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): ☐ Artifacts ☒ Features ☐ Soil ☐ Vegetation ☐ Topography ☐ Cut bank ☐ Animal burrow ☒ Excavation ☐ Property boundary ☒ Other (Explain): ALTA map showing easement; backhoe excavations at various locations
Reliability of Determination: ☐ High ☒ Medium ☐ Low Explain: Not found in all backhoe cuts.
Limitations (Check any that apply): ☐ Restricted access ☐ Paved/built over ☒ Site limits incompletely defined ☒ Disturbances ☐ Vegetation ☐ Other (Explain): Explored only in area indicated. The property was previously used as a chicken ranch and then a paintball park.
A2. Depth: 12 in. ☐ None ☐ Unknown Method of Determination: Backhoe and tape measure *A3. Human Remains: ☐ Present ☒Absent ☐ Possible ☐ Unknown (Explain):
*A4. Features (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.):
The Agua Mansa Ditch; see Items L3, L6, and L7 below
*A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.): None *A6. Were Specimens Collected? ☒ No ☐ Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.) *A7. Site Condition: ☐ Good ☒ Fair ☐ Poor (Describe disturbances.): see A1. Limitations
*A8. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.):
The Santa Ana River is located approx. 860 ft.
southeast from the site.
*A9. Elevation: Approx. 880 ft. above mean sea level.
A10. Environmental Setting: ( Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.):
The property is surrounded by open land to the south, east, and west. Agua Mansa Road borders the property on the north. The site is located on relatively level ground. The property had been mostly cleared of vegetation at the time of the fieldwork, but some fiddle necks, tumbleweeds, foxtails, wild mustard, datura, small grasses and scrubs were present. Soils in t he top 10 inches consist of silty sand with plant roots and rodent burrows; well-sorted flood sands were encountered from 10 to 38 inches ; and a semi- compacted silty sand was found below 38 inches.
A11. Historical Information: The ditch was originally constructed to bring water to the fields of the town of Agua Mansa. See L3, L6, and L7, below.
*A12. Age: ☐ Prehistoric ☐ Protohistoric ☐1542-1769 ☐ 1769-1848 ☐ 1848-1880 ☒1880-1914 ☐1914-1945 ☐ Post 1945 ☐ Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known:
The Agua Mansa Ditch was constructed in 1862 as a part of the rebuilding effort after the flood that washed out the village of Agua Mansa had also deposited a layer of sand over the fields, making irrigation necessary (Scott 1977:70). The "crude" (undoubtedly earthen) ditch was among the earliest in the area and integral to the growth of the rebuilt Agua Mansa settlement. In 1885, the ditch was extended north and east to meet the Meeks and Daley Ditch ( ibid.:64). But by 1900, very little agriculture was occurring in Agua Mansa.
A13. Interpretations (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations): The ditch was used by early Hispanic/Americans to irrigate their agricultural fields.
A14. Remarks: Exploratory excavations encountered the ditch only at certain locations within the project area.
A15. References (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.): See Continuation Sheet, page 9 A16. Photographs (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.):
Original Media/Negatives Kept at: CRM TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive, Ste.B, Colton, CA 92324 *A17. Form Prepared by: John Goodman, Michael Hogan, Salvadore Boites Date: 05/12/2017 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B, Colton, CA 92324
DPR 523C (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 2/2015) *Required information 36-03171
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial
L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Agua Mansa Ditch
L2a. Portion Described: ☐Entire Resource ☒Segment ☐ Point Observation Designation:
b. Location of Point or Segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.)
UTM coordinates (NAD 83) of endpoints A: 467,593 mE/ 3,767,808 mN B: 467,262 mE/ 3,767,441 mN
The easement is shown on the ALTA land title site survey map (see attached): "An easement shown or dedicated on the map of subdivision of the Bandini Donation recorded July 29, 1886 and on file in Book 3, page 24, of Tract maps. For: Agua Mansa Ditch and incidental purposes. *Approximate location shown hereon" (see Continuation Sheet, page 5).
L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/ sections as appropriate.)
The ditch would have originally been unimproved, cut into the ground, but possibly with segments rock- or wood-lined. The portions of the segment encountered here had been concrete-lined. The sloping sidewalls often contain rounded river rocks that were split, with the flat surfaces making the inner wall of sides of the ditch. They were set in a layer of mortar 0.5 to 0.75 inches thick. Smaller rocks were used to support these larger split rocks. The bottom of the ditch is typically approx. 26 inches wide, with the concrete about 3 inches thick. The sloping side walls are about 12 inches high. The ditch was encountered at depths varying from 6 inches to 1 foot below the ground surface.
L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for pre-historic features) a. Top Width approx. 38 inches
b. Bottom Width approx. 26 inches
c. Depth approx. 12 in
d. Length of Segment approx.1,700 ft
L5. Associated Resources: none
DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (Include scale)
Facing: Northeast
36-03171
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LINEAR FEATURE RECORD (cont.) Trinomial
L6. Setting (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc. as appropriate) This segment of the ditch is located above the bank of the north side of the Santa Ana River. The land is relatively level in this area. Trenching revealed that the soils consist of an upper disturbed soil stratum of silty sand with plant roots and rodent burrows that extended to a depth of approx. 10 inches; well-sorted flood sands were encountered from 10 to 38 inches, and a semi-compacted silty sand was found below 38 inches. The area had undoubtedly been farmed in the past, and by at least 1938 the City of Colton had installed a wastewater treatment plant near the eastern end of the segment of the ditch reported on here. By the 1970s a chicken ranch was in operation on the propert y, and by 2009 the area had been converted into an outdoor paintball field/park (historicalaerials.com).
L7. Integrity Considerations: The Agua Mansa Ditch was constructed in 1862 as a part of the rebuilding effort after the flood that washed out the village had also deposited a layer of sand over the agricultural fields, making irrigation necessary (Scott 1977.:70). The "crude" ditch was among the earliest in the area and integral to the growth of the rebuilt Agua Mansa settlement. Initially used to irrigate some 300 acres of "bottom land," by 1880 that number had dropped to around 116 acres (Scott 1977:70). Owners of the ditch incorporated as the Agua Mansa Water Company in 1885, and sold a third interest to the North Riverside Land and Water Company in 1887 ( ibid.). In the same year, the ditch was extended north and east to meet the Meeks and Daley Ditch ( ibid.:64). As the rising water table in the vicinity significantly diminished arable land in the low-lying area, by 1900 very little of the o riginal Agua Mansa land was under cultivation (ibid.:68, 70). A deep frost in 1913 killed much of local citrus and other crops, further sealing the demise of the ditch ( ibid.:68; Garcia and Rockman 2007:3). The ditch would have been an earthen canal, with, possibly, parts lined with rocks or wood. At some point, it was lined with concrete, possibly after being connected to the Meeks and Daley Ditch. The course of this recorded segment of the ditch is still visible in the 1938 aerial photo of the area (historicalaerials.com). It is unclear if the ditch was buried by nature (a flood episode) or by man. As noted previously, a chicken ranch and then a paintball park operated on this land. The town of Agua Mansa, and the Agua Mansa Ditch represent vestiges of a colorful chapter of the Agua Mansa area's early history, with both the former village and the ditch continuing to enjoy a high level of local historical interest. The fact that the segment of the ditch reported on here has been lined with concrete redu ces the site's integrity as it relates to this early period of the history of the area. However, the ditch did continue to play a role in the irrigation and water transport into the early 1900s. This segment of the ditch relates to this later period of the history of the area.
L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing
See P5a and L4e above and
Continuation sheets below
L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) See P5a and L4e above and continuation sheets below
L9. Remarks: Ditch not present at all trench excavation locations; see Continuation sheet below.
L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation and address) John Goodman, Michael Hogan, and Sal Boites, CRM TECH,
1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite B; Colton, CA 92324
L11. Date: Aug. 28, 2017
DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information 36-03171
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California - Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Agua Mansa Ditch CRM TECH 2946-1H
Page_5__ of __9___
36-03171
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Map Name: San Bernardino South, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1980
DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)) *Required information 36-03171
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
SKETCH MAP Trinomial
*Drawn by: Daniel Ballester *Date of Map: 06/14/2015
DPR 523K (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow. 36-03171
Recorded by: John Goodman & Daniel Ballester *Date: March 21, 2016
Table 1. Summary of Soil and Trench Attributes from Backhoe Exposure of the Ditch.
Trench # Location Length (Ft) Width (In) Depth of Trench (Ft) Comment 1 SW corner 100 24 6
Ditch found at 11-1/2 inches below the surface;
ditch impacted in this area with loose rocks and
mortar, but ditch outline is apparent
2 SW corner 100 24 6 Ditch not encountered; impacted in this area 3 SW area 70 24 6 Ditch not encountered; impacted in this area 4 SW area 100 24 8 Ditch not encountered; impacted in this area 5 Central area 100 24 8 Ditch not encountered; impacted in this area 6 NE area 100 24 8 Intact ditch found at 6 inches below surface 7 East central 70 24 8 Intact ditch found at 6 inches below the surface 8 East central 100 24 8 Intact ditch found at 8 inches below surface
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013 (adapted)
State of California - Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Agua Mansa Ditch CRM TECH 2946-1H
Page_7_ of __8__
State of California - Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Agua Mansa Ditch CRM TECH 2946-1H
Page_8_ of __9__
36-03171
*P11. Report Citation; and A15. References
Garcia, Kyle, and Marcy Rockman
2007 Results of Cultural Resource Assessment for the GO-131D Project Evaluation in Colton, California. On file, Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands.
HistoricAerial.com
1938-1959 Aerial photographs of project vicinity, taken in 1938, 1948, and 1959.
Http://www.historicaerials.com.
Scott, M. B.
1977 Development of water facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810-1968: A Compilation of Historical Notes Derived from Many Sources Describing Ditch and Canal Companies, Diversions, and Water Rights. USGS Publications Warehouse; Open File Report; http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ publication/ofr77398.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California - Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Agua Mansa Ditch CRM TECH 2946-1H
Page_9_ of __9__
36-03171
CEQA Plus Initial Study Appendices
City of Rialto
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project APPENDIX D
Appendix D: Geotechnical Exploration and Review of Grading and Improvement Plan
7991 Fitch • Irvine, California 92614 • PHONE (949) 442-2442 • FAX (949) 476-8322 • www.nmggeotechnical.com
January 16, 2023
Project No. 20079-02
To: Dopudja & Wells Consulting
6789 Quail Hill Parkway, #421
Irvine, CA 92603
Attention: Mr. Stephen Dopudja
Subject: Geotechnical Exploration and Review of Grading and Improvement Plan, Proposed Lake Rialto, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has performed a geotechnical exploration and review of the grading and improvement plan for the proposed Lake Rialto, in th e city of Rialto, California . We have reviewed the grading and improvement plan of the proposed lake prepared by Wilson Mikami Corporation, received on November 29, 2022. The site is located south of the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) located at 501 E. Santa Ana Avenue in an industrial area of the c ity of Rialto (Figure 1). The subject property is a topographically low area that was historically used as sand and gravel quarries and infiltration ponds.
NMG previously performed a geotechnical exploration of a portion of the subject site in 2010 for a proposed bio- fuel production plant . Related to that plant, w e also performed geotechnical exploration of a portion of the Agua Mansa Landfill property to the south and the Holliday property to the west. Plans for the plant did not move beyond the initial feasibility studies . The pertinent boring and trench data from these studies were compiled and reviewed prior to drilling three additional hollow -stem-auger borings . The pertinent data from the prior studies are also included in this report.
The main geotechnical issues for this proposed habitat and lake project are:
• Stability of the perimeter slopes, especially during emptying and re-filling of the lake; • Erodibility and potential soil piping of the sandy alluvium; • Impact of lake development on existing slopes and adjacent properties , including existing electric transmission towers along the southern portion of the site; • Presence of uncertified fills placed during prior grading/disposal at the site; • Presence of the Agua Mansa Landfill rubble material along the southern boundary of the subject site; and
• The potential for strong seismic shaking.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report ii
NMG
This report provides our geotechnical findings and conclusions, and provides preliminary recommendations for projec t design , grading and construction. The project aspects related to potential hazardous materials, groundwater quality and biological concerns are not under the purview of NMG.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office . We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services.
Respectfully submitted,
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Terri Wright, CEG 1342 Ted Miyake, RCE 44864
Principal Geologist Principal Engineer
TW/TM/je
Distribution: Addressee (E-M ail)
Mr. Scott Wilson, Wilson-Mikami (E-Mail)
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report iii
NMG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site Location and Description ........................................................................................ 2
1.3 Site History ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................. 4
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 6
2.1 Geologic Setting ............................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Earth Units ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Geologic Structure .......................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Faulting and Seismicity .................................................................................................. 7
2.5 Mass Movements ............................................................................................................ 8
2.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 8
2.7 Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Slope Stability .............................................................................................................. 10
2.9 Liquefaction Potential .................................................................................................. 12
2.10 Settlement Potential ...................................................................................................... 12
2.11 Existing Utilities and Structures ................................................................................... 12
2.12 Potential Infiltration ..................................................................................................... 13
2.13 Erosion Potential .......................................................................................................... 13
2.14 Earthwork Bulking, Shrinkage and Subsidence ........................................................... 13
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 15
3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation .................................................................. 15
3.2 Site Clearing and Preparation ....................................................................................... 15
3.3 Remedial Removals ...................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Grading and Earthwork Specifications ......................................................................... 16
3.5 Slope Stabilization ........................................................................................................ 17
3.6 Rippability and Oversize Material ............................................................................... 17
3.7 Lake Liner Design ........................................................................................................ 18
3.8 Groundwater, Dewatering, and Monitoring Wells ....................................................... 18
3.9 Settlement ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.10 Erosion Protection ........................................................................................................ 19
3.11 Pedestrian Trail, Access Road, and Offsite Parking Pavements .................................. 19
3.12 Storm Drain Trenching and Inlet Structures ................................................................ 20
3.13 Wet Well and Outlet Structure ..................................................................................... 20
3.14 Foundation Design Parameters ..................................................................................... 21
3.15 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................................. 21
3.16 Temporary Shoring ....................................................................................................... 22
3.17 Soil Corrosivity and Soluble Sulfate Contents ............................................................. 23
3.18 Seismic Design Parameters .......................................................................................... 23
3.19 Utility Installation and Trench Backfill ........................................................................ 23
3.20 Surface Drainage .......................................................................................................... 24
3.21 Maintenance of Graded Slopes ..................................................................................... 24 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report iv
NMG
3.22 Future Plan Reviews ..................................................................................................... 24
3.23 Observation and Testing During Grading and Construction ........................................ 24
4.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 26
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map – Rear of Text
Figure 2 – Regional Active Fault Map – Rear of Text
Appendices
Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Boring, CPT and Trench Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Seismic Data
Appendix E – Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix F – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Plates
Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 – Remedial Measures Map
Plate 3 – Cross-Sections A-A' through E-E'
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 1
NMG
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has performed geotechnical exploration at the proposed Lake Rialto located to the south of the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP ) in the c ity of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California . This study included a geotechnical review of the grading and improvement plan titled "City of Rialto Grading and Improvement Plan" (Sheets 1 through 10 of 10), prepared by Wilson Mikami Corporation (WMC) and received by NMG on November 29, 2022. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the site conditions , identify potential geotechnical issues and constraints, and to provide remedial grading measures for the proposed grading . We have worked with the project team , including Dopudja & Wells Consulting, WMC as civil engineer, Buck Associates Consultants as biologist, and the City of Rialto as reviewers for the past two years.
This report presents our geotechnical findings , conclusions , and recommendations for design, grading and construction. This report includes appendices with pertinent references (Appendix A); geotechnical bori ng, CPT and trench logs (Appendix B) ; laboratory test data (Appendix C) ; updated seismic analysis (Appendix D) ; slope stability analysis (Appendix E) ; and General Eart hwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix F). Illustrations include Site Location and Regional Fault Map (Figures 1 and 2); Geotechnical Map (Plate 1); Remedial Measures Map (Plate 2); and Geologic Cross-Sections (Plate 3).
Our scope of services for this study includes the following.
• Background and Aerial Photo Review: The background revie w included researching and compiling geotechnical data related to the site, including both published and unpublished reports, maps, and records of groundwater data. This study also included a review of stereoscopic pairs of aerial photographs dating back to 1930, and review of topographic maps dating back to 1901. The collected data w ere compiled onto a map. A list of the reviewed references is included in Appendix A.
• Site Reconnaissance: NMG visited the site to evaluate current site conditions, map the limits of the landfill and the perimeter slope conditions, and to locate and stake boring locations prior to our subsurface exploration. We also reviewed site locations with representatives of the WWTP and contacted DigAlert for utility clearance prior to the field work. • Subsurface Exploration: The additional subsurface exploration consisted of excavation, sampling, and surface logging of three additional hollow-stem-auger borings at the s ite (H-1 through H-3). The logs of these and prior borings, CPTs and trenches by NMG and others are presented in Appendix B. Their locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). • Laboratory Testing: Laboratory testing of selected earth materials was conducted in general conformance with applicable ASTM test standard s for soil classification and evaluation of engineering properties . Test results from this and prior studies are summarized and presented in Appendix C. The in-situ moisture content and dry density data are included on the geotechnical boring logs (Appendix B).
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 2
NMG
• Geotechnical Analysis: Geotechnical analysis of the collected data included preparation of a geotechnical map, creating an overall geologic and hydrogeologic site model, developing geologic cross -sections, and preparation of geotechnical boring logs . We evaluated and analyzed the proposed conceptual grading in light of general slope stability, settlement and liquefaction potential. The seismic data is updated per the 2022 California Building Code.
Analyses were also performed to provide general recommendations for design of foundations and structures.
• Report Preparation: We prepared this report, which includes preliminary recommendations related to future lake design , rough grading, design of structures and construction, with accompanying illustrations and appendices.
Please note our scope of work did not include biological assessment of the site or environmental evaluations of the subsurface soil or groundwater.
1.2 Site Location and Description
The roughly 14.5-acre site is located south of the WW TP located at 501 E. Santa Ana Avenue in an industrial area of the c ity of Rialto (Figure 1). Current a ccess to the site is through the plant .
The subject property is an undeveloped area that was historically used for sand and gravel quarries and as infiltration ponds for the WWTP . The site is a topographically low area that has been graded many times in the past, resulting in a number of areas of undocumented fills (Plate 1). The elevations within the site vary from a high of 935 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the southwest corner to a low of 878 feet msl in the eastern basin area. The bottom of the western basin varies from 892 to 900 feet msl and the eastern basin from 878 to 890 feet msl.
There are three WWTP clarifier tanks located to the northwes t of the site, with a concrete drainage channel that outlets into a rip -rap pad (an infiltrates) in the northern -central portion of the site. A chain link fence separates the WWTP from the subject site . There is also a bioenergy facility northeast of the lake site with tanks and equipment pads that is also enclosed with a chain link fence. The Agua Mansa landfill (construction and demolition debris) is located to the south of the site.
The Rialto Channel is a concrete lined channel located immediately eas t of the site and the landfill. C urrently, secondary treated effluent water from the WWTP is discharged to the channel. This channel extends to the south approximately 3,200 feet and drains into a meander in the Santa Ana River.
There are two Southern California Edison (SCE) easements that cross the southern portion of the site in an east -west direction. The overhead power line easement s have three metal and wood towers/poles located within the project limits (shown on Plate 1) . There is also an underground pipeline associated with the waste water treatment plant that exists along the eastern side of the site, between the WWTP and the Rialto Channel.
The eastern basin has been used as an equipment yard and is relatively free of vegetation. The western basin is covered with grasses, shrubs and some trees. 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 3
NMG
1.3 Site History
Our review of historic aerial photographs dating back to 1930 and historic topographic maps dating back to 1901 revealed the following.
• Agua Mansa Road and Riverside Avenue appear on the 1901 topographic map. • Prior to 1930, the sites were essentially in their natural condition as a flat alluvial plain with low grasses and dirt roads. It appears there was a dirt road traversing the southern side of the property with an overhead power line . The original topography ranged in elevation from approximately 950 to 1,000 feet msl, sloping gently toward the southwest. • In 1959, it appears the northern portion of the waste water treatment plan t had been constructed, with several ponds at the WWTP and two large basin excavations in the area of the subject site that appear to have water in the bottom . A sand and gravel quarry was being excavated to the west and northwest of the site, extending slightly onto the landfill property to the southwest.
• By 1966, a larger basin was added to the north of the two basins seen in the 1959 photos .
Between 1966 and 1980, these basins had various amounts of water and sediment . Also, it appeared that the shape of the basins had been modified throughout this time and the re were more structures constructed at the WWTP . The Rialto Channel appears to have been constructed by 1978.
• By 1977, the Agua Mansa landfill site had been mined extensively for sand and gravel and the southern portion of the site consisted of a deep pit that had filled with groundwater .
Between 1986 and 1989, the Agua Mansa site began to be used as a landfill and in 1995, landfill operations were ongoing throughout the Agua Mansa site. • Beginning in the 1995 photo, it appears the basins were dry and no longer used for infiltration. The secondary treated effluent water from the WWTP was being outlet into the Rialto Channel.
• By 2002, the waste water treatment plant to the north of the City site had been expanded to nearly its current extent. The v -ditch dr aining from the WWTP with a rip -rap pad for infiltration was constructed.
• In the 2006 photos, it appears there was ongoing grading in the bottom of the easterly basin, with heavy equipment extending from the bioenergy facility property to the northeast . In 2007, the eastern basin and the energy company property was cleared of vegetation and appeared to have been recently graded as pads.
• In 2009, the bioenergy facility to the northeast had been constructed. • By 2019, the third clarifier tank had been constructed on the WWTP . By 2020, the two small tanks at the southern end of the energy company had also been constructed. 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 4
NMG
1.4 Previous Studies
We reviewed data from several prior site- specific groundwater studies published for the Agua Mansa site and unpublished data for the subject site. The more substantial studies are summarized below.
• Pioneer Consultants performed a geotechnical evaluation of the La Roca Pit at the Agua Mansa landfill in 1975. Their study included evaluating the existing aggregate onsite and determining the depth to groundwater at the site. Their investigation in the quarry excavation encountered groundwater from 6 to 12 feet deep. They recommended mining operations continue down to or near the groundwater table , after which the site modified to be used as a disposal site.
• In 1980 and 1985, Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates (Rasmussen and Associates, 1980, 1985a, 1985b) performed engineering geology and groundwater quality evaluations at the Agua Mansa site. During their February 1980 site visit, groundwater was observed in the deep pit in the southern portion of the site . They estimated groundwater was at an elevation of 859.5 feet msl, provided recommendations regarding type of material to be disposed of in the landfill, and recommended two monitoring wells be installed at the site. • In July 2007, Kleinfelder, Inc. performed a limited subsurface exploration of the City site for a proposed Rialto BioSolids Processing Facility addition that was never constructed. T hey excavated seven hollow -stem-auger borings throughout the site . Their boring locations are shown on Plate 1 and copies of the boring logs are provided in Appendix B. • In 2010, NMG performed geotechnical investigations at the subject site, the eastern portion of the landfill site, and at the Holliday site to the west for a proposed bio- fuel production plant. The studies included numerous hollow -stem borings, cone penetrometer probes , test pits, and laboratory testing. Downhole geophysics were performed on the Holliday site to the west. Boring, trench and CPT locations from that study pertinent to this study are shown on Plate 1 ; copies of the logs are provided in Appendix B, and copies of the laboratory test results from the prior study are included in Appendix C. • In 2018, AECOM performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation at the WWTP and prepared a memorandum presenting the data and the recommendations for the WWTP clarifier tank # 3. They drilled two borings (SB -4 and SB-5) in the area of the proposed tank (Plate 1). The boring logs are provided in Appendix B and the associated laboratory testing is included in Appendix C . The tank site was subsequently graded and the tank constructed in 2019, which can be seen on historic aerial photos.
These and other pertinent published reports and maps reviewed for this study are referenced in Appendix A.
1.5 Proposed Project
The proposed Lake Rialto will consist of restoration of the existing low- lying areas to the south of the WWTP to accommodate the biofiltration and/or storage of the secondar y treated wastewater from the WWTP. There are two planned basins, including the western shallow basin 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 5
NMG
that will be used for permanent water quality treatment and the eastern deep basin to store water with perimeter vegetation. The eastern basin (or lake) will be larger and deeper (bottom elevation of 857 feet msl) . Both the western basin and lake will be lined and have a water surface at 905 feet msl. Based on these elevations, the western basin will have up to 10 feet of water and the eastern basin will have up to 48 feet of water.
The lake supply waste water will be piped through an 18- to 24- inch RCP pipe drain system along the north side of the lake to outlet into the western basin at the west and northeast corners, and at the bottom of the lake . There will be a small island in the western basin at 908 feet msl.
There will be an earthen bench around both basins and a large pad area at the northwestern edge of the lake at a 903 elevation that will be used for planting vegetation.
The WWTP currently outlets into the Rialto Channel and the lake will be used to stop flow to the channel for a few days. There will be a drain structure at the southeast end of the lake bottom that will be used to empty the lake at least once a year. We understand the lake will b e emptied slowly through a nearly horizontal pipe that will be connected to the bottom of a pump station wet well at the southeast corner of the lake. The pump station with a wet well 72 feet below ground is planned in the southeast corner of the lake, as shown on Sheet s 7 and 8 of the grading plan. The nearly horizontal outlet pipe is designed as an 18 -inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that will extend approximately 230 feet from the lake to the wet well. The design elevation of the RCP is near 852 to 855 feet msl.
The lake will then be filled over several days with the discharge from the WWTP, so the channel can remain dry for a time.
The plan reviewed for this report is the " City of Rialto Grading and Improvement Plan, Lake Rialto," prepared by Wilso n Mikami Corporation and dated September 12, 2022. It includes 10 sheets as follows:
• Sheet 1 is the title sheet with notes, a vicinity map and plan index; • Sheets 2 and 3 are the detail sheets, including the liner information; • Sheet 4 is the grading plan;
• Sheets 5 through 7 are the drainage inlet and outlet plan and profile sheets; • Sheet 8 is the pump station precise grading plan;
• Sheet 9 shows the offsite parking plan; and
• Sheet 10 is the erosion control plan.
The proposed grading will include up to 28 feet of cut below existing grades and up to 15 feet of fill above existing grades . The perimeter cut and fill slopes are designed at a 2H:1V slope ratio and up to 60 feet high to the perimeter access road, and then up to 30 feet high above the lake level. Interior slopes in the western basin and between the two basins are designed at 2H:1V and vary between 7 and 17 feet high.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 6
NMG
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
2.1 Geologic Setting
The site is located in San Bernardino County, just north of the Santa Ana River and the La Loma Hills in the Peninsular Range Province of California . The site is underlain by deep alluvium at the southern side of San Bernardino valley area. The site has undergone several episodes of grading and there are u ndocumented fills locally throughout the site. Directly south of the site is the Agua Mansa Landfill, from which rubble fills have extended onto the subject site. The site is located in a seismically complex area, with both strike-slip and frontal thrust fault systems. There are no active f aults mapped within the site . The closest active fault is the San Jacinto Fault located approximately 3 miles northeast of the site.
2.2 Earth Units
Earth units consist primarily of younger Holocene -age alluvium with lessor amounts of undocumented fill materials within the low areas. The earth units are described below.
Undocumented Fill: Varying amounts of undocumented fill (non-engineered and/or tested fills) are mapped at the site. The limits of th ese fill are difficult to distinguish since the soil composition is similar to the underlying native deposits . Based on the historic aerial photos, the onsite basins have been excavated down to groundwater, and have been reshaped several times over the past 60 years. There may be more fill than shown on the Ge otechnical Map (Plate 1), especially in the bottom of the basins.
Prior mapping and exploration by Kleinfelder encounter ed fill materials . Two of their borings (B-1 and B -5) in the eastern basin area encounter ed up to 30 feet of fill that consisted of oli ve brown to gray brown silty sand and sand with silt and gravel . They found petroleum odor at 15 feet in both borings and wood in the sample at 20 feet in B -5 indicating it was fill. We drilled an additional boring (H-2) in this area and encountered mostly light yellowish-brown, olive brown to dark gray silty fine to coarse sand that was dense to very dense. There was a sandy silt layer with gravel between 20 and 25 feet in H-2 that may have been near the bottom of the fill. The blow counts in the fill were quite high, over 68 blows per foot with a 140-pound weight dropping 30 inches per blow.
The undocumented fill material at the Agua Mansa landfill is inert construction debris (NMG, 2010b). NMG previously drilled at the eastern end of the landfill, directly south of the subject site. Six e xploratory borings encountered the undocumented fill/debris material, which ranged from 15 to 65 feet thick in the borings. Borings Y-1 and Y-2 are shown on Plate 1 and the logs are included in Appendix B. The material generally consisted of varying amounts of sand and silt, with a large quantity of construction debris (wood, concrete and steel) and rubber tires .
During the time of our fieldwork, landfill activities were ongoing and we observed broken concrete, tile, plast er, rebar, concrete light poles, and other inert construction debris being dumped. Since that time, they have placed additional fill. Currently, t here is a 50-foot high 3H:1V fill slope along the southern boundary of the subject site . It appears that some of the undocumented fill with rubble from the landfill operations extends onto the subject site , locally covering the southern slopes . These fills contain mostly concrete slabs with reinforcement steel, 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 7
NMG
rock, asphalt and other construction materials. These materials were placed locally over the eroded slope in the southeast corner of the eastern basin and appears to have spilled ove r the southern slope of the western basin.
Alluvium: Holocene-age alluvium was encountered in all the borings excavated onsit e. Borings at the subject site encountered alluvium at the ground surface locally and below fill. Borings at the Agua Mansa site encountered alluvium at the base of the landfill material, at depths of 15 to 65 feet below ground surface at the time of exploration. Alluvium is also exposed locally in the perimeter slopes . The alluvium was generally found to consist of gray, olive brown and yellowish-brown fine to coarse -grained sand and gravel, with trace silt and clay . The material was moist, dense, highly f riable, micaceous and locally iron -stained. Scattered thin silt layers were observed in the borings onsite. The alluvium below a depth of 5 feet was generally dense to very dense based on high blow counts and dry densit y test results . Samples were sometimes disturbed due to the presence of cobbles and clean sands.
2.3 Geologic Structure
The geologic structure within the native alluvium has been influenced by active streambed deposition. The alluvium was likely deposited as runoff within the ancient Lytle Creek riverbed, which was previously identified within the subject site (Rasmussen and Associates, 1980) . The alluvium was deposited in relatively fla t layers that have not been structurally tilted . Limited exposures at the site show that the crude layers within the alluvium are generally sub-horizontal.
2.4 Faulting and Seismicity
Faulting: The site is located in a complex seismically active area with several Holocene -age faults nearby. The right-lateral strike-slip San Andreas Fault, which separates the Pa cific Plate from the North American Plate, and the San Jacinto Fault lie within 10 and 3.8 miles, respectively, northeast of the site (Figure 2). The San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast of the site were tectonically created by the combined seismic forces from these strike- slip faults .
The frontal thrust fault (the Cucamonga Fault) system is located along the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 10 miles northwest of the site. The primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking and secondary effects due to a future earthquake on one of these major regionally active faults.
The site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (C GS, 2018) and no evidence of active faultin g was observed during this investigation or prior work at the site (Appendix A) . There are no faults mapped by the State at the site (Figure 2, CGS 2010).
Using the USGS deaggregation computer program (2023) and the site coordinates of 34.0512 degrees north latitude and -117.3605 degrees west longitude, the main contributing active fault to the site is the San Jacinto Fault located 6.2 km northeast of site. This fault has a Moment Magnitude (M
W) of 8.0.
Seismicity: Properties in southern California are subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and capability of nearby faults . These hazards 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 8
NMG
can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy release of an earthquake such as surface rupture and ground shaking) or secondary (i.e., related to the effect of earthquake energy on the physical world which can cause phenomena such as liquefaction and ground lurching).
As previously discussed, the site is not located within a fault -rupture hazard zone and no evidence of active faulting was observed during this exploration, or by prior work at the site .
Therefore, the potential for primary ground rupture is considered slight to nil . The primary seismic hazard for this site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults, such as the San Jacinto, San Andreas, or the Cucamonga Faults.
Seismic design parameters were calculated based on computer program by the Structural Engineers Association/Office of Statewide Health Plann ing and Development (2023) and the results are presented in Section 3.18 of this report. The data is also presented in Appendix D.
The secondary seismic hazards of tsunami or seiche are considered very slight to nil, as the site is located greater than 50 miles from the ocean and no confined bodies of water or reservoirs are within the vicinity of the site . Once the lake is filled, there is a potential for seiche during a future earthquake event. However, the lake and western basin are all surrounded by ea rthen berms in a low area, and thus, is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding properties.
The site is not located in an area designated as susceptible to liquefaction as mapped by the County of San Bernardino (2021). The densities of the unde rlying s oils should make the potential for liquefaction low (further discussed in Section 2.9).
2.5 Mass Movements
There are no landslides mapped at the site and the site is not mapped by the County of San Bernardino as susceptible to landslides (2021) . The topography at site consists of locally over - steepened slopes within the native alluvium, and shallow surficial failure, erosion and creep features are evident on the steep slopes.
Cross-Section A -A' (Plate 3) shows the area of the prior erosion gully and mapped surficial failures that were observed in 2010 by NMG . This area of the slope was repaired and recompacted with an excavator and bull dozer; however, we understand it was not observed and tested by a geotechnical engineer.
2.6 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the deeper exploratory borings during investigations between 2007 and 2021. In July 2007, the groundwater below the eastern basin was at elevation of 845 feet msl (B -1 by Kleinfelder, 2007) . In borings drilled by NMG between April an d August of 2010, groundwater was encountered at elevations of 839 to 840 feet msl . Recent borings drilled in February 2021 by NMG found the groundwater at an elevation of 835 feet msl in Boring H-2.
Historically, groundwater beneath the landfill was as shallow as 870 feet msl in 1947 and as deep as 806 feet msl in 1970 (Rasmussen and Associates, 1980). This represents a groundwater fluctuation of 64 feet over a period of only 23 years. In 1980, groundwater was observed and measured at an elevation of 859.5 feet msl. These fluctuations and the shallow groundwater were 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 9
NMG
probably influenced by periods of heavy rainfall, grading of the sand and gravel quarries around the site, and possibly from historic use of infiltration ponds at the site.
In general, due t o the coarse-grained nature of the native alluvium, the vicinity of the site to the Santa Ana River, and the site being located within a groundwater recharge area, fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated depending upon local conditions such as rainfall, high- water levels in the river, groundwater pumping, and nearby irrigation practices.
2.7 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of onsite soils collected during our field exploration to characterize their engineering properties. Laboratory tests performed on selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples included:
• In-situ moisture content and dry density;
• Grain-size distribution;
• Atterberg limits;
• Consolidation;
• Direct shear;
• Specific gravity; and
• Corrosivity to metals.
Laboratory tests were conducted in general conformance with applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard test methods.
NMG also performed a significant amount of laboratory testing at and adjacent to the subject site. These data include tests of expansion index, soluble sulfate, maximum density and optimum moisture content, R-value, drainage (effective porosity), and hydraulic conductivity.
The vast majority of native soil at the site is sand and gravel, generally classified as SM and SP, with some amounts of ML (silt) per the Unified Soil Classification System. (Hence, the attraction of sand and aggregate mining for the area.) The in -place soil also has relatively high dry densities and low compressibil ity. Hydro-consolidation (collapse) potential ranged from 0.4 percent to 2.7 percent in a sample from Boring H -3 in the bottom of the west basin. Collapse potentials from more numerous testing of alluvium at the adjacent sites were significantly less , generally zero to less than 1 percent (NMG, 2010a and 2010b) . Near-surface soils, both fill and alluvium, are predominantly non-expansive (expansive soil was encountered by NMG at an adjacent site but was the product of other activities).
Direct shear tests on three samples from this study had ultimate friction angles between 32 and 37 with cohesions of zero to 310 psf, respectively. Peak values ranged from 37 to 39 with cohesions of zero to 440 psf, respectively. These values were higher than the majority of testing from alluvium samples from adjacent areas.
The soil at the subject site and adjacent areas showed negligi ble soluble sulfate contents , moderate corrosion potentials (to ferrous metals), and relatively low chloride contents. 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 10
NMG
Twelve samples from th e adjacent study area were tested for effective and total porosity and hydraulic conductivity. The samples tested were collected from either the native alluvium (depths of 15 to 30 feet deep) or from the underlying alluvial fan deposits (depths of 40 to
57.5 feet deep). The results indicate that the upper alluvium samples had generally higher hydraulic conductivity (0.0015 to 0.0030 cm/sec or 4.3 to 8.5 feet/day), while the underlying fan deposits had lower hydraulic conductivities (1.82E -04 to 9.58E -06 cm/sec or 0.52 to
0.03 feet/day).
Test results for this exploration are summarized in Appendix C , along with pertinent laboratory test results from adjacent sites. In-situ moisture content and dry density data from this study are also shown on the geotechnical boring logs (Appendix B).
2.8 Slope Stability
As previously mentioned, there have been surficial failures and erosion on the existing perimeter slopes around the basins. These existing slopes vary in steepness from 2H:1V to 1H:1V, and are up to 70 feet high. There are local areas of alluvium exposure, and some of the slopes have been repaired as fill slopes.
Several geologic cross-sections were developed for the site to show these existing slopes and their relationship to adjacent existing improvements (Plate 3) . Slope stability analysis was performed on cross-sections showing the steeper and/or higher slopes and those located below existing structures . Cross-Section B-B' crosses the eastern basin in a north- south direction, showing the waste water treatment plant to the north and the landfill in the south . Cross-Section D-D' is drawn through a slope below the existing waste water effluent pipeline and offsite structures/tanks of the adjacent bioenergy facility . Cross-Section E-E' shows a slope in relat ion to an existing power pole on the hilltop. The proposed grading, as shown on our cross-sections, includes the perimeter landscape bench around most of the basins at an elevation of 902 feet msl, and upper pedestrian access path at an elevation of 908 fe et msl just above the lake level . The path creates a raised fill bench at the toe of the existing perimeter slopes above the east side of the basin. The lake bottom will be cut down approximately 25 feet below existing bottom grade (as shown on Cross-Sections D-D' and E-E' on Plate 3). The future lake water level will be at an operating level of 905 f eet msl (shown on cross -sections). We understand the lake will be drained at least once a year.
The perimeter slopes expose alluvium and fill . B oth are similar in composition and were assigned the same shear strength parameters for the slope stability analyses : an internal friction angle (phi) of 30 degrees with a cohesion of 75 pcf. These parameters were derived from a compilation of the shear test results from this study as well as studies by NMG of adjacent areas.
Results from thirteen samples, including samples with more fine -grained soil (silts) , were combined in a single plot to determine an appropriate strength parameter for the slope stability analyses. The plot with selected strength envelope is included at the front of Appendix E.
The slope stability analysis was first performed on the perimeter slopes for the eastern basin assuming the high- water elevation of 905 feet in the basin, with the recommended slope stabilization measures shown on Cross -Sections B-B', D-D' and E-E' for both static and psedo- static conditions . This analysis shows the factor -of-safety (FOS) of the designed grading is 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 11
NMG
acceptable with respect to slope stability, being greater than 1.5 for static and greater than 1.0 for the pseudo-static conditions.
In the event of lake liner leakage, groundwater levels could rise around the lake and impact slope stability. Therefore, we analyzed a " worst case" scenario where t he groundwater was modeled behind in these slopes as building up to the lake level and then sloping down away from the reservoir to intersect the local groundwater table at 840 feet msl. Rapid drawdown analysis was then performed assuming the lake was empty but with this groundwater present behind the liner.
These analyses resulted in FOS of less than 1.0 (0.86 to 0.92) near the slope -face, implying the potential for unacceptable local slope failures. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine maximum acceptable groundwater rise behind the perimeter slopes that would still result in an acceptable FOS of 1.1 or greater.
Results are summarized below with a following discussion.
Northern Slope on Cross-Section B-B': The slope along the north side of the eastern basin as shown on Cross -Section B -B' is relatively high (82 feet), with the existing hillside above the graded basin up to the WWTP. Our analysis indicates a FOS of equal to or greater than 1.5 static and 1.1 pseudo- static. The rapid drawdown analyses from the highwater operating lake level to an empty lake show that the FOS will be less than 1.0 (0.92) near the slope-face. The maximum groundwater elevation behind the slopes to have a FOS of at least 1.1 is at an elevation of 884 feet msl.
Southern Slope on Cross-Section B-B': The slope along the south side of the eastern basin with the SCE transmission line towers shown on Cross -Section B-B' is relatively high (75 feet), with the existing slopes above the graded basin. Our analysis indicates an acceptable FOS equal to or greater than 1.5 static and 1.1 pseudo- static. The rapid drawdown analyses show that the FOS will be 0.86 near the slope-face. The maximum groundwater elevation behind the slopes to have a FOS of at least 1.1 is at an elevation of 887 feet msl.
Eastern Slope Below Bio -energy Facility on Cross-Section D-D': The design slope along the east side of the basin is shown on C ross-Section D-D', below the existing waste water line and the Bio-energy Facility is relatively high (70 feet). The analysis shows the FOS is equal to or greater than 1.5 static and 1.1 pseudo- static. The rapid drawdown analyses show that the FOS will be 0.90 near the slope-face. The maximum groundwater elevation behind the slopes to have a FOS of 1.1 is at an elevation of 879 feet msl.
Southern Slope with SCE Tower on Cross-Section E-E': The slope along the north side of the eastern basin as shown on Cross -Section E-E' is relatively high (70 feet), extending up to the SCE tower on the hilltop. Our analysis indicates a FOS greater than 1.5 static and 1.09 pseudo- static. The rapid drawdown analyses show that the FOS will be 0.91 near the slope -face. The maximum groundwater elevation behind the slopes to have a FOS of 1.1 is at an elevation of 883 feet msl.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 12
NMG
We did not perform pseudostatic analyses for the rapid drawdown scenarios as the probability of a combination of earthquake, liner leakage, plus emptying of the lake occurring at the same time is considered very low.
2.9 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which earthquake-induced cyclic stresses generate excess pore- water pressure in low density (loose), saturated, sandy soils and soft silts below the water table .
This causes a loss of shear strength and, in many cases, ground settlement . For liquefaction to occur, all of the following four conditions must be present:
• There must be severe ground shaking, such as occurs during a strong earthquake. • The soil material must be saturated or nearly saturated, generally below the water table. • The corrected normalized standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts (N 1) or the CPT tip resistance (Q) must be relatively low.
• The soil material must be granular (usually sands or silts) with, at most, only low plasticity .
Clayey soils and silts of relatively high plasticity are generally not subject to liquefaction.
The site is not located within an area of potential liquefaction, as mapped by the County of San Bernardino (2021). Based on the dense nature of fill and alluvium , the liquefaction potential is considered to be very low.
2.10 Settlement Potential
The conceptual plans show only minor design fills and no significant structures with foundations.
Therefore, static settlement potential from those typical loading scenarios is very low. The in - place densities of the site soils indicate that dry sand settlement potential due to earthquake ground shaking is also relatively low. Test results from this study indicate there is a slight potential for s ettlement due to wetting of granular soils (also referred to as hydro -consolidation or collapse). However, more extensive testing of the alluvium in adjacent areas had much lower collapse potential a s we understand that the basins will be lined. The collapse potential in the samples tested from the borings associated with this basin (H-1 and H-2) is relatively low, on the order of 1 percent or less. The samples with the higher collapse potential were from H -3 located in the western basin, which will be lined.
2.11 Existing Utilities and Structures
There are existing overhead and underground utilities and numerous structures/appurtenances located within and adjacent to the site (Plate 1). There are two SCE easement s that cross the southern portion of the site in an east -west direction . The ove rhead power line easement has three power line towers located onsite, some of which are perched on hilltop s above the basins .
There is an existing waste water (effluent) pipeline that extends from the WWTP at the northeast portion of the site and trends south-southwest along the top of the east basin slope, to an existing manhole structure next to the Rialto Channel where the effluent discharges into the channel.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 13
NMG
A groundwater observation well was located to the south within the Agua Mansa site (mapped in 2010); this well could not be found and is assumed buried at this time.
There is a new clarifier tank adjacent to the northwest portion of the site, and there are stru ctures and appurtenances associated with the bioenergy facility to the northeast . There is an existing v - ditch and rip- rap pad onsite that drains water flows from the WWTP , and the water apparently infiltrates into the alluvium below the rip-rap pad in the northern portion of the basin.
2.12 Potential Infiltration
Infiltration testing was not performed at the site during this study . However, we noted runoff from the WWTP through a v- ditch that emptied onto the rip -rap pad within the northern portion of the site that infiltrates into the ground. We observed about 4 inches of water flowing in the v- ditch and it disappeared into the soils (likely alluvium) below the rip-rap. The water was slightly ponded, but some of the water was observed to flow further south into the basin.
In general, we believe the sandy alluvium is highly permeable. The siltier and clayey alluvium would have lower p ermeability. Compacted fill generally has lower permeability , especially if it has some percentage of fine -grained soil . For reference, laboratory testing of soils for permeability and hydraulic conductivity from the adjacent study by NMG are provide d in Appendix C.
2.13 Erosion Potential
Unconsolidated sandy soils in the alluvium and fill are typically highly erodible when exposed at the ground surface and especially on slopes with uncontrolled water flowing over the tops -of- slopes. Infiltrating water can also find its way into the sandy layers and flow laterally and vertically through the soils . With uncontrolled drainage and infiltration, the flowing water in the sandy soils can create soil piping conditions where the hydraulic process in the subsurfac e granular soils can result in collapse or soil flow with the water creating voids where the layers are exposed at the surface. Seepage forces from water migrating downslope can also induce surficial slumps and/or shallow flow failures . The surface drainag e at the site will need to be properly controlled. (See Sections 3.5, 3.10 and 3.20).
2.14 Earthwork Bulking, Shrinkage and Subsidence
The loss or gain of volume (shrinkage or bulking, respectively) of excavated natural materials and recompaction as fill varies according to earth material type and location. This volume change is represented as percent shrinkage (volume loss) or as percent bulking (volume gain) after recompaction of a unit volume of cut in this same material in its natural state. Due to the inherent variability of materials, earthwork volume changes are difficult to accurately quantify. 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 14
NMG
The following estimates are based on our experience with similar materials.
Earthwork Estimates
Material Approximate Percent
Shrinkage/Bulking
Uncertified Fill 5 to 10 percent shrinkage
Colluvium and Topsoil 10 to 15 percent shrinkage
Alluvium 8 to 10 percent shrinkage
Weathered compacted fill 1 to 2 percent shrinkage
Ground subsidence at the site is estimated to be on the order of 0.2 foot, but less in the previously graded areas.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 15
NMG
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the geotechnical exploration and our findings, construction of the proposed improvements is considered geotechnically feasible provided the geotechnical considerations and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during design, grading and construction of the project.
The recommendations herein should be considered minimum and may be superseded by more stringent requir ements of the County of San Bernardino, the City of Rialto, and others . In addition to the preliminary recommendations herein, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are also provided in Appendix F.
3.2 Site Clearing and Preparation
Significant vegetation, miscellaneous trash, concrete st ructures, pipelines to be abandoned, and other deleterious materials should be removed and disposed of offsite prior to the start of grading. Concrete and asphalt may be incorporated into fill materials provided the r esulting material adheres to the recommendations provided in Section 3.4 and Appendix F of this report.
3.3 Remedial Removals
Unsuitable earth materials, including landfill rubble, loose fills and weathered alluvium should be removed prior to placement of new fill. We anticipate the removals will be on the order of 2 to 3 feet deep in the bottom of the basin, and up to 15 feet deep locally in the central portion of the basin where there is an existing loose fill berm. The less weathered, dense undocumented fill and alluvium should be reviewed and tested by the geotechnical consultant to confirm the exposed materials may be left in -place. Some of the loose fills on the perimeter slopes may also need to be removed and recompacted.
The actual depths and lateral limits of remedial removals should be determined in the field during grading based on the exposed conditions. Special consideration should be given to protect in-place the power poles within the SCE easement, as well as the adjacent pipeline and concrete- lined Rialto Channel along the eastern perimeter of the site.
Removal bottoms should expose competent alluvium or fill material. The removal bottoms should be observed, mapped and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to removal bottom preparation, and placement of fill.
Groundwater and wet material may be encountered in the northern portion of the site in the area where infiltration is occurring. Also, if grading is performed during the winter months, rain water may collect in the basins . If encountered, wet soil may require special handling, including top- loading and drying-back prior to placement as compacted fill. 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 16
NMG
3.4 Grading and Earthwork Specifications
Grading and excavations should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix F. These specifications include figures that depict minimum grading standards for slope construction and oversize -rock placement. Some specifications are reiterated below with additional recommendations.
Protection of Existing Improvements and Utilities: Existing improvements, including utilities adjacent to the proposed project that are to be protected in- place, should be located and visually marked prior to demolition and grading operations. Conditions of more sensitive improvements should be documented prior to grading for a record of existing conditions. Excavations adjacent to improvements to be protected in- place or any utility easement should be performed with care so as not to destabilize the adjacent ground. Utility lines that are to be abandoned (if any) should be removed and the excavation should be backfilled and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. T he temporary backcuts for the lake embankment stabilization keys recommended in Section 3.5 should be observed by representatives of NMG to evaluate temporary stability conditions , especially where the cuts are below adjacent facilities, power poles, utilities, etc. Stockpiling of soils (more than 5 feet in height) at or near existing structures and over utility lines that are to remain in -place (if any) should not be allowed without review by the geotechnical consultant.
Fill Placement and Compaction: After completion of acceptable remedial removals, the approved bottom should be scarified, moisture -conditioned as needed, and recompacted prior to placement of fill. Fill should be placed in nearly horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture -conditioned, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by Test Method ASTM D1557 (except as discussed in following sections).
Fills placed against ground sloping more than 5H:1V should be keyed and benched into competent material . Moisture content of compacted fill should be over optimum moisture content and relatively uniform throughout the fill material.
Suitable Fill Materials: Onsite materials which are relatively free of deleterious materials, should be suitable for use as compacted fill . The rubble along the southern boundary will require significant material be sifted and disposed of offsite (e.g., steel, wood, etc.).
Oversize Material: Concrete and asphalt materials may be incorporated into the compacted fill provided the concrete is broken down to less than 4 feet in maximum diameter, and asphalt is reduced to a maximum dimension of 12 inches . Efforts should be made to place these recycled materials below 5 feet and/or 2 feet below proposed storm drain pipes/structures . Portland concrete should be free of metal (i.e., rebar, bolts, etc.). There is existing rip-rap locally along the south side of the basins, and this rock material over 12 inches in size should be placed in accordance with our oversize rock disposal specifications in Appendix F.
Slope-Face Construction: Slope- faces should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Slopes should be either overbuilt and trimmed back to the compacted slope -face or built at grade with back -rolling every 4 vertical feet with a sheepsfoot roller and tested/accepted as the slope is constructed.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 17
NMG
3.5 Slope Stabilization
The existing perimeter slopes vary in steepness and stability . Most are surficially unstable and have had erosion and failures over the years. Our slope stability analyses verified these conditions which will require remediation.
The eastern basin includes design fill over cut slopes up to 55 feet high, where the cut portion of the slope will expose sandy alluvium and undocumented fill materials . These materials are typically layered and subject to erosion and surfi cial instability. Therefore, stabilization fill keys are recommended for these slopes , as shown on the Remedial Measures Map (Plate 2) and the cross-sections (Plate 3). These stabilization fill keys vary from 15 to 20 feet wide, and 2 to 3 feet deep, with a 1 foot tilt- back toward the heel of the key . The backcuts for these slopes should be cut at 2H:1V where possible, but no steeper than 1.5H:1V.
There are design cut slopes above the eastern basin that are up to 30 feet high and anticipated to expose sandy alluvium. These slopes should also be provided with stabilization fills keys 15 feet wide by 2 to 3 feet deep . The backcut on the eastern side, below the existing waste water line, will need to be oversteepened locally to 1:1 (Cross -Section D-D' on Plate 3). This work should be completed after the slope below is stabilized.
There are two other planned cut slopes, one in the western basin and one on the south side of the hilltop with the SCE tower that are 15 to 20 feet high . Stabilization fill keys 15 feet wide by 2 to 3 feet deep are recommended to replace these slopes with compacted fill.
The stabilization fill keys should be constructed in accordance with the Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix F. The backcuts should be mapped by an engineering geologist as these keys are excavated to evaluate the stability and to confirm the anticipated conditions, especially in the area of the existing sewer line where the backcut will be steeper.
The key bottom should be reviewed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill.
3.6 Rippability and Oversize Material
The landfill rubble material includes abundant large slabs of concrete, some with steel reinforcement. Where this material is encountered along the southern edge , excavation and ripping may be difficult and oversize material will be generated. If steel is removed, the concrete and the slabs may be crushed or placed in deeper fill areas. However, the grading may not have enough deep fills to accommodate the amount of concrete generated and some may need to be exported from the site . Alternatively, the bottom of the basin could be overexcavated to place oversize material deeper than 5 feet below design grades . Also, it is possible that some of the material may be used for the designed rip-rap at the storm drain outlets.
The native alluvium and rubble fill is anticipated to be moderately easy to excavate with a D -9 bulldozer. S ome cobbles and oversize materials may be generated. Recommendations and specifications for the placement of oversize materials in the fill are provided in more detail in Section 3.4 and Appendix F.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 18
NMG
3.7 Lake Liner Design
The proposed water quality basin and lake are intended to hold water. Without a liner, the water loss due to infiltratio n would be significant. Sheet 2 of 10 of the grading plan shows the details for a liner to be placed on the bottom and sides of both basins below the landscape bench at a 903 foot elevation. This liner will be a reinforced Polypropylene (RPP) liner, 36 mil thick, tan color, Western Environmental Liner . The liner will be anchored in a 1-foot- wide trench at the outside edge of the landscape bench with compacted soil backfill . The bench is designed at a width of 10 feet and will have a 2.5 -foot-high slope behind the bench that could be under the water level and may see wave action around the lake. This bench and slope will be provided with a 5-foot-thick fine-grained low permeability soil material that will impede infiltration around the edge of the basins.
Liner should be placed on even, competent grade, free of sharp rock or materials at the surface which may damage the liner. Construction of the liner should be observed/inspected during placement and upon completion to verify proper installation.
Annually, when the lake is emptied, the conditions of the liner should be reviewed. During the time the basins are emptied, maintenance of the liner and storm drain structures should be performed.
3.8 Groundwater, Dewatering, and Monitoring Wells
Groundwater seepage may be encountered during remedial grading near the existing rip-rap pad where infiltration is ongoing and /or if grading is performed during the winter . In these areas/conditions, dewatering may be necessary to complete the proposed grading and construction. We anticipate that dewatering at the site may be accomplished with sump pumps.
As described in Section 2.0, recent studies indicate that the groundwater table should not be encountered during earthwork and construction at the site.
For the proposed f illing and emptying of the basins , we recommend installation of three groundwater observation wells to measure the impact (if any) of the new lake to the local water table. These well locations area shown on Plate 2 and the depths should be between 70 and 90 feet deep to intercept the existing water table. These groundwater observation wells should be monitored periodically, including during filling of the basins to evaluate the competency of the liner. Also, prior to and during emptying of the lake, the wells should be monitored to verify that the liner is functional and that groundwater has not risen above the maximum levels determined from rapid drawdown analyses . The action levels for each well are based on the slope stability analysis as discussed in Se ction 2.8 and shown in Appendix E. The following table summarizes the maximum recommended groundwater elevations at each cross -section location prior to lake draining.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 19
NMG
Maximum Allowable Groundwater Elevation
Cross-Section Area Prior to Emptying Lake
B-B' North 884 feet msl
B-B' South 887 feet msl
D-D' 879 feet msl
E-E' 883 feet msl
If the groundwater is at or above these levels, the rapid emptying of the basin is not recommended. Slower rate of lake water d ischarge should be implemented while monitoring the groundwater levels. If for some reason the groundwater does not lower as the lake is drained, then lake draining should be suspended in order to determine the source of the groundwater and reasons for build up within the slopes.
Automated well reading and groundwater data collection devices are commercially available and should be considered for the recommended groundwater monitoring wells. Telemetry capabilities can also greatly enhance the timely transmi ssion and analysis of groundwater conditions around the lake.
3.9 Settlement
As discussed in Section 2.10, post -construction settlements as the result of the proposed project are expected to be relatively minor with no significant impacts of the planned improvements or adjacent improvements.
3.10 Erosion Protection
There are clean layers of sand in the alluvium and fills that are more prone to erosion. If left unprotected or with uncontrolled drainage, significant erosion may occur.
Measures to reduce soils erosion and potential for soil piping include the following:
• Direct drainage into suitable devices with no ponding of water behind the tops of slopes; • Replacement of the clean sandy layers exposed at the surface with a uniform compacted fill; • Adding surface protection and planting to slopes to reduce the potential for slope erosion/soil piping;
• Adding additional anti-seep collars to the proposed storm drains and culverts throughout the site.
3.11 Pedestrian Trail, Access Road, and Offsite Parking Pavements The proposed pedestrian trails and access roads around the basins will be subject to erosion and degradation if they are not paved or treated. The most durable pavement in a water environment would be Portland cement concrete (PCC), especially in the eastern basin where water levels will annually inundate some of these trails/roads . For pedestrian trail use, a minimum PCC slab thickness of 4 inches over the native soil subgrades is recommended. Some reinforcement is also 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 20
NMG
recommended because of the water environment. At minimum, we recommend No. 3 reinforcing bar at 24 inches on-center, both directions, or an equivalent welded wire mesh reinforcement.
Asphalt concrete (AC) would not be recommended for trails and access roads around the east lake where they would be submerged for any length of time. For areas which will not be inundated, a full -depth AC pavement (AC on native soil) would be acceptable, as the existing soils at the site are generally very good pavement subgrade materials with high percentages of sand and gravel. (R-values of similar soil from adjacent sites were well over 50.) Therefore, the minimum recommended AC section for access roads which may be used by service trucks is 4 inches of AC over the native s oil compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, per ASTM D1557.
An alternative to PCC or AC pavements would be a cement treated soil pavement. N ative sandy soil would be mixed with Portland cement and water to create a durable layer. We recommend a minimum cement treated layer thickness of 8 inches. The typical cement content for the soil - cement mixture is expected to be 9 to 11 percent by weight. Should this alternative be selected, onsite soil samples will need to be mixed with various concentrations of cement to create soil- cement specimens for compressive strength testing. Based on that testing, a design cement content will be established for the soil -cement pavement section to achieve the desired compressive strength. The cement content may be less (on the order of 6 percent) for areas which will not be subject to lake wave action or concentrated stormwater runoff. Stabilized decomposed granite may also be feasible for such areas.
The offsite parking shown on Sheet 9 is designed with an AC pavement section of 4 inches of AC over 6 inches aggregate base. This section is acceptable if this parking lot is limited to passenger vehicles and light duty service trucks.
Pavements should be constructed in conformance with the Specifications for Public Works Construction (the Greenbook).
3.12 Storm Drain Trenching and Inlet Structures
Sheets 5 and 6 of the grading plan show the proposed storm drain in plan and profile . This drain will tie into the existing waste water (effluent) pipeline in the northeast corner of the site and direct flows into three inlet structures, two in the west basin and one in the east basin. Where the pipe extend s downslope, slope anchors should be provided. We also recommend that cutoff trenches be installed at the tops-of-slopes to provide a barrier to reduce the potential for piping of the bedding and shading sand around the storm drain into the basin.
3.13 Wet Well and Outlet Structure
The wet well with pumpstation and outlet structure described in Section 1.5 are relatively deep (72 feet to the wet well). The closest borings to these structures (B-1 by NMG and B- 2, by Kleinfelder and Associates) encountered mostly sand, silty sand, gravelly sand and minor clayey sand and silt layers at depth . Although no groundwater was encountered in recent studies, the sandy soils are expected to be locally friable and have poor standup times . Therefore, construction of the pump station and outlet pipe will likely require specialized construction 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 21
NMG
techniques, such as secant piles for the vertical wet well shaft and m icro-tunneling or jack-and- bore for the lateral drain pipe. If required, additional geotechnical parameters for these or other proposed construction methods may be provided upon request.
The contractor /designer for these improvements should carefully evaluate the soil conditions provided in this report and present a written construction plan describing the means and methods to be employed for the structures for review and comment by the geotechnical consultant.
3.14 Foundation Design Parameters
For design of conventional foundations at the site , a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,800 psf may be assumed for a 12- inch-wide footing embedded 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf for every additional foot of width and by 900 psf for every additional foot of embedment depth up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. Higher bearing capacities may be allowable provided with appropriate settlement analysis of specific structures. The allowable bearing pressure ma y be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. We recommend that strip and isolated footings have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches.
The footings of freestanding structures (including walls and pilasters) should have a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches into approved soils.
For lateral resistance against sliding, a friction coefficient of 0.38 may be used at the soil - foundation interface. Also, a soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for onsite materials.
For design of the pole -type foundations (i.e., light poles, shade structures, etc.), an allowable soil - bearing pressure ( S1) of 360 psf/ft may be used for Equation 18 -1 (the "pole" equation) of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1807.3.2.1 to determine the depth of embedment for the footings, considering level ground conditions. The equation is applicable for designed embedment depths of less than 12 feet for the purpose of computing lateral pressure. Also, for vertical loads on pole-type foundations, an allowable skin friction of 250 pounds per square foot may be used. For cast-in-place pole-type foundations, the vertical end bearing pressure should be neglected.
3.15 Lateral Earth Pressures
Recommendations for lateral earth pressures for conventional retaining walls a nd structures (if any) with approved onsite drained soils are as follows:
Lateral Earth Pressures
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (psf/ft.)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 40 65
At Rest 60 85
Passive 360 180 (if sloping in front of wall)
These parameters are based on a soil internal friction angle of 30 degrees and soil unit weight of 120 pcf. The above parameters do not apply for backfill that is highly expansive. 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 22
NMG
To design an unrestrained retaining wall, such as a cantilever wall, the active earth pressure may be used. For a restrained retaining wall, the at -rest pressure should be used. Passive pressure is used to compute lateral soils resistance developed against lateral structural movement. The passive pressures provided above may be increased by one -third for wind and seismic loads. The passive resistance is taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structure will remain intact with time. Future landscaping/planting and improvements adjacent to the retaining walls shou ld also be taken into account in the design of the retaining walls.
Excessive soil disturbance, trenches (excavation and backfill), future landscaping adjacent to footings and over -saturation can adversely impact retaining structures and result in reduced lateral resistance. How much of the lateral resistance to be neglected will depend on the foundation type and nature of landscaping in front of the walls. Generally, the upper 1 to 2 feet of earth in front of walls with adjacent landscaping should be negle cted for lateral resistance.
Trench-type wall footings should have a minimum width of 10 inches.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.38 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. The coefficient of friction may also be increased b y one -third for wind and seismic loading. The retaining walls may also need to be designed for additional lateral loads if other structures or walls are planned within a 1H:1V projection.
The seismic lateral earth pressure for walls and structures retaining more than 6 feet of soil and level backfill conditions may be estimated to be an additional 25 pcf for active and at -rest conditions. The earthquake soil pressure has a triangular distribution and is added to the static pressures. For the active and at -rest conditions, the additional earthquake loading is zero at the top and maximum at the base. The seismic lateral earth pressure does not apply to walls retaining less than, or equal to, 6 feet of soil (2022 CBC Section 1803.5.12).
3.16 Temporary Shoring
Temporary braced/anchored shoring of excavations without groundwater, up to 25 feet deep may use the following lateral earth pressure:
σh H
Where "H" is the retained height of the shoring, in feet, and σh is the uniform soil pressure in psf, as
follows:
• Active: σh = 23H
• At-Rest: σh = 36H
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 23
NMG
3.17 Soil Corrosivity and Soluble Sulfate Contents
Based on laboratory testing, we anticipate that soluble sulfates exposure in the onsite soils may be classified as " S0" per Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI -318-14. Also, onsite soils are anticipated to be moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Chloride contents were relatively low. Tested pH levels were average. Laboratory test results are included in Appendix C of this report. Other ACI guidelines for structural concrete are recommended.
3.18 Seismic Design Parameters
The following table summarizes the seismic design criteria for the subject site. The seismic design parameters are developed in accordance with 2022 CBC and ASCE 7- 16, inc luding Supplement Nos. 1 through 3.
Selected Seismic Design Parameters
from 2022 CBC/ASCE 7-16
Seismic Design
Values
Reference
Latitude 34.0512 North
Longitude -117.3605 West
Controlling Seismic Source San Jacinto USGS, 2023
Distance to Controlling Seismic Source 3.8 Miles
(6.2 km)
USGS, 2023
Site Class per Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16 D SEA/OSHPD, 2023 Ss, Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods 1.77 g SEA/OSHPD, 2023 S1, Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods 0.69 g SEA/OSHPD, 2023 Fa, Site Coefficient, Table 11.4-1 of ASCE 7-16 1.0 SEA/OSHPD, 2023 Fv, Site Coefficient, Table 11.4-2 of ASCE 7-16 1.7
SDS, Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods from Equation 11.4-3 of ASCE 7-16 1.18 g SEA/OSHPD, 2023 SD1, Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second
Period from Equation 11.4-4 of ASCE 7-16 1.17 g*
TS, SD1/ SDS, Section 11.4.6 of ASCE 7-16 0.99 sec* TL, Long-Period Transition Period 8 sec SEA/OSHPD, 2023 PGAM, Peak Ground Acceleration Corrected for Site Class Effects from Equation 11.8-1 of ASCE 7-16 0.82 g SEA/OSHPD, 2023 Seismic Design Category, Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16 D
*These values have been increased by 50% as outlined in Supplement No. 3 of ASCE 7-16 Chapter
11.4.8. 3.19 Utility Installation and Trench Backfill
Excavations should conform to all applicable safety requirements. Trench excavations adjacent to buildings and walls should also be in conformance with the clearance requirements on the grading and foundation plans. Excavations are anticipated to encounter native sandy alluvium or fills which may be classified as Type "C" soils per Cal/OSHA. Trench excavations for the proposed improvements are not anticipated to encounter groundwater; however, wet zones in the soil may be encountered adjacent to l andscape areas and depending upon the time of year that 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 24
NMG
construction is performed. Utility excavations should be stabilized per OSHA requirements (shoring or laying back of trench walls). Excavations should be reviewed periodically by the contractor's qualified person to confirm compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements.
Native soils should be suitable for use as trench backfill though some oversize rock/rubble may be generated in some excavations and should not be used to backfill the pipe zone or within 2 feet of top-of-pipes. Native backfill materials should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Select granular backfill (i.e., clean sand with SE 30 or better) may be used in lieu of native soils, but should also be compacted or densified with water jetting and flooding.
3.20 Surface Drainage
Inadequate control of surface runoff or heavy irrigation after development of the site may result in nuisance seepage conditions and/or erosion. Maintaining adequate surface drainag e, proper disposal of runoff water and control of irrigation will help reduce the potential for future moisture-related problems. Ponding of water on structural pads should not be allowed.
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during site planning, grading, landscaping, and future building design and construction. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct runoff away from slopes and structures and toward pavements or suitable drainage devices . The devices should be maintained and periodically cleaned out, especially immediately before and during the rainy season . Each grading plan (rough and/or precise plan) should incorporate these features.
3.21 Maintenance of Graded Slopes
To reduce the erosion and surficial slumping potential of the graded slopes, permanent manufactured slopes should be protected from erosion by planting with appropriate ground cover or by placing suitable erosion protection. These measures should be applied as soon as is practical and prior to the ra iny season . Proper drainage should be designed and maintained to collect surface waters and direct them away from slopes . In addition, the design and construction of improvements and landscaping should also provide appropriate drainage measures.
Consideration should be given to surficial protection of the slopes above the basin access road, such as covering the slope face with jute matting prior to planting.
3.22 Future Plan Reviews
Any modifications to the civil engineered grading plan for the proposed project should be reviewed, analyzed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to grading . Future additional plans (precise grading plans, structural plans, etc.) should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant and report prepared as needed.
3.23 Observation and Testing During Grading and Construction The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon interpretation of the existing data. Verification and refinement of actual geotechnical conditions during grading is 20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 25
NMG
essential, especially where slope stabilization is involved. Geotechnical observation and testing should be conducted during the future grading operations at the following stages.
• During and following clearing and grubbing, prior to site processing; • During and following remedial removals to evaluate and accept the removal bottom; • During and following cutting of slopes and excavation of slope-stabilization measures; • During placement of compacted fill;
• During and upon completion of excavations for storm -drain structures and during trench backfill;
• During construction of the wet well and outlet pipeline; • During installation of the groundwater monitoring wells; • During construction and backfill of utility lines and/or structures; • During pavement subgrade and aggregate-base preparation for street pavements; and • When any unusual or unexpected geotechnical conditions are encountered during grading and construction.
Special inspections should also be conducted during placement of the lake liner to verify the following:
• Liner material (approved thickness, toughness, permeability, etc.). • Lake bottom is free of hard and/or sharp objects.
• Liner is secured as specified.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
230116 Design Report 26
NMG
4.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, Dopudja & Wells and the City of Rialto, based on the specific scope of services requested by our client for the project described herein. This report or its contents should not be used or relied upon for other projects or by other parties without the written consent of our client and NMG and the involvement of a geotechnical professional. The means and methods used by NMG for this study are based on local geotechnical standards of practice, care, and requirements of governing agencies. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied is given.
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations are professional opinions based on interpretations and inferences made from geologic and engineering data from specific locations and depths, observed or collected at a given time . By nature, geologic conditions can vary from point to point, can be very different in between points, and can also change over time . Our conclusions and recommendations are subject to verification and modification with more exploration and/or observations during grading and construction when more subsurface data becomes available.
PROPOSED LAKE RIALTO
LOCATED SOUTH OF WWTP
CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
Project Number: 20079-02
Project Name: DWC/Lake Rialto
Date: 1/16/2023
By: TM/TW
Figure 1
Service Layer Credits: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS ©
2022 TomTom
SITE LOCATION MAP
0 300 600
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet ±
Subject Site
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Drafting\GIS\20079-01 SiteLocation.mxd 1857
RED HILL
FLT.SAN
ANTONIO
FLT.
CUCAMONGA FAULT
ARROWHEADFAULT
CENTRALAVEFLT.
RIALTO-COLTONFLT. BANNING FLT.
CRAFTO N
H
ILLS
LYTLE CREEK
FLT.
GLEN HELENFAULT CANYON FAULT
MILL
CREEK
SANTA
ANA
E L S I NORE
GLEN
IVY
NORTH
FAUL
T
CHINO
FAULT CASA
LOMA
FAULT
WATERMAN
SAN
PROPOSED LAKE RIALTO
LOCATED SOUTH OF WWTP
CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
Project Number: 20079-02
Project Name: DWC/Lake Rialto
Date: 1/16/2023
By: TM/TW
Figure 2
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
California Department of Conservation:
http://data-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/
b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad_0
Subject Site
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
Base: California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 Legend
)
Faults
Certain
Concealed
Approximately Located
Historic
Holocene
Late Quaternary
Quaternary
Recency of Movement
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Drafting\GIS\20079-01 RegionalFault.mxd ±
0 2.5 5
Miles
1 inch = 5 miles
JACINTO
SAN ANDREAS FAULT
C-3
B-7T.D. 21.5'
T.D. 46.5' @41.9'
T.D. 40'C-4
T.D. 41.5' @34.2'C-2
T.D. 41.5' @34' B-1
Qal @ 0'C-1T.D. 41.5'
No G.W.
No G.W.
Qal @ 30'
B-5T.D. 31.5'No G.W.Qal @ 25'
B-6T.D. 21.5'No G.WQal @ 0'
B-3T.D. 31.5'No G.WQal @ 0'
B-2T.D. 31.5'No G.W.Qal @ 7'
Qal @ 0'
Qal @ 0'
No G.W.Qal @ 2'
Qal @ 0'
T-7
T.D. 45.1'
(Refusal)
T.D. 39.2'
(Refusal)
T.D. 40.8'
(Refusal)
T.D. 41'
(Refusal) T.D. 40.5'
(Refusal)
HS-3
T-5
T-4
T.D. 5'
(Refusal)
T.D. 15'
T-8
No G.W.
Qal @ 14'
HS-2 (W)
T.D. 14'
Qal? @ 7'
Qal @ 11'
T.D. 80.5'
@ 73.8'(8/23/10)
Qal? @7.5'
Qal @ 10'
T.D. 15'
Qal @ 9'
T.D. 61.5'Qal? @ 12.5'Qal @ 15'
CPT-4A
CPT-4
CPT-5
CPT-6
CPT-7
(el. 906')
(el. 882')
(el. 875')
(el. 902')
T.D. 65' @63.9'Y-1Qal @35'(el. 903')
T.D.80' @77' Y-2Qal @15'(el. 917')
@63'On 4/17/10
Rialto Channel
B
B'
A
A' D'
D
C
C'
Afu
Afu
Af
Afu
Afu
Afu
Afu?
(Landfill)
(Slope repair)
Afu
(Landfill)
?
?
??
?
?
?
?
Qal
Qal
H-1T.D.50.5'
H-2T.D.51'
H-3T.D. 50.7'
B-4T.D. 21.5'No G.W.Qal @ 0'
(el. 900')
(el. 876')
(el. 877')
(el. 879')
(el. 877')
(el. 874')
Qal @ 25' @47'
(el. 882')
Qal
Qal
SB-4
SB-5T.D. 61.5'(el. 915')
T.D. 31.5'(el. 914')
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
E
E'
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Bio - Energy
Facility
WWTP
Holliday
Site
Agua Mansa
Landfill
Existing Waste
Water Effluent
Line
By:TM/TW
Project No.: 20079-02
Date: 1/16/2022Project Name: DWC/Lake Rialto
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
PLATE 1
SCALE: 1" = 40'
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PROPOSED LAKE RIALTO
CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
L E G E N D
GEOLOGIC CONTACT Af EARTH UNITS - APPROXIMATE LIMITS SHOWN AfuSYMBOLS - LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
FILL PLACED BY WWTP, 2019UNDOCUMENTED FILL
T.D. 40'
C-4
No G.W.
(el. 906')
Qal @ 0'
B-7
T.D. 21.5'
No G.W.
Qal @ 2'
(el. 882')
H-3
T.D.50.7'
Y-2
T.D.80'
@77'
Qal @15'
(el. 917')
HS-2
T.D.75'
@63'
Qal @ 10'
CPT-7
T.D.39.2'
(Refusal)
HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY NMG, THISINVESTIGATION SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH SB-5
T.D. 61.5'
(el. 915')
HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY AECOM (2018),SHOWING TOP OF BORING ELEVATION AND TOTAL DEPTHHOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY NMG (2010A),SHOWING TOP OF BORING ELEVATION, TOTAL DEPTH,AND DEPTH TO EARTH UNIT AND GROUNDWATERHOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY KLEINFELDER ANDASSOCIATES (2007), SHOWING TOP OF BORINGELEVATION, TOTAL DEPTH, AND DEPTH TO EARTH UNITAND GROUNDWATER HOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY NMG (2010B),SHOWING TOP OF BORING ELEVATION, TOTAL DEPTH,AND DEPTH TO EARTH UNIT AND GROUNDWATER @63'
On 4/17/10
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PIEZOMETER WELL, SHOWINGDEPTH TO GROUNDWATERHOLLOW-STEM AUGER BORING BY NMG (2010C), SHOWINGTOTAL DEPTH, DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER AND DEPTH TOEARTH UNIT
SYMBOLS - LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
CONE PENETROMETER TEST BY NMG (2010C), SHOWINGTOTAL DEPTH T.D. 5'
T-4
(Refusal)
TRENCH BY NMG (2010C), SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH
OTHER SYMBOLS - LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
QalALLUVIUM
LIMITS OF THIS REPORT
F
C
E
CUT / FILL / EXISTING LINE
B
B'
A
A'
D'
D
C
C'
E
E'
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
C
CC
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
C
CC
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Existing Waste
Water Effluent
Line
Stabilization
Fill Key
W=15';
D=2-3'
Stabilization
Fill Key
W=15';
D=2-3'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
3-5'
2-4'
2-4'
2-4'
2-4'
2-4'
2-4'
2-4'
10-15'
10-15'
3'
3'
Stabilization
Fill Key
W=15';
D=2-3'
Stabilization
Fill Key
W=20';
D=2-3'
Stabilization Fill Key
W=15'; D=2-3'
(Backcut 1:1 or Flatter to
Protect Existing Pipeline)
Stabilization
Fill Key
W=15';
D=2-3'
T.D.90' T.D.70'
T.D.70' 2'
2'
Existing 36"
Waste Water
(effluent) Pipe
Future
Pump Station
With Wet Well
(887')
(879') (884')
Bio - Energy
Facility
WWTP
Holliday
Site
Agua Mansa
Landfill
Rialto Channel
By:TM/TW
Project No.: 20079-02
Date: 1/16/2023Project Name: DWC/Lake Rialto
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
PLATE 2
SCALE: 1" = 40'
REMEDIAL MEASURES MAPPROPOSED LAKE RIALTO
CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
F
C
OTHER SYMBOLS - LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
DESIGN CUT / FILL / EXISTING / NATURAL LINERECOMMENDED STABILIZATION FILL KEY; SHOWING WIDTH AND DEPTH 3-5'
RECOMMENDED DEPTH OF REMEDIAL REMOVAL, BELOW EXISTINGGRADE IN FILL AREAS AND BELOW DESIGN GRADE IN CUT AREASLIMITS OF THIS REPORT
L E G E N D
RECOMMENDED GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
T.D.70'
(887')
SHOWING TOTAL DEPTH (AND ACTION LEVEL ELEVATION)
W=20'
D=2-3'
A
800
840
880
920
960
1000
800
840
880
920
960
1000
A'
N 70° EN 43° E
Intersection
C-C'
T.D. 15'
T.D. 39.2' (R)
T.D. 61'T.D. 50.7'
T.D. 21.5'
T.D. 46.5'
T.D. 21.5'
T.D. 41.5'
T-5
HS-3
(Proj. ^ 10') CPT-7H-3
(Proj. ^ 23')
B-7
(Proj. ^ 52')
C-3B-4C-2
Intersection
B-B'
T.D. 51'
T.D. 31.5'T.D. 31.5'
T.D. 50.5'
Bend in
Section
Bend in
Section
H-2
(Proj. ^ 155')
B-5
(Proj. ^ 130')B-2
H-1
(Proj. ^ 108')
? ?
?
?
?
Qal
Afu
Afu
Updated
Existing
Profile
Approximate
Original
Profile
Protect
Existing
Sewer
Existing
Tank
Bioenergy Facility
Rialto
Channel
Questionable Failure
(Prior Slope Repair Area)
Approximate
Groundwater
Existing
Profile
Lake Water
Surface
(905' el.)
Design
ProfileLined Wetland
Water Surface
(905' el.)
?
?
?
Qal
Qal
Intersection
E-E'
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
Design
Profile
Lake Water
Surface
(905' el.)
Design
Profile
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access Design
Profile
3-5' Removal10-15' Removal
2-4' Removal
Oblique View
Slope Stabilization
B
800
840
880
920
960
1000
800
840
880
920
960
1000
B'
S 33° E
T.D. 41.5'
T.D. 41.5'
T.D. 51'
T.D. 31.5'
T.D. 41.5'T.D. 65'
4/17/10
C-1
C-2
Y-1
B-1
(Proj. ^ 172')
H-2
(Proj. ^ 136')
B-3
(Proj. ^ 38')
Approximate
Original
Profile
Afu
?
??
?
?
? ?
Approximate
Edge Agua
Mansa Landfill
Groundwater
Observation
Well
Wooden Double
SCE Poles
(Proj. ^ 15-20')
Updated
Existing Profile
Qal
Qal
Afu
(Landfill)
Intersection
A-A'
Intersection
D-D'
Existing
Profile
Approximate
Groundwater
Approximate
Overhead
Powerlines
Qal
Qal
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
Design
Profile
Lake Water
Surface
(905' el.)
Stabilization Fill Key
W=20'; D=2-3'
Stabilization Fill Key
W=20'; D=2-3'
PL
Bench into
Competent
Qal
PL
City of Rialto
WWTP
C
800
840
880
920
960
1000
800
840
880
920
960
1000
C'
S 42° E
Fence
LP Existing
Profile
T.D. 40.5'T.D. 41'
T.D. 40'
T.D. 50.7'
(Refusal) (Refusal)
CPT-4
C-4
CPT-4A
(Proj. ^ 25')
H-3
(Proj. ^ 7')
SCE Tower
(Proj. ^ 25-30')
Afu
Afu
(Landfill)
Approximate
Groundwater
Intersection
A-A'
Fence
Wetland Water
Surface (905' el.)
Approximate
Overhead
Powerlines
?
?
?
T.D. 61'
SB-5
QalQal
Qal
Design
Profile
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
PL
PL
3-5' Removal
E
820
860
900
940
980
1020
820
860
900
940
980
1020
E'
N 50° E
T.D. 21.5'
T.D. 41.5'
T.D. 31.5' ?
Existing
Profile
B-4
(Proj. ^ 13')C-2
(Proj. ^ 72')
B-3
(Proj. ^ 22')
Lake Water
Surface
(905' el.) Proposed
Pedestrian
AccessDesign
Profile
Existing
Electric
Pole
DL
Intersection
A-A'
Qal
Design
Profile
Stablilization Fill Key
W=15'; D=2-3'
Stablilization Fill Key
W=15'; D=2-3'Bench into
Competent
PL
D
800
840
880
920
960
1000
800
840
880
920
960
1000
D'
N 46° E
Structures
Bioenergy
Facility
T.D. 31.5'
T.D. 41.5'T.D. 51'
T.D. 31.5'
Intersection
B-B'
B-3
(Proj. ^ 40.5')
C-1
(Proj. ^ 57')
H-2
(Proj. ^ 41')
B-5
(Proj. ^ 10')
Afu
Qal
Approximate
Groundwater
Protect
Existing
Sewer
Existing
Profile
Lake Water
Surface (905' el.)Proposed
Pedestrian
Access
Fence
Design
Profile
W=15'
D=2-3'
Backcut 1:1
or Flatter
Stablilization Fill Key
W=20'; D=2-3'
1 1
Qal
Qal
PL
Bench into
Competent
NMGGeotechnical, Inc.
PLATE 3
Project No.: 20079-02Project Name: WYA/Lake RialtoDate:1/16/2023SCALE: 1" = 40' By:TM/TW
APPENDIX A
20079-02
January 16, 2023
A-1
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
AECOM, 2018, Plant No. 5 Expansion, City of Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant, Supplemental Geotechnical Design Memorandum (GDM) – Rev.1, dated September 26, 2018.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, Originally Adopted March 13, 1997, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas (Scale 1: 750,000), Geologic Data Map No. 6, Compiled and Interpreted by Charles W.
Jennings and William A. Bryant.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Gove rnment Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners 2018. for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised
CHJ Materials Laboratory, Inc., 1976, Soils Investigation, Agua Mansa Landfill, Agua Mansa Road, Rialto, California, Job Number: 76364-3, dated August 9, 1976.
County of San Bernardino, 2007, Amended 2010, San Bernardino County Development Code, Adopted March 13, 2007, Effective April 12, 2007, Amended March 25, 2010.
County of San Bernardino, 2021, Geologic Hazard Maps, web site address:
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/lus/planning/zoningoverlaymaps/geologichazardmaps.aspx Dibblee, Thomas W., 2003, Geologic Map of the Riverside East and San Bernardino South (South ½) Quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Earth Consultants International, 2000, Seismic Hazards – County of Riverside, dated August 1, 2000.
Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, 1976, Engineering Geology Investigation, Proposed Sa nitary Landfill, SW ¼ Sect. 25 & NW ¼ Sect. 36, T1S, R5W, Rialto, California, Project No. 1153, dated August 3, 1976.
Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, 1980, Engineering Geology Investigation, Agua Mansa Landfill, SW ¼, Section 25 & NW ¼, Section 36, T1S, R5W, SBB&M, Rialto, California, Project No. 1153-2, dated June 30, 1980.
Gary S. Rasmussen and Associates, 1985a, Geologic Evaluation of Ground- Water Quality in the Vicinity of the Agua Mansa Landfill, Project No. 1153.31, dated January 11, 1985.
Gary S. R asmussen and Associates, 1985b, Addendum to Our Report Dated January 11, 1985, Geologic Evaluation of Ground- Water Quality in the Vicinity of the Agua Mansa Landfill, Project No. 1153.32, dated January 14, 1985.
20079-02
January 16, 2023
A-2
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (Cont'd.)
Geotracker, 2021, State of California Water Resources Control Board Data Management System, website address: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Kleinfelder, 2007, Boring Logs and Map, Unpublished, Received from Prior Client, Processes Unlimited.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. (NETR), 2021, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, website address: https://www.historicaerials.com.
NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2010a, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Review of Conceptual Plan, Proposed Rialto Renewable Energy Center Project, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California, Project No. 10049-01, dated May 5, 2010.
NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2010b, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Review of Preliminary Conceptual Plan for the Yeager Property, Portion of Proposed Rialto Renewable Energy Center Project, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California, Project No. 10049-01, dated October 10, 2010.
NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2010c, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and Design Report, Proposed Rialto Renewable Energy Center Project, 23- Acre Holliday Property, City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California, dated October 11, 2010.
Pioneer Consultants, 1975a, Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Aggregate Site, La Roca Pit, San Bernardino County, dated January 20, 1975.
Pioneer Consultants, 1975b, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, La Roca Pit, San Bernardino County, California, dated February 19, 1975.
Stephenson W.J., Odum, J.K., Williams, R.A., and Anderson, M.L., 2002, Delineation of Faulting and Basin Geometry along a Seismic Reflection Transect in Urbanized San Bernardino Valley, California, Published in Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 2504-2520, August 2002.
Structural Engineers Association/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2023, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, web site address: https://seismicmaps.org/ Thomas C. Rogers and Associates, 1980, Environmental Impact Report, Proposed Upgrading of Agua Mansa Landfill to Permit Disposal of Unrestricted Group 2 Solid Waste, City of Rialto, dated July 1980.
United States Geological Survey, 1967, Revised 1980, 7.5 San Bernardino South Quadrangle.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2023, Unified Hazard Tool, NSHM 2014 Dynamic Conterminous (update) Deaggregation Program; web site address:
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
United States Geological Survey, 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Bernardino 30'x60' Quadrangle.
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
BY
NMG, THIS STUDY
COARSE
GRAINED SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
GRAVEL AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
SAND AND
SANDY SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE
SILTS AND
CLAYS
SILTS AND
CLAYS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO
FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
LIQUID LIMIT LESS
THAN 50
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
NOTE: Dual symbols are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. Symbols separated by a slash indicate borderline soil classifications.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
GW
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,
SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
Template: NMGKEY; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 6/4/21
KEY TO LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Bloomington, CA
Geotechnical, Inc.
Sampler and Symbol Descriptions Laboratory and Field Test Abbreviations GS
GENERAL NOTES
AL
DS
CN
CC Chemical Testing incl. Soluble Sulfate
RV
MD
SE Sand Equivalent
EI Expansion Index
Modified California sample (D-#)
Standard Penetration Test (S-#)
Large bulk sample (B-#)
Resistance Value (R-Value)
Grain Size Analysis (Sieve, Hydro. and/or -No. 200)Approximate depth of groundwater during drilling Approximate depth of static groundwater
Atterberg limits (plasticity)
Small bulk sample (SB-#)
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture
SE
Consolidation
Direct Shear
Sand Equivalent
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Shear Strength
Note: Number of blows required to advance driven sample 12 inches (or length noted).
Shelby tube sample (T-#)
1. 2.
Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System and include color, moisture, and relative density or consistency. Field descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests where deemed appropriate. Bedrock descriptions are based on visual classification and include rock type, moisture, color, grain size, strength, and weathering.
Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were drilled. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
Surface: Dirt, top of slope, abundant cobbles.
Alluvium (Qal)
@ 1-5': Brown to dark brown silty gravelly fine to coarse SAND w/ some cobbles, damp, micaceous.
@ 5': Dark yellowish brown to brown silty gravelly SAND, damp, medium dense, micaceous, friable, cobble in tip.
@ 7.5': Grayish brown fine to coarse SAND with trace silt and some gravel, damp, dense, slightly micaceous, highly friable. @ 10': Grayish brown/ Olive brown gravelly fine to coarse SAND with trace silt, damp, very dense, slightly micaceous, highly friable. @ 15': Upper: Olive brown silty fine SAND, damp, medium dense, micaceous, highly friable.
Lower: Olive/ Yellowish brown fine to medium SAND with trace to some silt, damp, medium dense, highly friable, micaceous, trace gravel in tip.
@ 20': Grayish brown very fine to coarse SAND with trace silt, damp, very dense, slightly micaceous, highly friable, beds of finer sand in upper rings.
SM
SP
SM
SP
32 54
93 20
77/12"
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
B-2
D-4
D-5
120.9
118.2
126.4
110.2
114.6
B-1 @ 1-5'
CC, GS
CC
Bottom Ring Disturbed.
GS, DS
B-2 @ 10-15'
GS
GS, DS
2.6 2.7
3.0 8.6
2.7 Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75 Hollow Stem
2R Drilling, Inc.
2/22/21 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
10"
BF
140 lbs. @ 30-inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 50.5
924.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 2
H-1
No Groundwater Encountered.
Type
Elevation (ft)
SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS
USCS
Depth (ft)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Graphic Log
Blows
per foot
Number
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
0 5
10 15
20 25
920
910
900
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 20079-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 6/4/21 @ 25': Olive brown gravelly fine to coarse SAND with trace silt, damp, very dense, slightly micaceous, friable, some siltier beds in upper rings.
@ 30': Grayish/ Olive brown fine to coarse SAND with some gravel, damp to moist, very dense, slightly micaceous, highly friable, 1 1/2" clay bed at top of sample.
@ 35': No Recovery. Driller observed cobble blocking sample. @ 40': Upper: Olive brown sandy silty CLAY, saturated, very stiff, plastic to highly plastic.
Lower: Olive brown silty very fine SAND/ sandy SILT, moist, dense/ hard, micaceous, friable, more moist on top of clay layer. @ 45': Upper: Grayish brown fine to coarse SAND with some silt, damp, dense, highly friable, micaceous.
Lower: Olive brown silty very fine SAND, damp, dense, micaceous, friable.
@ 50': No Recovery.
Notes:
Total Depth is 50.5 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Jetted/Tamped.
SP
CL
SM-ML
SP
SM
88/12"
76/12"
50/5"
48 72
50/6"
D-6
D-7
SB-1
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
96.6 115.4
Disturbed.
GS, DS
SB-1 @ 30.5'
Disturbed.
GS, AL
Perched Water, No
Groundwater.
3.0 19.7
42.3 5.4
West Yost/ Lake Rialto Bloomington, CA H-1 Sheet 2 of 2 Template: HOLLOW STEM; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 6/4/21 Type
Elevation (ft)
SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS
USCS
Depth (ft)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Graphic Log
Blows
per foot
Number
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 890
880
870
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 20079-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 6/4/21 Surface: Dirt, light brown gravelly sandy SILT.
Alluvium (Qal)
@ 2.5': Upper: Light olive/ yellowish brown very fine sandy SILT with some gravel, damp, hard, micaceous.
Lower: Light yellowish/ olive brown silty very fine SAND/ sandy SILT, damp, very dense/ hard, micaceous, slightly friable. @ 5': Olive/ olive brown with green tint fine to coarse SAND with some silt and some gravel, damp to moist, dense, trace root hairs. @ 7.5': Olive/ olive brown with green tint fine to coarse gravelly SAND with some silt, damp to moist, very dense, schist fragments in top of upper rings.
@ 10': Olive/ olive brown with green tint gravelly fine to coarse SAND with some silt, damp to moist, very dense.
@ 15': Dark gray silty fine to coarse SAND/ sandy SILT with trace gravel, damp to moist, very dense/ hard, micaceous.
@ 20': Driller observed rig chatter while sampling.
Upper: Olive brown sandy SILT with trace gravel, moist, hard, micaceous.
Lower: Olive gray silty fine to medium SAND/ sandy SILT, moist to wet, very dense/ hard, trace gravel.
ML
SM-ML
SP-SM
SM-ML
ML
SM-ML
68/12"
73 92
90/11"
87 50/4"
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
125.5
127.4
125.1
129.9
129.3
118.9
B-1 @ 1-5'
GS
CN
AL, GS
5.6 3.8
3.6 3.2
7.3 5.4
Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75 Hollow Stem
2R Drilling, Inc.
2/22/21 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
10"
BF
140 lbs. @ 30-inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 51.0
881.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 2
H-2
Groundwater Stabilized at 45.8 Feet.
Type
Elevation (ft)
SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS
USCS
Depth (ft)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Graphic Log
Blows
per foot
Number
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
0 5
10 15
20 25
880
870
860
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 20079-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 6/4/21 @ 25': Upper: Light yellowish brown medium to coarse SAND with trace gravel, damp, very dense, slightly micaceous, highly friable.
Lower: Yellowish brown silty fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel, damp to moist, very dense, micaceous, highly friable.
@ 30': Light olive brown fine to medium SAND with trace silt, moist, very dense, micaceous, highly friable.
@ 35': Upper: Olive to olive brown clayey SILT with some sand and some gravel, moist to wet, hard, slightly plastic, micaceous.
Lower: Yellowish olive clayey SILT, moist, hard, slightly plastic, micaceous.
@ 40': Upper: Olive brown to light olive brown sandy SILT/ silty fine SAND, wet, hard/ very dense, micaceous, slightly plastic, 1/4"-1/2" clay bed in upper rings.
Lower: Light olive brown fine to medium SAND with trace silt, wet, very dense, slightly micaceous, highly friable.
@ 45': No recovery.
@ 50': Olive brown fine to medium SAND with some silt, saturated, very dense, micaceous, highly friable.
Notes:
Total Depth is 51 Feet.
Groundwater Encountered at 47 Feet.
Groundwater Stabilized at 45.8 Feet.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.
SP
ML
SM-ML
SP
75/12"
93/11"
74 83/11"
50/5"
76/12"
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
122.6
107.1
121.3
106.9
108.5
CN
2.6 2.8
8.0 16.6
19.4 West Yost/ Lake Rialto Bloomington, CA H-2 Sheet 2 of 2 Template: HOLLOW STEM; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 6/4/21 Type
Elevation (ft)
SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS
USCS
Depth (ft)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Graphic Log
Blows
per foot
Number
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 850
840
830
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 20079-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 6/4/21 Surface: Dirt, twigs and branches.
Alluvium (Qal)
@ 2.5': Light olive gray sandy SILT with trace gravel, dry to damp, stiff, slightly micaceous, silty CLAY in upper rings.
@ 5': Light olive gray sandy SILT/ silty very fine SAND, damp, medium dense/ very stiff, trace rootlets, more sandy in upper rings. @ 7.5': Light olive gray andy SILT/ silty very fine SAND, damp, very stiff/ medium dense, micaceous, friable, trace root hairs. @ 10': Light olive gray sandy SILT/ silty very fine SAND, damp, stiff/ loose, micaceous, friable, trace root hairs.
@ 15': Light olive gray sandy SILT, damp, stiff, micaceous, highly weatherable.
@ 20': Light olive gray sandy SILT with trace gravel, damp, stiff, micaceous, trace rootlets, highly weatherable.
ML
SM-ML
ML
22 37
29 14
17 19
B-1
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
111.0
115.1
108.3
98.7 100.3
104.5
B-1 @ 1-5'
CN
AL, GS, CN
1.2 1.5
2.4 4.4
2.0 1.6
Date(s)
Drilled
Drilling
Company
Drill Rig
Type
Sampling
Method(s)
Approximate Groundwater Depth:
Comments
Modified California, Bulk
CME 75 Hollow Stem
2R Drilling, Inc.
2/23/21 Logged
By
Drill Bit
Size/Type
Hammer
Data
10"
BF
140 lbs. @ 30-inch drop
Approximate Ground
Surface Elevation (ft)
Total Depth
Drilled (ft) 50.7
895.0 msl
Sheet 1 of 2
H-3
No Groundwater Encountered.
Type
Elevation (ft)
SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS
USCS
Depth (ft)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Graphic Log
Blows
per foot
Number
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
0 5
10 15
20 25
890
880
870
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 20079-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 6/4/21 @ 25': Light olive gray very fine sandy SILT, damp, hard, micaceous, bedded, trace root hairs.
@ 30': Upper: Light olive brown sandy SILT/ silty fine to coarse SAND with some gravel, damp, hard/ very dense, micaceous, highly friable, calcium carbonate in sample ring (SB-1).
Lower: Light olive gray/ brown silty medium to coarse SAND with some gravel, damp, very dense, friable, large cobble in bottom ring. @ 35': Light olive brown/ yellowish brown silty very fine SAND/ sandy SILT, damp, very dense/ hard, micaceous, friable, somewhat interbedded sand and silt.
@ 40': Upper: Light grayish/ yellowish brown very fine to fine SAND with trace silt, damp, dense, friable, micaceous, upper rings are olive brown to dark olive brown silty CLAY/ clayey SILT.
Lower: Olive to dark olive brown clayey SILT, wet, hard, plastic, micaceous.
@ 45': Upper: Olive brown silty very fine SAND, damp, very dense, micaceous, highly friable, trace gravel in upper rings.
Lower: Yellow/ Olive brown clayey SILT, damp to moist, hard, slightly micaceous, slightly plastic.
@ 50': Very light gray/ white gravelly fine to coarse SAND with trace silt/ sandy GRAVEL, damp, very dense, cobble in rings, pulverized rock in sample.
Notes:
Total Depth is 50.7 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped/Jetted.
ML
SM-ML
SM
SM-ML
SP
ML
SM
ML
SP-GP
46 76
90/10"
73 76/12"
93/8"
D-7
D-8
SB-1
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
96.9 108.8
111.6
107.7
Sample Disturbed, 1
Ring.
SB-1 @ 31'.
Sample Disturbed, 1
Ring.
6.7 3.0
2.9 4.5
7.8 0.9
West Yost/ Lake Rialto Bloomington, CA H-3 Sheet 2 of 2 Template: HOLLOW STEM; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 6/4/21 Type
Elevation (ft)
SAMPLES OTHER
TESTS
and
REMARKS
USCS
Depth (ft)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Graphic Log
Blows
per foot
Number
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
LOG OF BORING
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 870
860
850
840
Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 20079-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 6/4/21
BORING LOGS
BY
AECOM, 9/26/18
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
THIS INVESTIGATION
H-1 B-1 1.0 5.0 923.0 10 4 GP-GM CC
H-1 D-1 5.0 919.0 32 124.0 120.9 2.6 17.5 CC
H-1 D-2 7.5 916.5 54 121.4 118.2 2.7 17.0 5 SW/SP 0 35 0 39.0 H-1 D-3 10.0 914.0 93 130.1 126.4 3.0 24.0
H-1 B-2 10.0 15.0 914.0 8 3 SP-SM
H-1 D-4 15.0 909.0 20 119.7 110.2 8.6 43.8 8 SP-SM 0 32 0 38.0 H-1 D-5 20.0 904.0 77/12" 117.7 114.6 2.7 15.5
H-1 D-6 25.0 899.0 88/12" 3.0 Disturbed
H-1 D-7 30.0 894.0 76/12" 115.6 96.6 19.7 71.5 4 SW/SP 310 37 440 37.0 H-1 D-8 35.0 889.0 50/5" NR
H-1 D-9 40.0 884.0 48 42.3 61 17 35 14 CL Disturbed
H-1 D-10 45.0 879.0 72 121.6 115.4 5.4 31.6
H-1 D-11 50.0 874.0 50/6" NR
H-2 D-1 2.5 878.5 68/12" 132.5 125.5 5.6 44.1 19 5 NP NP SM H-2 D-2 5.0 876.0 73 132.2 127.4 3.8 31.6
H-2 D-3 7.5 873.5 92 129.6 125.1 3.6 28.1
H-2 D-4 10.0 871.0 90/11" 134.0 129.9 3.2 28.8 SP/SM CN H-2 D-5 15.0 866.0 87 138.7 129.3 7.3 64.9
H-2 D-6 20.0 861.0 50/4" 125.3 118.9 5.4 34.9 16 4 NP NP SM H-2 D-7 25.0 856.0 75/12" 125.9 122.6 2.6 19.0
H-2 D-8 30.0 851.0 93/11" 110.1 107.1 2.8 13.1 SP/SM CN H-2 D-9 35.0 846.0 74 131.0 121.3 8.0 55.4
H-2 D-10 40.0 841.0 83/11" 124.6 106.9 16.6 77.8
H-2 D-11 45.0 836.0 50/5" NR
H-2 D-12 50.0 831.0 76/12" 129.6 108.5 19.4 95.0
H-3 D-1 2.5 888.5 22 112.3 111.0 1.2 6.5 SM CN
H-3 D-2 5.0 886.0 37 116.8 115.1 1.5 8.7
H-3 D-3 7.5 883.5 29 110.9 108.3 2.4 11.6
H-3 D-4 10.0 881.0 14 103.1 98.7 4.4 16.8 56 11 29 8 CL CN H-3 D-5 15.0 876.0 17 102.4 100.3 2.0 8.0
H-3 D-6 20.0 871.0 19 106.2 104.5 1.6 7.2
H-3 D-7 25.0 866.0 46 103.4 96.9 6.7 24.6
H-3 D-8 30.0 861.0 76 3.0 Disturbed
H-3 D-9 35.0 856.0 90/10" 112.0 108.8 2.9 14.3
H-3 D-10 40.0 851.0 73 116.6 111.6 4.5 23.7
Printed: 5/28/21; Template: SUM_SOIL_LAB_ALL; Proj ID: 20079-01.GPJ APPENDIXWest Yost/ Lake Rialto Bloomington, CA
SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA
Sheet 1 of 2
Project Number: 20079-01
Boring/Sample Information
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(feet) (feet)
Remarks
Soluble
Sulfate
Content
(% by wt)
R-ValueExpansion
Index
Compaction
Optimum
Moisture
Content
(%)
Depth
Maximum
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Count
(N)
Direct Shear
Peak
Friction
Angle ( )
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction
Ultimate
Angle ( )
Cohesion
(psf)
USCS
Group
Symbol(%)
Atterberg
Limits
LL
(%)
PI
Content
(% pass.
2µ)
Hydrometer
Fines
o o
Blow
Clay
Sieve/
Content
(% pass.
#200)
Degree
of
Sat.
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Field
Density
(pcf)
WetEnd
(feet)
Elevation
Geotechnical, Inc.
H-3 D-11 45.0 846.0 76/12" 116.1 107.7 7.8 37.3
H-3 D-12 50.0 841.0 93/8" 0.9 Disturbed
Printed: 5/28/21; Template: SUM_SOIL_LAB_ALL; Proj ID: 20079-01.GPJ APPENDIXWest Yost/ Lake Rialto Bloomington, CA
SUMMARY OF SOIL LABORATORY DATA
Sheet 2 of 2
Project Number: 20079-01
Boring/Sample Information
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(feet) (feet)
Remarks
Soluble
Sulfate
Content
(% by wt)
R-ValueExpansion
Index
Compaction
Optimum
Moisture
Content
(%)
Depth
Maximum
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Count
(N)
Direct Shear
Peak
Friction
Angle ( )
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction
Ultimate
Angle ( )
Cohesion
(psf)
USCS
Group
Symbol(%)
Atterberg
Limits
LL
(%)
PI
Content
(% pass.
2µ)
Hydrometer
Fines
o o
Blow
Clay
Sieve/
Content
(% pass.
#200)
Degree
of
Sat.
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Field
Density
(pcf)
WetEnd
(feet)
Elevation
Geotechnical, Inc.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PLASTICITY CHART
LIQUID LIMIT(%)
PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
A-LINEU-LINE
ML or OLCL- ML
16 7
4 CL or OL
MH or OH
CH or OH
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMATT; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 4/5/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
Symbol LL
35 NP
NP
29 Passing
No. 200
Sieve (%)
61 19
16 56
Description
Number
(Qal) Yellowish brown sandy CLAY
(Qal) Olive brown silty SAND
(Qal) Olive gray silty SAND
(Qal) Light grayish brown sandy CLAY
USCS
CL
SM
SM
CL
PI
14 NP
NP
8 Boring
H-1
H-2
H-2
H-3
Number
Sample Depth
(feet)
D-9
D-1
D-6
D-4
40.0 2.5
20.0 10.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.0010.010.11101001,000
36 SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
100 200
PERCENT PASSING
U.S. STANDARD
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GP-GM
SW/SP
SP-SM
SP-SM
SW/SP
Passing
2µ (%)
Passing
Sieve (%)
10 5
8 8
4 CActivity
PI/-2µMoistureSample Depth
(feet)
BOULDERS COBBLES
GRAVEL
coarse
LL
Field
3 9
20 4
3 6
SILT OR CLAY
1-1/2 3/4 3/8
fine
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Symbol USCSNo. 200cCuPI
(%)
SAND
fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
12 8
coarse medium
3 504 16 30
0.3 0.4
Boring
Number
H-1
H-1
H-1
H-1
H-1
Number
B-1
D-2
B-2
D-4
D-7
1.0 - 5.0
7.5 10.0 - 15.0
15.0 30.0
197.2
115.6
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMSIV; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 5/28/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.0010.010.11101001,000
36 SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
100 200
PERCENT PASSING
U.S. STANDARD
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CL
SM
SM
CL
Passing
2µ (%)
Passing
Sieve (%)
61 19
16 56
CActivity
PI/-2µMoistureSample Depth
(feet)
BOULDERS COBBLES
GRAVEL
coarse
LL
35 NP
NP
29 Field
42 6
5 4
14 NP
NP
8 17
5 4
11 0.82
0.73 6
SILT OR CLAY
1-1/2 3/4 3/8
fine
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Symbol USCSNo. 200cCuPI
(%)
SAND
fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
12 8
coarse medium
3 504 16 30
Boring
Number
H-1
H-2
H-2
H-3
Number
D-9
D-1
D-6
D-4
40.0 2.5
20.0 10.0
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMSIV; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 5/28/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRAIN (%)
STRESS (ksf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 4/8/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
128.2
Degree of
Saturation (%)
24.0 98.0
Void
Ratio
0.371
0.314
Boring No. H-2
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Test
Sample Description:
Stage
Initial
USCS:
Percent Passing
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
3.3 11.4
Dry
Density (pcf)
122.9
Sample No. D-4
(Qal) Brown SAND with gravel
No. 200 Sieve:
SP/SM
Depth: 10.0 ft
LEGEND
= initial moisture
= after saturation
% Collapse (-)
or % Swell (+) -1.17
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRAIN (%)
STRESS (ksf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 4/8/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
106.9
Degree of
Saturation (%)
12.3 86.7
Void
Ratio
0.639
0.576
Boring No. H-2
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Test
Sample Description:
Stage
Initial
USCS:
Percent Passing
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
2.9 18.5
Dry
Density (pcf)
102.8
Sample No. D-8
(Qal) Pale yellowish brown SAND
No. 200 Sieve:
SP/SM
Depth: 30.0 ft
LEGEND
= initial moisture
= after saturation
% Collapse (-)
or % Swell (+) -0.40
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRAIN (%)
STRESS (ksf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 4/8/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
114.4
Degree of
Saturation (%)
8.0 95.4
Void
Ratio
0.575
0.473
Boring No. H-3
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index:
Test
Sample Description:
Stage
Initial
USCS:
Percent Passing
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
1.7 16.7
Dry
Density (pcf)
107.0
Sample No. D-1
(Qal) Yellowish brown silty SAND
No. 200 Sieve:
SM
Depth: 2.5 ft
LEGEND
= initial moisture
= after saturation
% Collapse (-)
or % Swell (+) -2.04
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
STRAIN (%)
STRESS (ksf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 4/8/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
100.1
Degree of
Saturation (%)
14.9 100.0
Void
Ratio
0.882
0.739
Boring No. H-3
Liquid Limit: 29 Plasticity Index: 8
Test
Sample Description:
Stage
Initial
USCS:
Percent Passing
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
4.7 26.5
Dry
Density (pcf)
92.5 Sample No. D-4
(Qal) Light grayish brown sandy CLAY
No. 200 Sieve: 56
CL
Depth: 10.0 ft
LEGEND
= initial moisture
= after saturation
% Collapse (-)
or % Swell (+) -2.70
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR STRENGTH (psf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMDSWGRAPH; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 5/21/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
39.0 Cohesion (psf) 0 0
Parameter Peak Ultimate
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Sample Type: Undisturbed Rate of Shear (in./min.):
27.1 107.0 Saturation (%):
Degree of 100
Liquid Limit: Percent Passing
Sample No. D-2
Final Moisture
Content (%):
Final Dry
Friction Angle (degrees) 35.0
Plasticity Index: 5No. 200 Sieve:
Sample Description: (Qal) Pale gray SAND USCS: SW/SP
Boring No. H-1
0.05 Density (pcf):
Depth: 7.5 ft
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 0.10 0.20 0.30
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT (in)
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
psfN = 1,000
N = 2,000
N = 4,000
psf
psf
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR STRENGTH (psf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMDSWGRAPH; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 5/21/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
38.0 Cohesion (psf) 0 0
Parameter Peak Ultimate
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Sample Type: Undisturbed Rate of Shear (in./min.):
21.4 107.5 Saturation (%):
Degree of 99
Liquid Limit: Percent Passing
Sample No. D-4
Final Moisture
Content (%):
Final Dry
Friction Angle (degrees) 32.0
Plasticity Index: 8No. 200 Sieve:
Sample Description: (Qal) Light brown SAND with silt USCS: SP-SM Boring No. H-1
0.05 Density (pcf):
Depth: 15.0 ft
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 0.10 0.20 0.30
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT (in)
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
psfN = 1,000
N = 2,000
N = 4,000
psf
psf
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR STRENGTH (psf)
West Yost/ Lake Rialto
Bloomington, CA
PROJECT NO. 20079-01
Template: NMDSWGRAPH; Prj ID: 20079-01.GPJ; Printed: 5/21/21 Geotechnical, Inc.
37.0 Cohesion (psf) 440 310
Parameter Peak Ultimate
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Sample Type: Undisturbed Rate of Shear (in./min.):
24.4 100.4 Saturation (%):
Degree of 98
Liquid Limit: Percent Passing
Sample No. D-7
Final Moisture
Content (%):
Final Dry
Friction Angle (degrees) 36.5
Plasticity Index: 4No. 200 Sieve:
Sample Description: (Qal) Pale yellow SAND USCS: SW/SP
Boring No. H-1
0.05 Density (pcf):
Depth: 30.0 ft
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0 0.10 0.20 0.30
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT (in)
SHEAR STRESS (psf)
psfN = 1,000
N = 2,000
N = 4,000
psf
psf
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 03/26/21
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 04/08/21
H-1 H-1 H-2 H-2
D5 D6 D4 D7
20.0 25.0 10.0 25.0
18.1 26.4 27.6 3.5
81.9 73.6 72.4 96.5
484.90 306.19 399.55 504.53
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
484.90 306.19 399.55 504.53
681.10 533.41 613.38 740.86
201.19 234.38 219.26 243.90
479.91 299.03 394.12 496.96
974.22 857.68 919.46 979.46
674.05 669.56 671.37 669.56
24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5
0.99897 0.99897 0.99897 0.99897
2.60 2.53 2.60 2.55
Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) [S/(B+S-C)] 2.62 2.59 2.64 2.59
2.67 2.70 2.70 2.66
Apparent Spec. Gravity, corrected to 20°C 2.67 2.69 2.70 2.65 1 . 02 . 41 . 41 . 5
355.4 356.4 399.6 268.2
248.7 248.7 248.7 248.7
106.7 107.7 150.9 19.5
965.8 965.8 993.3 911.5
898.1 898.1 898.1 898.1
67.7 67.7 95.2 13.4
353.9 354.6 397.3 268.1
248.7 248.7 248.7 248.7
105.2 105.9 148.6 19.4
24.5 24.4 24.5 24.4
0.99897 0.99899 0.99897 0.99899
2.70 2.65 2.67 3.18
Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) [B/(B-C)] 2.74 2.69 2.71 3.20
2.81 2.77 2.78 3.23
Apparent Spec. Gravity, corrected to 20°C 2.80 2.77 2.78 3.23 1 . 41 . 71 . 50 . 5
Combined Apparent Specific Gravity 2.69 2.71 2.72 2.67
Remarks:
Percent material passing sieve #4 (%)
Correction Factor
Correction Factor
Weight of Oven-Dry Sample (g) (A)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY and ABSORPTION
of COARSE and FINE AGGREGATE
ASTM C 127 & C 128
Light olive
brown SP-SM
20079-01
Sample Description Light olive
brown (SM)g
Percent material retained on sieve #4 (%)
Weight of Oven Dry Sample (g) (A)
Absorption (%) [(S-A)/A]
Weight of Sample + Container in Water (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Sample in Water (g) (C)
Apparent Specific Gravity [A/(A-C)]
Weight of Container (g)
Temperature (°C)
Calculations
Wt. of Sat. Surface-Dry Sample in Air (g) (B)
Wt. of SSD Sample in Air + Container (g)
Wt. of Oven-Dry Sample + Container (g)
Weight of Flask + Water + Sample (g) (C)
Weight of Container (g)
Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(B+S-C)]
Apparent Specific Gravity [A/(B+A-C)]
Weight of Container (g)
Wt. of Sat. Surface-Dry Sample in Air (g) (S)
Olive gray
(SM)g
Boring Number:
Sample Number:
Olive brown
(SM)g
Depth (ft)
West Yost/Lake Rialto
Temperature (°C)
Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(B-C)]
Sample Passing #4 - ASTM C 128
Absorption (%) [(B-A)/A]
Sample Retained #4 - ASTM C 127
Weight of Container (g)
Wt. of Sat. Surface-Dry Sample in Air + Cont. (g)
Weight of Oven Dry Sample + Container (g)
Calculations
Weight of Flask + Water (g) (B)
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 03/26/21
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 04/08/21
H-3 H-3
D2 D5
N/A N/A
6.0 0.7
94.0 99.3
HI
59.34 59.79
710.99 708.45
673.99 671.37
24.9 24.5
0.99887 0.99897
2.65 2.63
304.85 296.30
245.54 236.62
59.31 59.68
2.66 2.64
273.1 251.1
248.7 248.7
24.4 2.4
914.4 901.7
898.1 900.4
16.3 1.3
272.8 251.0
248.7 248.7
24.1 2.3
24.4 24.3
0.99899 0.99902
2.65 2.63
2.98 2.09
Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) [B/(B-C)] 3.01 2.18
3.09 2.30
Apparent Spec. Gravity, corrected to 20°C 3.09 2.30
1.2 4.3
Combined Apparent Specific Gravity 2.68 2.63
Remarks:
Temperature (°C)
Bulk Specific Gravity [A/(B-C)]
Apparent Specific Gravity [A/(A-C)]
Dry - Back Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Dry - Back Weight of Soil
Weight of Container
Weight of Container (g)
Light olive
gray s(ML)
Depth (ft)
West Yost/Lake Rialto
Absorption (%) [(B-A)/A]
Correction Factor
Sample Retained #4 - ASTM C 127
Weight of Container (g)
Wt. of Sat. Surface - Dry Soil in Air + Cont. (g)
Ave. Specific Gravity of Soil Passing #4
Weight of Oven Dry Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Flask + Water + Soil (g)
Sample Passing #4 - ASTM D 854
Percent material retained on sieve #4 (%)
20079-01
Sample Description Pale olive SM
Boring No.
Sample No.
Correction Factor
Specific Gravity of Soil Passing #4
Dry - Back Specific Gravity
Weight of Soil + Container in Water (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Soil in Water (g) (C)
Wt. of Sat. Surface - Dry Soil in Air (g) (B)
Calculations
Percent material passing sieve #4 (%)
Weight of Oven Dry Soil (g) (A)
Temperature (°C)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY of SOILS and SPECIFIC GRAVITY
and ABSORPTION of COARSE AGGREGATE
ASTM D 854 and C 127
Weight of Flask + Water (g)
Flask / Container No.
Weight of Dry Soil (g)
Sample ID
H-1, B-1
@ 1-5'
H-1, D-1
@ 5'
Resistivity Units
as-received ohm-cm 16,400 27,600
saturated ohm-cm 4,400 6,400
pH 7.2 7.6
Electrical
Conductivity mS/cm 0.09 0.09
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca
2+ mg/kg 75 72
magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 5.8 4.9
sodium Na1+ mg/kg 11 10
potassium K1+ mg/kg 13 11
ammonium NH4
1+
mg/kg 25 23
Anions
carbonate CO3
2-
mg/kg ND ND
bicarbonate HCO3
1-
mg/kg 198 220
fluoride F1- mg/kg 2.5 3.3
chloride Cl1- mg/kg 6.9 5.1
sulfate SO4
2-
mg/kg 51 61
nitrate NO3
1-
mg/kg 65 30
phosphate PO4
3-
mg/kg 13 21
Other Tests
sulfide S2- qual na na
Redox mV na na
Resistivity per ASTM G187, pH per ASTM G51, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-B.
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
West Yost Lake Rialto
Your #20079-01, HDR Lab #21-0233LAB
25-Mar-21
NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909.962.5485 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX D
1/3/23, 3:54 PM U.S. Seismic Design Maps
https://www.seismicmaps.org 1/2
Latitude, Longitude: 34.0512, -117.3605
Date 1/3/2023, 3:09:41 PM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category II
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
SS 1.768 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.692 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMS 1.768 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.179 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description
SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category
Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.748 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.822 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 8 Long-period transition period in seconds
SsRT 2.07 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 2.247 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 1.768 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.801 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.895 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
S1D 0.692 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 0.748 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) PGAUH 0.894 Uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Peak Ground Acceleration CRS 0.921 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.896 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s CV 1.454 Vertical coefficient
1/3/23, 3:54 PM U.S. Seismic Design Maps
https://www.seismicmaps.org 2/2
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this website. 1/3/23, 3:55 PM Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 1/5
Uni ed Hazard Tool
Input
U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program
Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical.
Edition
Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (u…
Latitude
Decimal degrees
34.0512
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -117.3605
Site Class
259 m/s (Site class D)
Spectral Period
Peak Ground Acceleration
Time Horizon
Return period in years
2475
1/3/23, 3:55 PM Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 2/5
Deaggregation
Component
Total
1/3/23, 3:55 PM Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 3/5
ε = (-∞ .. -2.5)
ε = [-2.5 .. -2)
ε = [-2 .. -1.5)
ε = [-1.5 .. -1)
ε = [-1 .. -0.5)
ε = [-0.5 .. 0)
ε = [0 .. 0.5)
ε = [0.5 .. 1)
ε = [1 .. 1.5)
ε = [1.5 .. 2)
ε = [2 .. 2.5)
ε = [2.5 .. +∞)
5 15
25 35
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
45 55
65 75
9 8.5
8 7.5
Magnitude (Mw)
7 6.5
6 5.5
5 4.5 5 10
% Contribution to Hazard
15 20 25 30
5 15
25 35
45 Closest Distance, rRup (km)
55 65
75 9
8.5 8
7.5 7
6.5 Magnitude (Mw)6
5.5 5
4.5 1/3/23, 3:55 PM Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 4/5
Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total
Deaggregation targets
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr⁻¹
PGA ground motion: 0.92402538 g
Recovered targets
Return period: 3318.5272 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0003013385 yr⁻¹
Totals
Binned: 100 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.04 %
Mean (over all sources)
m: 7.23
r: 9.72 km
ε₀: 1.74 σ
Mode (largest m-r bin)
m: 8.1
r: 8.75 km
ε₀: 1.42 σ
Contribution: 21.91 %
Mode (largest m-r-ε₀ bin)
m: 8.1
r: 6.64 km
ε₀: 1.18 σ
Contribution: 12.9 %
Discretization
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, Δ = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, Δ = 0.2
ε: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, Δ = 0.5 σ
Epsilon keys
ε0: [-∞ .. -2.5)
ε1: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
ε2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
ε3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
ε4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
ε5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
ε6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
ε7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
ε8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
ε9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
ε10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
ε11: [2.5 .. +∞]
1/3/23, 3:55 PM Unified Hazard Tool
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 5/5
Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set Source Type r m ε0 lon lat az %
UC33brAvg_FM31 System 34.63
San Jacinto (San Bernardino) [3] 6.18 8.02 1.29 117.309°W 34.086°N 50.50 20.72 San Andreas (San Bernardino N) [4] 15.74 7.81 1.96 117.278°W 34.175°N 28.73 7.91 San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [0] 15.31 7.99 1.70 117.270°W 34.171°N 31.81 1.78 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 34.58
San Jacinto (San Bernardino) [3] 6.18 8.01 1.30 117.309°W 34.086°N 50.50 20.66 San Andreas (San Bernardino N) [4] 15.74 7.82 1.95 117.278°W 34.175°N 28.73 7.96 San Andreas (North Branch Mill Creek) [0] 15.31 8.00 1.70 117.270°W 34.171°N 31.81 1.86 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) Grid 15.40
PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.119 8.73 5.72 2.14 117.361°W 34.119°N 0.00 3.63 PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.119 8.73 5.72 2.14 117.361°W 34.119°N 0.00 3.63 PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.110 7.98 5.73 2.04 117.361°W 34.110°N 0.00 3.56 PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.110 7.98 5.73 2.04 117.361°W 34.110°N 0.00 3.56 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) Grid 15.39
PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.119 8.73 5.72 2.14 117.361°W 34.119°N 0.00 3.63 PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.119 8.73 5.72 2.14 117.361°W 34.119°N 0.00 3.63 PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.110 7.98 5.73 2.04 117.361°W 34.110°N 0.00 3.56 PointSourceFinite: -117.361, 34.110 7.98 5.73 2.04 117.361°W 34.110°N 0.00 3.56
APPENDIX E
20079-02
January 16, 2023
Slope Stability Description Appendix E E-1
APPENDIX E
Slope Stability Analysis
Introduction
The results of our slope stability analyses related to the gross stability of cross sections are presented in this appendix. Slope stability analysis was performed using the computer program GSTABL7. The computer output and plots for selected trial failure surfaces analyzed are included for selected cross-sections.
Computer Aided Analysis
GSTABL7 solve slope stability problems by a two-dimensional limiting equilibrium method. The methods employed in this program include the Modified Bishop Method, which permits circular arc failure surfaces, and the Simplified Janbu Method and Spencer Method, whi ch allow failure surfaces of general shape (circular arc and non-circular). The Simplified Janbu Method provides a solution that satisfies the force equilibrium, while the Spencer Method satisfies both force and moment equilibriums. All methods yield a "factor-of-safety" (FOS) against instability of the slope.
A minimum design static factor-of-safety of 1.5 and a pseudo- static (seismic) factor-of-safety of
1.0 was used for global slope stability. The minimum factor-of-safety for rapid drawdown was 1.1.
Summary of Soil Strength Design Values
Based on laboratory direct shear test results at the site as well as from the local area of Rialto and our experience with materials similar to the onsite soils, the following strength parameters were used in our slope stability analysis.
Design Static Soil Strength Parameters
Earth Unit Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Unidentified Compacted Fill (Afu) 75 30
Alluvium (Qal) 75 30
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1 0 0 02 0 0 03 0 0 04 0 0 05 0 0 06 0 0 07 0 0 08 0 0 09 0 0 0 Shear Strength (psf)
Normal Stress (psf)
Direct Shear Ultimate Strength Summary
HS‐1 @ 7.5'
HS‐1 @ 8.5'
HS‐1@ 12.5'
HS‐2 @ 20'
HS‐4 @ 10'
HS‐4 @ 20'
RW‐1 @ 7.5'
RW‐1 @ 17.5'
T‐5 @ 2'
T‐6 @ 2'
H‐1 @ 7.5'
H‐1 @ 15'
H‐1 @ 30'
C=75, Phi=30
Linear (C=75, Phi=30)
Design: C = 75 psf; φ = 30°
Boring No. and Sample Depth
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC LAKE RIALTO\STED\2208XX\SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS B-B' S.DOC Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Cross-Section B-B' S
Filename
Description
Factor of Safety (FS)
Static Pseudostatic
01, 01p Design Condition 1.61 1.07
02 Rapid Drawdown Condition-Operating Lake
Level El 905’ 0.86 --
02m Rapid Drawdown-Maximum Groundwater El
887’ (28 feet bgs) 1.10 --
Project No.: 20079-02
Project Name: DWC / Lake Rialto
NMG
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\01.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 04:30PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
bcde f
g
h i
j
a
# FS
a 1.61
b 1.61
c 1.
62 d 1.62
e 1.63
f 1.63
g 1.63
h 1.64
i 1.64
j 1.64
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.61
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\01.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 04:30PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 04:30PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Design
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
12 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 77.50 855.00 2 2 77.50 855.00 126.00 880.00 2 3 126.00 880.00 171.00 902.00 1 4 171.00 902.00 177.50 902.00 1 5 177.50 902.00 192.50 909.00 1 6 192.50 909.00 205.00 909.00 1 7 205.00 909.00 230.00 926.00 2 8 230.00 926.00 290.00 930.00 2 9 290.00 930.00 322.50 930.00 2 10 322.50 930.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 126.00 880.00 160.00 880.00 2 12 160.00 880.00 205.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 184.00 905.00
3 360.00 817.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 77.50(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 184.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Page 2 Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 3.059 FS Min = 1.605 FS Ave = 2.241
Standard Deviation = 0.329 Coefficient of Variation = 14.69 % Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.472 855.750
3 97.408 856.880
4 107.293 858.389
5 117.114 860.274
6 126.856 862.532
7 136.504 865.161
8 146.045 868.155
9 155.465 871.512
10 164.750 875.226
11 173.886 879.292
12 182.860 883.703
13 191.660 888.453
14 200.272 893.536
15 208.683 898.944
16 216.882 904.669
17 224.857 910.703
18 232.595 917.037
19 240.086 923.662
20 243.476 926.898
Circle Center At X = 62.925 ; Y = 1116.172 ; and Radius = 261.578 Factor of Safety
*** 1.605 ***
Individual data on the 29 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 10.0 2626.5 33203.0 30965.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 9.9 7613.6 29504.6 30379.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 9.9 12070.2 25809.7 29556.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 9.8 15976.9 22138.9 28497.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 8.9 17493.9 17023.9 24871.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.9 1825.5 1473.6 2333.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 9.6 21917.8 14893.0 25679.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.5 23825.4 11618.7 23925.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9.4 25172.0 8438.6 21943.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 4.5 12568.2 2988.2 9930.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 4.7 13398.4 2380.9 9807.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 6.3 17892.4 1965.7 12116.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 2.9 8086.8 540.3 5194.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 3.6 9463.0 676.5 6236.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 5.4 13421.8 645.7 8428.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 1.1 2838.4 18.2 1696.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 7.7 18783.8 0.0 8163.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.7 1617.4 0.0 539.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.2 409.0 0.0 131.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 7.8 16560.6 0.0 3833.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 2.9 5075.7 0.0 323.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 1.8 2835.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 3.7 5521.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 8.2 12284.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 8.0 11583.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 5.1 7062.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 2.6 3148.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 7.5 5459.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 3.4 612.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Page 3 No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.454 855.960
3 97.369 857.258
4 107.235 858.890
5 117.040 860.856
6 126.773 863.152
7 136.422 865.778
8 145.977 868.728
9 155.426 872.001
10 164.759 875.592
11 173.965 879.497
12 183.034 883.712
13 191.954 888.231
14 200.716 893.050
15 209.310 898.164
16 217.726 903.565
17 225.953 909.249
18 233.984 915.208
19 241.808 921.436
20 248.614 927.241
Circle Center At X = 54.173 ; Y = 1149.030 ; and Radius = 294.954 Factor of Safety
*** 1.610 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.427 856.210
3 97.305 857.762
4 107.124 859.656
5 116.872 861.888
6 126.537 864.456
7 136.107 867.358
8 145.570 870.589
9 154.916 874.145
10 164.134 878.023
11 173.212 882.217
12 182.139 886.724
13 190.905 891.536
14 199.499 896.649
15 207.911 902.057
16 216.130 907.752
17 224.148 913.729
18 231.954 919.979
19 239.539 926.496
20 239.703 926.647
Circle Center At X = 47.535 ; Y = 1142.268 ; and Radius = 288.826 Factor of Safety
*** 1.615 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.391 856.471
3 97.233 858.242
4 107.017 860.311
5 116.733 862.678
6 126.372 865.338
7 135.926 868.291
8 145.386 871.533
9 154.743 875.061
10 163.989 878.872
11 173.114 882.963
12 182.110 887.329
13 190.969 891.967
14 199.684 896.872
15 208.245 902.040
16 216.645 907.466
17 224.876 913.145
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Page 4 18 232.930 919.072
19 240.800 925.241
20 242.727 926.848
Circle Center At X = 34.203 ; Y = 1180.477 ; and Radius = 328.344 Factor of Safety
*** 1.616 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.348 856.737
3 97.147 858.732
4 106.890 860.985
5 116.570 863.493
6 126.181 866.255
7 135.716 869.269
8 145.169 872.532
9 154.532 876.044
10 163.800 879.800
11 172.965 883.800
12 182.022 888.039
13 190.965 892.514
14 199.786 897.224
15 208.481 902.164
16 217.042 907.331
17 225.465 912.722
18 233.743 918.332
19 241.870 924.159
20 245.681 927.045
Circle Center At X = 16.585 ; Y = 1229.521 ; and Radius = 379.443 Factor of Safety
*** 1.626 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.490 855.445
3 97.457 856.258
4 107.387 857.437
5 117.267 858.981
6 127.084 860.888
7 136.824 863.155
8 146.473 865.779
9 156.019 868.756
10 165.450 872.084
11 174.751 875.756
12 183.911 879.768
13 192.917 884.115
14 201.756 888.790
15 210.418 893.788
16 218.890 899.101
17 227.160 904.723
18 235.217 910.646
19 243.051 916.861
20 250.651 923.360
21 255.352 927.690
Circle Center At X = 70.412 ; Y = 1126.423 ; and Radius = 271.516 Factor of Safety
*** 1.631 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.475 855.714
3 97.390 857.013
4 107.211 858.895
5 116.905 861.351
6 126.437 864.373
7 135.775 867.951
8 144.886 872.073
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Page 5 9 153.739 876.724
10 162.302 881.888
11 170.547 887.547
12 178.444 893.682
13 185.966 900.271
14 193.088 907.291
15 194.628 909.000
Circle Center At X = 70.373 ; Y = 1024.650 ; and Radius = 169.799 Factor of Safety
*** 1.634 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 59.110 855.000
2 69.069 854.094
3 79.060 853.662
4 89.060 853.706
5 99.046 854.226
6 108.997 855.220
7 118.889 856.686
8 128.700 858.620
9 138.407 861.020
10 147.990 863.878
11 157.426 867.189
12 166.694 870.945
13 175.773 875.137
14 184.642 879.757
15 193.281 884.793
16 201.671 890.234
17 209.793 896.068
18 217.628 902.282
19 225.159 908.861
20 232.368 915.791
21 239.240 923.056
22 242.485 926.832
Circle Center At X = 83.166 ; Y = 1063.567 ; and Radius = 209.949 Factor of Safety
*** 1.640 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 59.110 855.000
2 69.060 853.999
3 79.046 853.464
4 89.045 853.396
5 99.037 853.795
6 109.000 854.660
7 118.911 855.989
8 128.750 857.779
9 138.494 860.027
10 148.122 862.728
11 157.614 865.875
12 166.949 869.462
13 176.105 873.481
14 185.065 877.923
15 193.807 882.779
16 202.312 888.037
17 210.563 893.687
18 218.542 899.716
19 226.229 906.111
20 233.610 912.858
21 240.668 919.942
22 247.205 927.147
Circle Center At X = 85.509 ; Y = 1067.441 ; and Radius = 214.075 Factor of Safety
*** 1.644 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01.OUT Page 6 2 87.416 856.297
3 97.258 858.065
4 107.005 860.302
5 116.633 863.002
6 126.122 866.158
7 135.449 869.764
8 144.594 873.812
9 153.534 878.291
10 162.251 883.192
11 170.723 888.504
12 178.932 894.215
13 186.860 900.311
14 194.486 906.778
15 196.866 909.000
Circle Center At X = 55.321 ; Y = 1063.158 ; and Radius = 209.336 Factor of Safety
*** 1.644 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Design; P-static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\01p.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 04:33PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
bc
def
ghi
ja
# FS
a 1.07
b 1.08
c 1.
09 d 1.11
e 1.11
f 1.11
g 1.11
h 1.11
i 1.12
j 1.12
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
90.0 90.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
36.0 36.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
Load Value
Peak(A) 0.550(g)
kh Coef. 0.160(g)<
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.07
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Design; P-static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\01p.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 04:33PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 04:33PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Design; P-sta tic
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
12 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 77.50 855.00 2 2 77.50 855.00 126.00 880.00 2 3 126.00 880.00 171.00 902.00 1 4 171.00 902.00 177.50 902.00 1 5 177.50 902.00 192.50 909.00 1 6 192.50 909.00 205.00 909.00 1 7 205.00 909.00 230.00 926.00 2 8 230.00 926.00 290.00 930.00 2 9 290.00 930.00 322.50 930.00 2 10 322.50 930.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 126.00 880.00 160.00 880.00 2 12 160.00 880.00 205.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 184.00 905.00
3 360.00 817.00
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.550(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.160(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 77.50(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 184.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.OUT Page 2 and X = 267.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.052 FS Min = 1.074 FS Ave = 1.542
Standard Deviation = 0.236 Coefficient of Variation = 15.30 % Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.475 855.714
3 97.390 857.013
4 107.211 858.895
5 116.905 861.351
6 126.437 864.373
7 135.775 867.951
8 144.886 872.073
9 153.739 876.724
10 162.302 881.888
11 170.547 887.547
12 178.444 893.682
13 185.966 900.271
14 193.088 907.291
15 194.628 909.000
Circle Center At X = 70.373 ; Y = 1024.650 ; and Radius = 169.799 Factor of Safety
*** 1.074 ***
Individual data on the 21 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 10.0 2649.9 33211.4 30977.3 0. 0. 424.0 0.0 0.0 2 9.9 7535.6 29445.8 30349.1 0. 0. 1205.7 0.0 0.0 3 9.8 11585.2 25660.2 29356.7 0. 0. 1853.6 0.0 0.0 4 9.7 14762.6 21903.6 28003.5 0. 0. 2362.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.1 16222.2 17459.1 25129.5 0. 0. 2595.5 0.0 0.0 6 0.4 829.1 756.0 1164.8 0. 0. 132.7 0.0 0.0 7 9.3 18303.2 14595.6 24234.9 0. 0. 2928.5 0.0 0.0 8 9.1 18579.9 11387.2 21832.4 0. 0. 2972.8 0.0 0.0 9 8.9 18057.8 8364.2 19095.3 0. 0. 2889.3 0.0 0.0 10 5.4 10774.0 3815.2 10544.8 0. 0. 1723.8 0.0 0.0 11 3.1 6025.8 1743.6 5488.2 0. 0. 964.1 0.0 0.0 12 8.2 14885.2 2999.0 12656.2 0. 0. 2381.6 0.0 0.0 13 0.5 770.5 97.9 618.8 0. 0. 123.3 0.0 0.0 14 6.5 9029.3 1216.8 7486.3 0. 0. 1444.7 0.0 0.0 15 0.9 1008.6 180.7 871.5 0. 0. 161.4 0.0 0.0 16 5.6 5081.6 483.2 4094.9 0. 0. 813.1 0.0 0.0 17 2.0 1435.1 0.0 748.5 0. 0. 229.6 0.0 0.0 18 2.5 1520.4 0.0 372.4 0. 0. 243.3 0.0 0.0 19 4.0 1603.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 256.5 0.0 0.0 20 0.6 140.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 22.5 0.0 0.0 21 1.5 157.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 25.3 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.416 856.297
3 97.258 858.065
4 107.005 860.302
5 116.633 863.002
6 126.122 866.158
7 135.449 869.764
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.OUT Page 3 8 144.594 873.812
9 153.534 878.291
10 162.251 883.192
11 170.723 888.504
12 178.932 894.215
13 186.860 900.311
14 194.486 906.778
15 196.866 909.000
Circle Center At X = 55.321 ; Y = 1063.158 ; and Radius = 209.336 Factor of Safety
*** 1.080 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.494 854.663
3 97.482 855.153
4 107.396 856.466
5 117.167 858.595
6 126.728 861.523
7 136.015 865.232
8 144.963 869.696
9 153.512 874.884
10 161.604 880.760
11 169.181 887.286
12 176.194 894.415
13 182.593 902.099
14 184.968 905.485
Circle Center At X = 86.637 ; Y = 975.176 ; and Radius = 120.523 Factor of Safety
*** 1.094 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.492 854.592
3 97.487 854.885
4 107.438 855.876
5 117.295 857.560
6 127.010 859.930
7 136.536 862.974
8 145.825 866.677
9 154.833 871.020
10 163.514 875.983
11 171.828 881.541
12 179.732 887.667
13 187.188 894.331
14 194.159 901.500
15 200.495 909.000
Circle Center At X = 88.315 ; Y = 997.456 ; and Radius = 142.866 Factor of Safety
*** 1.105 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 68.305 855.000
2 78.266 854.114
3 88.265 853.993
4 98.244 854.636
5 108.145 856.041
6 117.910 858.199
7 127.480 861.097
8 136.801 864.719
9 145.818 869.043
10 154.478 874.044
11 162.730 879.692
12 170.526 885.955
13 177.820 892.796
14 184.570 900.174
15 190.736 908.047
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.OUT Page 4 16 190.861 908.235
Circle Center At X = 84.856 ; Y = 984.587 ; and Radius = 130.639 Factor of Safety
*** 1.106 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.246 855.000
2 82.203 854.072
3 92.202 853.992
4 102.173 854.760
5 112.042 856.370
6 121.739 858.812
7 131.195 862.068
8 140.340 866.113
9 149.109 870.920
10 157.439 876.453
11 165.270 882.672
12 172.545 889.533
13 179.212 896.986
14 185.223 904.978
15 185.778 905.863
Circle Center At X = 88.148 ; Y = 971.737 ; and Radius = 117.815 Factor of Safety
*** 1.109 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 66.992 855.000
2 76.948 854.064
3 86.945 853.816
4 96.935 854.258
5 106.871 855.388
6 116.705 857.200
7 126.391 859.685
8 135.883 862.833
9 145.135 866.627
10 154.104 871.051
11 162.746 876.082
12 171.021 881.697
13 178.889 887.869
14 186.313 894.568
15 193.257 901.764
16 199.334 909.000
Circle Center At X = 85.544 ; Y = 998.705 ; and Radius = 144.898 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 73.559 855.000
2 83.511 854.021
3 93.509 853.829
4 103.492 854.425
5 113.396 855.806
6 123.161 857.963
7 132.725 860.882
8 142.030 864.546
9 151.017 868.932
10 159.630 874.011
11 167.817 879.754
12 175.526 886.124
13 182.709 893.081
14 189.322 900.582
15 195.323 908.581
16 195.589 909.000
Circle Center At X = 90.952 ; Y = 980.577 ; and Radius = 126.776 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\01p.OUT Page 5 Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 66.992 855.000
2 76.924 853.844
3 86.919 853.511
4 96.907 854.004
5 106.820 855.319
6 116.591 857.448
7 126.153 860.376
8 135.440 864.082
9 144.391 868.542
10 152.943 873.725
11 161.038 879.596
12 168.621 886.115
13 175.641 893.237
14 182.049 900.914
15 185.408 905.690
Circle Center At X = 85.948 ; Y = 974.617 ; and Radius = 121.110 Factor of Safety
*** 1.115 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 57.797 855.000
2 67.718 853.750
3 77.703 853.208
4 87.702 853.377
5 97.663 854.256
6 107.537 855.841
7 117.273 858.124
8 126.822 861.093
9 136.136 864.733
10 145.168 869.026
11 153.872 873.949
12 162.204 879.479
13 170.122 885.587
14 177.585 892.242
15 184.557 899.411
16 191.002 907.057
17 192.374 908.941
Circle Center At X = 80.326 ; Y = 993.806 ; and Radius = 140.622 Factor of Safety
*** 1.120 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\02.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 09:11PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
W1 W1
W1
W1
b
cde
fgh ija
# FS
a 0.86
b 0.87
c 0.
87 d 0.87
e 0.88
f 0.88
g 0.88
h 0.88
i 0.88
j 0.88
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=0.86
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\02.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 09:11PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
W1 W1
W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 09:11PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Rapid Drawdow n
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
12 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 77.50 855.00 2 2 77.50 855.00 126.00 880.00 2 3 126.00 880.00 171.00 902.00 1 4 171.00 902.00 177.50 902.00 1 5 177.50 902.00 192.50 909.00 1 6 192.50 909.00 205.00 909.00 1 7 205.00 909.00 230.00 926.00 2 8 230.00 926.00 290.00 930.00 2 9 290.00 930.00 322.50 930.00 2 10 322.50 930.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 126.00 880.00 160.00 880.00 2 12 160.00 880.00 205.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 7 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 853.00
2 77.50 853.00
3 126.00 878.00
4 171.00 900.00
5 177.50 900.00
6 184.00 903.00
7 360.00 815.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 77.50(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.OUT Page 2 Each Surface Terminates Between X = 184.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 1.830 FS Min = 0.859 FS Ave = 1.326
Standard Deviation = 0.203 Coefficient of Variation = 15.29 % Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.494 854.663
3 97.482 855.153
4 107.396 856.466
5 117.167 858.595
6 126.728 861.523
7 136.015 865.232
8 144.963 869.696
9 153.512 874.884
10 161.604 880.760
11 169.181 887.286
12 176.194 894.415
13 182.593 902.099
14 184.968 905.485
Circle Center At X = 86.637 ; Y = 975.176 ; and Radius = 120.523 Factor of Safety
*** 0.859 ***
Individual data on the 21 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 3.6 437.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 6.4 2854.5 0.0 619.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 10.0 9370.6 0.0 3249.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 9.9 14329.4 0.0 5610.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.8 18054.0 0.0 7482.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 8.8 18842.5 0.0 8139.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.7 1639.6 0.0 719.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 3.4 7660.4 0.0 3467.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 5.9 13790.1 0.0 6257.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 8.9 21068.0 0.0 9934.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 8.5 19564.6 0.0 9624.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 6.5 13854.7 0.0 7141.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 1.6 3239.6 0.0 1657.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 1.3 2481.5 0.0 1351.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 6.3 11372.6 0.0 6111.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 1.8 2912.7 0.0 1659.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 5.2 6373.0 0.0 3801.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 1.3 1066.1 0.0 611.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 5.1 2534.8 0.0 966.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.3 67.5 0.0 3.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 2.1 257.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.246 855.000
2 82.203 854.072
3 92.202 853.992
4 102.173 854.760
5 112.042 856.370
6 121.739 858.812
7 131.195 862.068
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.OUT Page 3 8 140.340 866.113
9 149.109 870.920
10 157.439 876.453
11 165.270 882.672
12 172.545 889.533
13 179.212 896.986
14 185.223 904.978
15 185.778 905.863
Circle Center At X = 88.148 ; Y = 971.737 ; and Radius = 117.815 Factor of Safety
*** 0.867 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.475 855.714
3 97.390 857.013
4 107.211 858.895
5 116.905 861.351
6 126.437 864.373
7 135.775 867.951
8 144.886 872.073
9 153.739 876.724
10 162.302 881.888
11 170.547 887.547
12 178.444 893.682
13 185.966 900.271
14 193.088 907.291
15 194.628 909.000
Circle Center At X = 70.373 ; Y = 1024.650 ; and Radius = 169.799 Factor of Safety
*** 0.870 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 68.305 855.000
2 78.266 854.114
3 88.265 853.993
4 98.244 854.636
5 108.145 856.041
6 117.910 858.199
7 127.480 861.097
8 136.801 864.719
9 145.818 869.043
10 154.478 874.044
11 162.730 879.692
12 170.526 885.955
13 177.820 892.796
14 184.570 900.174
15 190.736 908.047
16 190.861 908.235
Circle Center At X = 84.856 ; Y = 984.587 ; and Radius = 130.639 Factor of Safety
*** 0.871 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 66.992 855.000
2 76.924 853.844
3 86.919 853.511
4 96.907 854.004
5 106.820 855.319
6 116.591 857.448
7 126.153 860.376
8 135.440 864.082
9 144.391 868.542
10 152.943 873.725
11 161.038 879.596
12 168.621 886.115
13 175.641 893.237
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.OUT Page 4 14 182.049 900.914
15 185.408 905.690
Circle Center At X = 85.948 ; Y = 974.617 ; and Radius = 121.110 Factor of Safety
*** 0.875 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 73.559 855.000
2 83.511 854.021
3 93.509 853.829
4 103.492 854.425
5 113.396 855.806
6 123.161 857.963
7 132.725 860.882
8 142.030 864.546
9 151.017 868.932
10 159.630 874.011
11 167.817 879.754
12 175.526 886.124
13 182.709 893.081
14 189.322 900.582
15 195.323 908.581
16 195.589 909.000
Circle Center At X = 90.952 ; Y = 980.577 ; and Radius = 126.776 Factor of Safety
*** 0.876 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.932 855.000
2 80.849 853.712
3 90.838 853.239
4 100.832 853.584
5 110.764 854.744
6 120.569 856.711
7 130.180 859.473
8 139.533 863.011
9 148.566 867.302
10 157.218 872.316
11 165.431 878.020
12 173.151 884.377
13 180.326 891.342
14 186.908 898.871
15 192.852 906.912
16 194.146 909.000
Circle Center At X = 91.652 ; Y = 975.294 ; and Radius = 122.065 Factor of Safety
*** 0.878 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.873 855.000
2 84.773 853.593
3 94.762 853.111
4 104.752 853.559
5 114.657 854.933
6 124.392 857.220
7 133.873 860.401
8 143.017 864.448
9 151.746 869.328
10 159.984 874.996
11 167.660 881.405
12 174.708 888.499
13 181.067 896.217
14 186.682 904.491
15 188.011 906.905
Circle Center At X = 94.944 ; Y = 960.699 ; and Radius = 107.587 Factor of Safety
*** 0.878 ***
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02.OUT Page 5 Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 69.619 855.000
2 79.511 853.538
3 89.492 852.924
4 99.489 853.162
5 109.430 854.251
6 119.242 856.183
7 128.853 858.944
8 138.194 862.513
9 147.197 866.866
10 155.797 871.969
11 163.931 877.787
12 171.539 884.276
13 178.567 891.390
14 184.963 899.077
15 190.682 907.281
16 191.369 908.472
Circle Center At X = 91.715 ; Y = 970.033 ; and Radius = 117.136 Factor of Safety
*** 0.879 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 73.559 855.000
2 83.435 853.427
3 93.416 852.814
4 103.410 853.168
5 113.323 854.485
6 123.062 856.752
7 132.538 859.948
8 141.660 864.044
9 150.345 869.002
10 158.511 874.774
11 166.081 881.308
12 172.986 888.542
13 179.160 896.408
14 184.546 904.834
15 184.850 905.430
Circle Center At X = 94.758 ; Y = 956.297 ; and Radius = 103.491 Factor of Safety
*** 0.881 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\02m.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 09:21PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
W1
bc
de
fgh i
ja
# FS
a 1.10
b 1.11
c 1.
11 d 1.11
e 1.11
f 1.12
g 1.12
h 1.12
i 1.12
j 1.12
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.10
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' s\02m.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 09:21PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12
2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
W1 W1
W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 09:21PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' S; Rapid Drawdow n
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
12 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 77.50 855.00 2 2 77.50 855.00 126.00 880.00 2 3 126.00 880.00 171.00 902.00 1 4 171.00 902.00 177.50 902.00 1 5 177.50 902.00 192.50 909.00 1 6 192.50 909.00 205.00 909.00 1 7 205.00 909.00 230.00 926.00 2 8 230.00 926.00 290.00 930.00 2 9 290.00 930.00 322.50 930.00 2 10 322.50 930.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 126.00 880.00 160.00 880.00 2 12 160.00 880.00 205.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 4 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 853.00
2 77.50 853.00
3 120.00 875.00
4 360.00 755.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 77.50(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 120.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.OUT Page 2
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 4.651 FS Min = 1.101 FS Ave = 1.747
Standard Deviation = 0.319 Coefficient of Variation = 18.26 % Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 77.500 855.000
2 87.495 854.685
3 97.358 856.335
4 106.706 859.887
5 115.177 865.201
6 122.441 872.074
7 128.218 880.236
8 128.700 881.320
Circle Center At X = 84.139 ; Y = 905.045 ; and Radius = 50.484 Factor of Safety
*** 1.101 ***
Individual data on the 12 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 3.6 435.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 6.4 2843.3 0.0 618.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 9.9 8502.7 0.0 2911.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 9.3 10695.6 0.0 4234.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 8.5 9853.5 0.0 4334.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 4.8 4735.2 0.0 2322.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 2.4 1938.7 0.0 655.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.9 609.0 0.0 73.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 2.7 1310.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 2.1 479.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.2 18.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.5 24.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 73.559 855.000
2 83.498 853.891
3 93.463 854.724
4 103.079 857.469
5 111.982 862.022
6 119.837 868.211
7 126.347 875.802
8 129.757 881.837
Circle Center At X = 84.250 ; Y = 904.872 ; and Radius = 51.005 Factor of Safety
*** 1.108 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 76.186 855.000
2 86.088 853.598
3 96.049 854.472
4 105.556 857.576
5 114.113 862.749
6 121.279 869.724
7 126.682 878.139
8 127.631 880.797
Circle Center At X = 87.297 ; Y = 897.036 ; and Radius = 43.479 Factor of Safety
*** 1.113 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.OUT Page 3 Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 73.559 855.000
2 83.465 853.626
3 93.460 853.939
4 103.260 855.929
5 112.585 859.540
6 121.169 864.669
7 128.768 871.170
8 135.164 878.857
9 139.707 886.701
Circle Center At X = 86.618 ; Y = 912.748 ; and Radius = 59.206 Factor of Safety
*** 1.114 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.932 855.000
2 80.819 853.498
3 90.815 853.771
4 100.605 855.810
5 109.879 859.550
6 118.344 864.874
7 125.733 871.612
8 131.811 879.553
9 134.071 883.946
Circle Center At X = 84.289 ; Y = 909.631 ; and Radius = 56.241 Factor of Safety
*** 1.114 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.246 855.000
2 82.202 854.062
3 92.186 854.626
4 101.973 856.678
5 111.342 860.173
6 120.083 865.032
7 127.997 871.144
8 134.907 878.373
9 140.656 886.555
10 141.059 887.362
Circle Center At X = 83.474 ; Y = 920.466 ; and Radius = 66.422 Factor of Safety
*** 1.115 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 76.186 855.000
2 86.104 853.719
3 96.093 854.187
4 105.848 856.389
5 115.068 860.259
6 123.473 865.677
7 130.804 872.479
8 136.837 880.454
9 140.136 886.911
Circle Center At X = 88.436 ; Y = 910.796 ; and Radius = 57.125 Factor of Safety
*** 1.117 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.932 855.000
2 80.879 853.973
3 90.868 854.455
4 100.670 856.434
5 110.063 859.865
6 118.833 864.670
7 126.780 870.740
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' S\02m.OUT Page 4 8 133.723 877.936
9 139.505 886.096
10 139.843 886.768
Circle Center At X = 82.709 ; Y = 920.078 ; and Radius = 66.135 Factor of Safety
*** 1.118 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.873 855.000
2 84.821 853.986
3 94.809 854.479
4 104.609 856.469
5 113.998 859.911
6 122.763 864.726
7 130.703 870.805
8 137.639 878.008
9 143.412 886.174
10 144.964 889.271
Circle Center At X = 86.609 ; Y = 919.809 ; and Radius = 65.863 Factor of Safety
*** 1.121 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.932 855.000
2 80.810 853.443
3 90.803 853.818
4 100.536 856.112
5 109.645 860.240
6 117.787 866.045
7 124.658 873.311
8 130.000 881.765
9 130.091 882.000
Circle Center At X = 83.877 ; Y = 904.994 ; and Radius = 51.642 Factor of Safety
*** 1.121 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC LAKE RIALTO\STED\2208XX\SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS B-B' N.DOC Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Cross-Section B-B' N
Filename
Description
Factor of Safety (FS)
Static Pseudostatic
01, 01p Design Condition 1.77 1.14
02 Rapid Drawdown Condition-Operating Lake
Level El 905’ 0.92 --
02m Rapid Drawdown-Maximum Groundwater El
884’ (21 feet bgs) 1.10 --
Project No.: 20079-02
Project Name: DWC / Lake Rialto
NMG
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\01.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:01PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2W1 W1
W1
bcd efgh ij
a
# FS
a 1.77
b 1.77
c 1.
78 d 1.78
e 1.78
f 1.79
g 1.79
h 1.79
i 1.80
j 1.81
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.77
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\01.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:01PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:01PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Design
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
11 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 81.00 856.00 2 2 81.00 856.00 176.00 901.00 2 3 176.00 901.00 188.00 901.00 2 4 188.00 901.00 190.00 904.00 2 5 190.00 904.00 194.00 906.00 1 6 194.00 906.00 229.00 909.00 1 7 229.00 909.00 300.00 936.00 2 8 300.00 936.00 335.00 938.00 2 9 335.00 938.00 340.00 935.00 2 10 340.00 935.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 190.00 904.00 229.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 192.00 905.00
3 360.00 821.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 81.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 192.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.OUT Page 2 Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 3.478 FS Min = 1.769 FS Ave = 2.611
Standard Deviation = 0.379 Coefficient of Variation = 14.50 % Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.222 855.158
3 98.222 855.150
4 108.190 855.943
5 118.063 857.531
6 127.778 859.903
7 137.271 863.046
8 146.482 866.938
9 155.353 871.555
10 163.825 876.867
11 171.845 882.841
12 179.362 889.436
13 186.326 896.612
14 192.694 904.323
15 193.795 905.897
Circle Center At X = 93.319 ; Y = 979.908 ; and Radius = 124.854 Factor of Safety
*** 1.769 ***
Individual data on the 21 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 2.7 42.3 8399.0 8447.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 7.2 1958.1 23579.7 22401.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 10.0 7961.9 29835.6 31103.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 13125.0 26486.5 30858.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.9 17156.9 23029.5 30116.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 9.7 19980.6 19547.5 28880.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 9.5 21566.8 16120.8 27159.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.2 21935.0 12824.4 24964.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 8.9 21152.5 9726.7 22309.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 8.5 19332.2 6887.5 19212.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 8.0 16629.0 4356.7 15691.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 4.2 7654.2 1429.8 7014.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 3.4 5259.7 839.1 4755.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 7.0 6665.4 1738.3 7472.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 1.7 677.8 417.8 1209.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 2.0 635.9 562.5 1009.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 2.0 534.7 69.8 534.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.7 105.8 0.0 56.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.2 17.3 0.0 2.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.9 48.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.763 855.898
2 82.734 855.135
3 92.733 855.080
4 102.712 855.732
5 112.620 857.089
6 122.406 859.145
7 132.023 861.887
8 141.421 865.304
9 150.554 869.377
10 159.375 874.087
11 167.841 879.409
12 175.909 885.317
13 183.539 891.782
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.OUT Page 3 14 190.692 898.770
15 197.332 906.247
16 197.364 906.288
Circle Center At X = 88.517 ; Y = 996.190 ; and Radius = 141.173 Factor of Safety
*** 1.770 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 75.508 855.932
2 85.449 854.845
3 95.445 854.549
4 105.432 855.046
5 115.349 856.334
6 125.133 858.403
7 134.722 861.241
8 144.055 864.831
9 153.075 869.148
10 161.724 874.168
11 169.948 879.857
12 177.696 886.179
13 184.917 893.096
14 191.568 900.564
15 195.803 906.155
Circle Center At X = 94.174 ; Y = 980.610 ; and Radius = 126.067 Factor of Safety
*** 1.776 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.017 855.864
2 79.963 854.824
3 89.959 854.535
4 99.948 854.999
5 109.874 856.213
6 119.681 858.169
7 129.312 860.858
8 138.714 864.264
9 147.834 868.367
10 156.619 873.145
11 165.020 878.569
12 172.989 884.611
13 180.481 891.234
14 187.453 898.402
15 193.665 905.832
Circle Center At X = 88.798 ; Y = 987.391 ; and Radius = 132.861 Factor of Safety
*** 1.782 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.217 855.107
3 98.216 854.981
4 108.198 855.590
5 118.108 856.930
6 127.892 858.995
7 137.499 861.772
8 146.875 865.248
9 155.972 869.402
10 164.738 874.214
11 173.127 879.656
12 181.095 885.699
13 188.596 892.312
14 195.592 899.457
15 201.674 906.658
Circle Center At X = 94.925 ; Y = 991.022 ; and Radius = 136.081 Factor of Safety
*** 1.783 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.OUT Page 4 Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.179 854.742
3 98.171 854.346
4 108.162 854.782
5 118.081 856.047
6 127.862 858.131
7 137.435 861.021
8 146.735 864.696
9 155.698 869.131
10 164.261 874.295
11 172.366 880.153
12 179.956 886.664
13 186.978 893.783
14 193.385 901.461
15 196.737 906.235
Circle Center At X = 97.928 ; Y = 974.604 ; and Radius = 120.258 Factor of Safety
*** 1.786 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.136 855.915
2 84.043 854.555
3 94.027 853.990
4 104.024 854.224
5 113.971 855.254
6 123.804 857.075
7 133.460 859.675
8 142.878 863.036
9 151.997 867.139
10 160.761 871.956
11 169.112 877.457
12 176.997 883.607
13 184.367 890.367
14 191.173 897.692
15 197.374 905.538
16 197.906 906.335
Circle Center At X = 96.116 ; Y = 979.083 ; and Radius = 125.114 Factor of Safety
*** 1.789 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 65.898 855.814
2 75.853 854.862
3 85.848 854.559
4 95.842 854.908
5 105.792 855.906
6 115.657 857.549
7 125.393 859.830
8 134.960 862.739
9 144.318 866.265
10 153.427 870.391
11 162.248 875.102
12 170.744 880.376
13 178.879 886.192
14 186.618 892.525
15 193.929 899.347
16 200.730 906.577
Circle Center At X = 85.494 ; Y = 1008.209 ; and Radius = 153.650 Factor of Safety
*** 1.791 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 71.390 855.881
2 81.357 855.066
3 91.355 854.893
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01.OUT Page 5 4 101.344 855.361
5 111.283 856.469
6 121.129 858.212
7 130.844 860.584
8 140.387 863.574
9 149.718 867.170
10 158.799 871.358
11 167.592 876.119
12 176.062 881.435
13 184.174 887.284
14 191.893 893.640
15 199.189 900.479
16 205.275 906.966
Circle Center At X = 89.076 ; Y = 1010.515 ; and Radius = 155.642 Factor of Safety
*** 1.800 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 79.627 855.983
2 89.515 854.493
3 99.499 853.921
4 109.493 854.273
5 119.412 855.545
6 129.171 857.727
7 138.687 860.800
8 147.879 864.738
9 156.668 869.507
10 164.980 875.066
11 172.744 881.369
12 179.893 888.362
13 186.366 895.984
14 192.109 904.170
15 192.817 905.408
Circle Center At X = 100.692 ; Y = 962.188 ; and Radius = 108.274 Factor of Safety
*** 1.805 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Design; P-Static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\01p.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:07PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2W1 W1
W1
b cd ef ghija
# FS
a 1.14
b 1.14
c 1.
15 d 1.15
e 1.15
f 1.15
g 1.15
h 1.16
i 1.16
j 1.16
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
90.0 90.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
36.0 36.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
Load Value
Peak(A) 0.550(g)
kh Coef. 0.160(g)<
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.14
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Design; P-Static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\01p.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:07PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:07PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Design; P-Sta tic
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
11 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 81.00 856.00 2 2 81.00 856.00 176.00 901.00 2 3 176.00 901.00 188.00 901.00 2 4 188.00 901.00 190.00 904.00 2 5 190.00 904.00 194.00 906.00 1 6 194.00 906.00 229.00 909.00 1 7 229.00 909.00 300.00 936.00 2 8 300.00 936.00 335.00 938.00 2 9 335.00 938.00 340.00 935.00 2 10 340.00 935.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 190.00 904.00 229.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 192.00 905.00
3 360.00 821.00
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.550(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.160(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 81.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 192.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.OUT Page 2 Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.263 FS Min = 1.141 FS Ave = 1.641
Standard Deviation = 0.250 Coefficient of Variation = 15.22 % Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.763 855.898
2 82.734 855.135
3 92.733 855.080
4 102.712 855.732
5 112.620 857.089
6 122.406 859.145
7 132.023 861.887
8 141.421 865.304
9 150.554 869.377
10 159.375 874.087
11 167.841 879.409
12 175.909 885.317
13 183.539 891.782
14 190.692 898.770
15 197.332 906.247
16 197.364 906.288
Circle Center At X = 88.517 ; Y = 996.190 ; and Radius = 141.173 Factor of Safety
*** 1.141 ***
Individual data on the 24 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 8.2 361.9 25214.3 25474.9 0. 0. 57.9 0.0 0.0 2 1.7 251.5 5816.0 5402.7 0. 0. 40.2 0.0 0.0 3 10.0 4898.4 31630.1 31133.0 0. 0. 783.7 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 10196.8 28303.0 30946.7 0. 0. 1631.5 0.0 0.0 5 9.9 14528.8 24879.1 30319.7 0. 0. 2324.6 0.0 0.0 6 9.8 17825.4 21423.6 29255.0 0. 0. 2852.1 0.0 0.0 7 9.6 20050.5 18000.0 27758.0 0. 0. 3208.1 0.0 0.0 8 9.4 21201.2 14669.1 25836.3 0. 0. 3392.2 0.0 0.0 9 9.1 21308.2 11487.2 23499.5 0. 0. 3409.3 0.0 0.0 10 8.8 20434.7 8505.6 20759.2 0. 0. 3269.5 0.0 0.0 11 8.5 18675.1 5769.4 17629.3 0. 0. 2988.0 0.0 0.0 12 8.1 16152.1 3316.7 14125.5 0. 0. 2584.3 0.0 0.0 13 0.1 169.9 25.2 145.6 0. 0. 27.2 0.0 0.0 14 7.5 11229.2 1881.7 10119.6 0. 0. 1796.7 0.0 0.0 15 4.5 3768.3 1113.5 4296.1 0. 0. 602.9 0.0 0.0 16 2.0 1291.9 562.5 1375.4 0. 0. 206.7 0.0 0.0 17 0.7 476.7 39.9 396.4 0. 0. 76.3 0.0 0.0 18 1.3 811.0 29.8 675.3 0. 0. 129.8 0.0 0.0 19 1.2 623.1 0.0 379.9 0. 0. 99.7 0.0 0.0 20 0.8 368.4 0.0 149.7 0. 0. 58.9 0.0 0.0 21 0.9 335.9 0.0 58.9 0. 0. 53.7 0.0 0.0 22 1.1 259.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 41.5 0.0 0.0 23 1.3 113.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 18.1 0.0 0.0 24 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.222 855.158
3 98.222 855.150
4 108.190 855.943
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.OUT Page 3 5 118.063 857.531
6 127.778 859.903
7 137.271 863.046
8 146.482 866.938
9 155.353 871.555
10 163.825 876.867
11 171.845 882.841
12 179.362 889.436
13 186.326 896.612
14 192.694 904.323
15 193.795 905.897
Circle Center At X = 93.319 ; Y = 979.908 ; and Radius = 124.854 Factor of Safety
*** 1.144 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.217 855.107
3 98.216 854.981
4 108.198 855.590
5 118.108 856.930
6 127.892 858.995
7 137.499 861.772
8 146.875 865.248
9 155.972 869.402
10 164.738 874.214
11 173.127 879.656
12 181.095 885.699
13 188.596 892.312
14 195.592 899.457
15 201.674 906.658
Circle Center At X = 94.925 ; Y = 991.022 ; and Radius = 136.081 Factor of Safety
*** 1.148 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 75.508 855.932
2 85.449 854.845
3 95.445 854.549
4 105.432 855.046
5 115.349 856.334
6 125.133 858.403
7 134.722 861.241
8 144.055 864.831
9 153.075 869.148
10 161.724 874.168
11 169.948 879.857
12 177.696 886.179
13 184.917 893.096
14 191.568 900.564
15 195.803 906.155
Circle Center At X = 94.174 ; Y = 980.610 ; and Radius = 126.067 Factor of Safety
*** 1.149 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 65.898 855.814
2 75.853 854.862
3 85.848 854.559
4 95.842 854.908
5 105.792 855.906
6 115.657 857.549
7 125.393 859.830
8 134.960 862.739
9 144.318 866.265
10 153.427 870.391
11 162.248 875.102
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.OUT Page 4 12 170.744 880.376
13 178.879 886.192
14 186.618 892.525
15 193.929 899.347
16 200.730 906.577
Circle Center At X = 85.494 ; Y = 1008.209 ; and Radius = 153.650 Factor of Safety
*** 1.150 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.017 855.864
2 79.963 854.824
3 89.959 854.535
4 99.948 854.999
5 109.874 856.213
6 119.681 858.169
7 129.312 860.858
8 138.714 864.264
9 147.834 868.367
10 156.619 873.145
11 165.020 878.569
12 172.989 884.611
13 180.481 891.234
14 187.453 898.402
15 193.665 905.832
Circle Center At X = 88.798 ; Y = 987.391 ; and Radius = 132.861 Factor of Safety
*** 1.151 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 71.390 855.881
2 81.357 855.066
3 91.355 854.893
4 101.344 855.361
5 111.283 856.469
6 121.129 858.212
7 130.844 860.584
8 140.387 863.574
9 149.718 867.170
10 158.799 871.358
11 167.592 876.119
12 176.062 881.435
13 184.174 887.284
14 191.893 893.640
15 199.189 900.479
16 205.275 906.966
Circle Center At X = 89.076 ; Y = 1010.515 ; and Radius = 155.642 Factor of Safety
*** 1.153 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.179 854.742
3 98.171 854.346
4 108.162 854.782
5 118.081 856.047
6 127.862 858.131
7 137.435 861.021
8 146.735 864.696
9 155.698 869.131
10 164.261 874.295
11 172.366 880.153
12 179.956 886.664
13 186.978 893.783
14 193.385 901.461
15 196.737 906.235
Circle Center At X = 97.928 ; Y = 974.604 ; and Radius = 120.258 P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\01p.OUT Page 5 Factor of Safety
*** 1.157 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.136 855.915
2 84.043 854.555
3 94.027 853.990
4 104.024 854.224
5 113.971 855.254
6 123.804 857.075
7 133.460 859.675
8 142.878 863.036
9 151.997 867.139
10 160.761 871.956
11 169.112 877.457
12 176.997 883.607
13 184.367 890.367
14 191.173 897.692
15 197.374 905.538
16 197.906 906.335
Circle Center At X = 96.116 ; Y = 979.083 ; and Radius = 125.114 Factor of Safety
*** 1.157 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 60.407 855.746
2 70.342 854.612
3 80.330 854.125
4 90.329 854.289
5 100.296 855.101
6 110.189 856.559
7 119.967 858.657
8 129.587 861.385
9 139.010 864.733
10 148.196 868.686
11 157.105 873.227
12 165.701 878.337
13 173.947 883.994
14 181.808 890.176
15 189.250 896.855
16 196.243 904.003
17 198.272 906.366
Circle Center At X = 82.817 ; Y = 1007.972 ; and Radius = 153.867 Factor of Safety
*** 1.160 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\02.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:13PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2 W1 W1
W1 W1
W1W1
W1
bcd efgh i ja
# FS
a 0.92
b 0.93
c 0.
93 d 0.93
e 0.93
f 0.93
g 0.94
h 0.94
i 0.94
j 0.94
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=0.92
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\02.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:13PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2 W1 W1
W1 W1
W1W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:13PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Rapid Drawdow n
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
11 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 81.00 856.00 2 2 81.00 856.00 176.00 901.00 2 3 176.00 901.00 188.00 901.00 2 4 188.00 901.00 190.00 904.00 2 5 190.00 904.00 194.00 906.00 1 6 194.00 906.00 229.00 909.00 1 7 229.00 909.00 300.00 936.00 2 8 300.00 936.00 335.00 938.00 2 9 335.00 938.00 340.00 935.00 2 10 340.00 935.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 190.00 904.00 229.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 7 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 853.00
2 81.00 854.00
3 176.00 899.00
4 188.00 899.00
5 190.00 902.00
6 192.00 903.00
7 360.00 819.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 81.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 192.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.OUT Page 2 Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 1.999 FS Min = 0.924 FS Ave = 1.419
Standard Deviation = 0.215 Coefficient of Variation = 15.16 % Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.222 855.158
3 98.222 855.150
4 108.190 855.943
5 118.063 857.531
6 127.778 859.903
7 137.271 863.046
8 146.482 866.938
9 155.353 871.555
10 163.825 876.867
11 171.845 882.841
12 179.362 889.436
13 186.326 896.612
14 192.694 904.323
15 193.795 905.897
Circle Center At X = 93.319 ; Y = 979.908 ; and Radius = 124.854 Factor of Safety
*** 0.924 ***
Individual data on the 21 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 2.7 42.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 3.1 425.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 4.1 1532.6 0.0 262.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 7961.9 0.0 2627.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 10.0 13125.0 0.0 5085.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 9.9 17156.9 0.0 7074.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 9.7 19980.6 0.0 8581.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.5 21566.8 0.0 9597.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9.2 21935.0 0.0 10114.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 8.9 21152.5 0.0 10130.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 8.5 19332.2 0.0 9644.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 8.0 16629.0 0.0 8660.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 4.2 7654.2 0.0 4183.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 3.4 5259.7 0.0 3080.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 7.0 6665.4 0.0 3728.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 1.7 677.8 0.0 225.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 2.0 635.9 0.0 83.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 1.3 391.4 0.0 54.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 1.4 249.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 1.1 65.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 75.508 855.932
2 85.449 854.845
3 95.445 854.549
4 105.432 855.046
5 115.349 856.334
6 125.133 858.403
7 134.722 861.241
8 144.055 864.831
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.OUT Page 3 9 153.075 869.148
10 161.724 874.168
11 169.948 879.857
12 177.696 886.179
13 184.917 893.096
14 191.568 900.564
15 195.803 906.155
Circle Center At X = 94.174 ; Y = 980.610 ; and Radius = 126.067 Factor of Safety
*** 0.926 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.179 854.742
3 98.171 854.346
4 108.162 854.782
5 118.081 856.047
6 127.862 858.131
7 137.435 861.021
8 146.735 864.696
9 155.698 869.131
10 164.261 874.295
11 172.366 880.153
12 179.956 886.664
13 186.978 893.783
14 193.385 901.461
15 196.737 906.235
Circle Center At X = 97.928 ; Y = 974.604 ; and Radius = 120.258 Factor of Safety
*** 0.928 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.763 855.898
2 82.734 855.135
3 92.733 855.080
4 102.712 855.732
5 112.620 857.089
6 122.406 859.145
7 132.023 861.887
8 141.421 865.304
9 150.554 869.377
10 159.375 874.087
11 167.841 879.409
12 175.909 885.317
13 183.539 891.782
14 190.692 898.770
15 197.332 906.247
16 197.364 906.288
Circle Center At X = 88.517 ; Y = 996.190 ; and Radius = 141.173 Factor of Safety
*** 0.929 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.217 855.107
3 98.216 854.981
4 108.198 855.590
5 118.108 856.930
6 127.892 858.995
7 137.499 861.772
8 146.875 865.248
9 155.972 869.402
10 164.738 874.214
11 173.127 879.656
12 181.095 885.699
13 188.596 892.312
14 195.592 899.457
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.OUT Page 4 15 201.674 906.658
Circle Center At X = 94.925 ; Y = 991.022 ; and Radius = 136.081 Factor of Safety
*** 0.930 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.136 855.915
2 84.043 854.555
3 94.027 853.990
4 104.024 854.224
5 113.971 855.254
6 123.804 857.075
7 133.460 859.675
8 142.878 863.036
9 151.997 867.139
10 160.761 871.956
11 169.112 877.457
12 176.997 883.607
13 184.367 890.367
14 191.173 897.692
15 197.374 905.538
16 197.906 906.335
Circle Center At X = 96.116 ; Y = 979.083 ; and Radius = 125.114 Factor of Safety
*** 0.931 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 79.627 855.983
2 89.515 854.493
3 99.499 853.921
4 109.493 854.273
5 119.412 855.545
6 129.171 857.727
7 138.687 860.800
8 147.879 864.738
9 156.668 869.507
10 164.980 875.066
11 172.744 881.369
12 179.893 888.362
13 186.366 895.984
14 192.109 904.170
15 192.817 905.408
Circle Center At X = 100.692 ; Y = 962.188 ; and Radius = 108.274 Factor of Safety
*** 0.936 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 70.017 855.864
2 79.963 854.824
3 89.959 854.535
4 99.948 854.999
5 109.874 856.213
6 119.681 858.169
7 129.312 860.858
8 138.714 864.264
9 147.834 868.367
10 156.619 873.145
11 165.020 878.569
12 172.989 884.611
13 180.481 891.234
14 187.453 898.402
15 193.665 905.832
Circle Center At X = 88.798 ; Y = 987.391 ; and Radius = 132.861 Factor of Safety
*** 0.936 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02.OUT Page 5 No. (ft) (ft)
1 79.627 855.983
2 89.501 854.402
3 99.477 853.704
4 109.475 853.893
5 119.417 854.969
6 129.224 856.922
7 138.820 859.738
8 148.127 863.395
9 157.074 867.863
10 165.588 873.107
11 173.604 879.086
12 181.058 885.752
13 187.891 893.054
14 194.049 900.933
15 197.525 906.302
Circle Center At X = 102.346 ; Y = 966.257 ; and Radius = 112.590 Factor of Safety
*** 0.939 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.763 855.898
2 82.644 854.359
3 92.614 853.595
4 102.614 853.611
5 112.583 854.406
6 122.459 855.975
7 132.182 858.310
8 141.694 861.396
9 150.937 865.214
10 159.854 869.741
11 168.390 874.949
12 176.495 880.806
13 184.119 887.278
14 191.214 894.324
15 197.739 901.902
16 201.197 906.617
Circle Center At X = 97.439 ; Y = 981.386 ; and Radius = 127.891 Factor of Safety
*** 0.940 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\02m.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:20PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2 W1 W1
W1
W1
bc
de
fg
h i
j
a
# FS
a 1.10
b 1.10
c 1.
11 d 1.11
e 1.11
f 1.12
g 1.12
h 1.12
i 1.12
j 1.12
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.10
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360
760
800
840
880
920
960
1000
DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\b-b' n\02m.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:20PM 1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 2
2 2 21 1
2 2 2 2
2 W1 W1
W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:20PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; B-B' N; Rapid Drawdow n
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
10 Top Boundaries
11 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 855.00 81.00 856.00 2 2 81.00 856.00 176.00 901.00 2 3 176.00 901.00 188.00 901.00 2 4 188.00 901.00 190.00 904.00 2 5 190.00 904.00 194.00 906.00 1 6 194.00 906.00 229.00 909.00 1 7 229.00 909.00 300.00 936.00 2 8 300.00 936.00 335.00 938.00 2 9 335.00 938.00 340.00 935.00 2 10 340.00 935.00 360.00 935.00 2 11 190.00 904.00 229.00 909.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 4 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 853.00
2 81.00 854.00
3 143.00 882.00
4 360.00 773.50
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 81.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 143.00(ft)
and X = 267.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.OUT Page 2 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.861 FS Min = 1.101 FS Ave = 1.709
Standard Deviation = 0.274 Coefficient of Variation = 16.05 % Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 76.881 855.949
2 86.782 854.540
3 96.781 854.416
4 106.713 855.578
5 116.414 858.007
6 125.721 861.663
7 134.482 866.485
8 142.549 872.394
9 149.791 879.291
10 156.085 887.061
11 160.002 893.422
Circle Center At X = 92.746 ; Y = 931.935 ; and Radius = 77.624 Factor of Safety
*** 1.101 ***
Individual data on the 14 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.1 157.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.3 370.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3.5 1307.3 0.0 208.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 7954.1 0.0 2507.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.9 12909.1 0.0 4782.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 9.7 15930.3 0.0 6288.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 9.3 16915.2 0.0 7002.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 8.8 15962.6 0.0 6911.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 8.1 13364.7 0.0 6017.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.5 684.2 0.0 330.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 6.3 8365.2 0.0 2248.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.5 533.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 6.3 5211.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 3.9 1058.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.135 854.424
3 98.132 854.203
4 108.071 855.307
5 117.776 857.716
6 127.077 861.389
7 135.811 866.261
8 143.822 872.246
9 150.971 879.238
10 157.132 887.115
11 161.158 893.969
Circle Center At X = 94.796 ; Y = 929.522 ; and Radius = 75.393 Factor of Safety
*** 1.103 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 75.508 855.932
2 85.403 854.481
3 95.402 854.372
4 105.325 855.609
5 114.992 858.168
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.OUT Page 3 6 124.227 862.004
7 132.863 867.045
8 140.743 873.202
9 147.724 880.363
10 153.679 888.396
11 155.191 891.143
Circle Center At X = 91.205 ; Y = 928.483 ; and Radius = 74.229 Factor of Safety
*** 1.105 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 78.254 855.966
2 88.221 855.148
3 98.217 855.413
4 108.126 856.760
5 117.831 859.171
6 127.218 862.618
7 136.176 867.062
8 144.601 872.450
9 152.393 878.718
10 159.460 885.793
11 165.720 893.591
12 168.042 897.230
Circle Center At X = 90.831 ; Y = 946.917 ; and Radius = 91.816 Factor of Safety
*** 1.107 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.136 855.915
2 84.022 854.415
3 94.016 854.044
4 103.986 854.807
5 113.807 856.695
6 123.350 859.682
7 132.494 863.731
8 141.120 868.789
9 149.118 874.792
10 156.385 881.662
11 162.827 889.310
12 168.112 897.264
Circle Center At X = 92.289 ; Y = 942.127 ; and Radius = 88.102 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.136 855.915
2 83.896 853.738
3 93.872 853.055
4 103.838 853.880
5 113.567 856.195
6 122.836 859.948
7 131.435 865.053
8 139.168 871.393
9 145.859 878.825
10 151.356 887.178
11 152.619 889.925
Circle Center At X = 93.402 ; Y = 919.327 ; and Radius = 66.274 Factor of Safety
*** 1.117 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 74.136 855.915
2 84.066 854.734
3 94.065 854.852
4 103.964 856.267
5 113.596 858.955
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\B-B' N\02m.OUT Page 4 6 122.798 862.871
7 131.413 867.947
8 139.297 874.100
9 146.315 881.223
10 152.349 889.197
11 152.817 890.018
Circle Center At X = 88.161 ; Y = 931.499 ; and Radius = 76.874 Factor of Safety
*** 1.120 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 72.763 855.898
2 82.513 853.676
3 92.466 852.714
4 102.461 853.028
5 112.335 854.613
6 121.926 857.442
7 131.079 861.471
8 139.644 866.632
9 147.482 872.843
10 154.465 880.001
11 160.479 887.991
12 164.888 895.736
Circle Center At X = 95.014 ; Y = 930.881 ; and Radius = 78.215 Factor of Safety
*** 1.120 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 75.508 855.932
2 85.294 853.874
3 95.261 853.055
4 105.251 853.487
5 115.110 855.164
6 124.681 858.059
7 133.816 862.128
8 142.371 867.306
9 150.212 873.513
10 157.216 880.650
11 163.274 888.607
12 168.290 897.258
13 168.337 897.370
Circle Center At X = 96.811 ; Y = 932.922 ; and Radius = 79.882 Factor of Safety
*** 1.122 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 76.881 855.949
2 86.594 853.569
3 96.565 852.810
4 106.526 853.693
5 116.209 856.193
6 125.351 860.244
7 133.708 865.736
8 141.054 872.521
9 147.191 880.417
10 151.953 889.210
11 152.118 889.688
Circle Center At X = 96.187 ; Y = 913.727 ; and Radius = 60.918 Factor of Safety
*** 1.122 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC LAKE RIALTO\STED\2208XX\SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS D-D'.DOC Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Cross-Section D-D’
Filename
Description
Factor of Safety (FS)
Static Pseudostatic
01, 01p Design Condition 1.72 1.13
02 Rapid Drawdown Condition-Operating Lake
Level El 905’ 0.90 --
02m Rapid Drawdown-Maximum Groundwater El
879’ (26 feet bgs) 1.10 --
Project No.: 20079-02
Project Name: DWC / Lake Rialto
NMG
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\01.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:38PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2W1 W1
W1
bc
d
efg h
i
ja
# FS
a 1.74
b 1.74
c 1.
74 d 1.74
e 1.75
f 1.75
g 1.75
h 1.75
i 1.75
j 1.75
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.74
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\01.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:38PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:38PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Design
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
11 Top Boundaries
16 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 861.00 20.00 860.00 2 2 20.00 860.00 24.00 857.00 2 3 24.00 857.00 196.00 855.00 2 4 196.00 855.00 289.00 901.00 1 5 289.00 901.00 301.00 901.00 1 6 301.00 901.00 315.00 907.00 1 7 315.00 907.00 325.00 907.00 1 8 325.00 907.00 362.50 927.00 2 9 362.50 927.00 390.00 927.00 2 10 390.00 927.00 396.00 928.00 2 11 396.00 928.00 480.00 928.00 2 12 199.00 855.00 255.00 860.00 2 13 255.00 860.00 312.00 900.00 2 14 312.00 900.00 314.00 905.00 2 15 314.00 905.00 320.00 906.00 2 16 320.00 906.00 325.00 907.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 310.00 905.00
3 480.00 820.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 116.00(ft)
and X = 196.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 310.00(ft)
and X = 385.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Page 2 Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 3.143 FS Min = 1.739 FS Ave = 2.351
Standard Deviation = 0.337 Coefficient of Variation = 14.33 % Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 183.796 855.142
2 193.728 853.978
3 203.704 853.281
4 213.702 853.052
5 223.699 853.292
6 233.674 854.000
7 243.604 855.175
8 253.469 856.813
9 263.246 858.912
10 272.915 861.467
11 282.453 864.471
12 291.839 867.920
13 301.054 871.804
14 310.076 876.116
15 318.887 880.846
16 327.467 885.984
17 335.796 891.517
18 343.857 897.435
19 351.631 903.725
20 359.103 910.371
21 366.255 917.360
22 373.071 924.677
23 375.041 927.000
Circle Center At X = 213.585 ; Y = 1066.429 ; and Radius = 213.377 Factor of Safety
*** 1.739 ***
Individual data on the 36 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 9.9 624.7 30938.0 31474.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.3 303.7 7085.8 7261.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3.0 729.8 10287.4 9624.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 4.7 2371.8 15507.2 15170.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 10.0 9737.0 30425.9 32343.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 10.0 15662.4 26983.8 32340.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 10.0 20972.7 23493.9 32044.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.9 25624.8 19986.5 31457.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9.9 29585.1 16491.7 30579.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1.5 4928.0 2258.8 4691.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 8.2 27901.4 10780.0 24722.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 9.7 35343.1 9656.5 27961.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 9.5 37121.6 6372.5 26227.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 6.5 26483.2 2561.3 17117.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 2.8 11447.8 708.6 7096.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 9.2 34242.6 2286.6 21804.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.1 188.8 14.6 121.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 8.9 31130.6 1251.1 19216.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.1 264.0 0.0 137.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 1.9 6617.7 0.0 3414.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 1.3 4559.0 0.0 2223.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.7 2270.8 0.0 1067.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 1.0 3395.4 0.0 1546.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 3.9 12686.4 0.0 5382.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Page 3 25 1.1 3448.2 0.0 1391.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 5.0 14394.3 0.0 5151.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 2.5 6633.9 0.0 1879.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 8.3 21775.5 0.0 3051.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.5 1204.8 0.0 9.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 7.6 18558.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 7.8 17306.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 7.5 14478.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 3.4 5732.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 3.8 5170.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 6.8 4892.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 2.0 274.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 167.525 855.331
2 177.472 854.303
3 187.452 853.673
4 197.450 853.442
5 207.448 853.611
6 217.432 854.179
7 227.385 855.146
8 237.292 856.509
9 247.136 858.267
10 256.902 860.417
11 266.575 862.956
12 276.138 865.878
13 285.577 869.181
14 294.877 872.858
15 304.022 876.903
16 312.998 881.311
17 321.791 886.073
18 330.387 891.183
19 338.772 896.633
20 346.932 902.413
21 354.855 908.514
22 362.528 914.927
23 369.938 921.642
24 375.397 927.000
Circle Center At X = 198.241 ; Y = 1103.534 ; and Radius = 250.097 Factor of Safety
*** 1.740 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 185.152 855.126
2 195.085 853.966
3 205.062 853.295
4 215.061 853.115
5 225.056 853.426
6 235.024 854.228
7 244.940 855.519
8 254.781 857.295
9 264.523 859.552
10 274.142 862.286
11 283.615 865.488
12 292.920 869.153
13 302.033 873.269
14 310.933 877.829
15 319.598 882.820
16 328.008 888.231
17 336.142 894.048
18 343.980 900.258
19 351.503 906.846
20 358.694 913.795
21 365.535 921.089
22 370.556 927.000
Circle Center At X = 213.742 ; Y = 1056.446 ; and Radius = 203.339 Factor of Safety
*** 1.741 ***
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Page 4 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 191.932 855.047
2 201.877 854.004
3 211.874 853.754
4 221.859 854.300
5 231.769 855.638
6 241.542 857.759
7 251.115 860.651
8 260.427 864.294
9 269.421 868.666
10 278.039 873.739
11 286.226 879.482
12 293.930 885.856
13 301.104 892.823
14 307.701 900.339
15 311.575 905.532
Circle Center At X = 210.011 ; Y = 979.441 ; and Radius = 125.700 Factor of Safety
*** 1.743 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 186.508 855.110
2 196.435 853.901
3 206.408 853.167
4 216.405 852.911
5 226.402 853.132
6 236.378 853.832
7 246.308 855.007
8 256.172 856.655
9 265.945 858.773
10 275.606 861.355
11 285.132 864.397
12 294.502 867.890
13 303.694 871.826
14 312.688 876.198
15 321.463 880.995
16 329.998 886.205
17 338.275 891.817
18 346.274 897.818
19 353.977 904.195
20 361.367 910.933
21 368.426 918.016
22 375.138 925.428
23 376.430 927.000
Circle Center At X = 216.767 ; Y = 1062.102 ; and Radius = 209.192 Factor of Safety
*** 1.745 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 164.813 855.363
2 174.756 854.288
3 184.732 853.603
4 194.728 853.308
5 204.727 853.403
6 214.715 853.890
7 224.677 854.766
8 234.597 856.030
9 244.459 857.681
10 254.250 859.717
11 263.954 862.133
12 273.556 864.926
13 283.041 868.092
14 292.396 871.627
15 301.605 875.524
16 310.655 879.778
17 319.532 884.383
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Page 5 18 328.222 889.330
19 336.713 894.614
20 344.990 900.225
21 353.042 906.155
22 360.856 912.395
23 368.420 918.936
24 375.723 925.767
25 376.942 927.000
Circle Center At X = 197.280 ; Y = 1109.216 ; and Radius = 255.921 Factor of Safety
*** 1.745 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 183.796 855.142
2 193.718 853.893
3 203.690 853.140
4 213.686 852.884
5 223.683 853.126
6 233.656 853.866
7 243.580 855.101
8 253.429 856.829
9 263.181 859.045
10 272.809 861.744
11 282.292 864.918
12 291.605 868.561
13 300.725 872.663
14 309.629 877.214
15 318.296 882.203
16 326.704 887.617
17 334.831 893.443
18 342.659 899.667
19 350.167 906.272
20 357.337 913.243
21 364.150 920.562
22 369.571 927.000
Circle Center At X = 213.836 ; Y = 1053.552 ; and Radius = 200.671 Factor of Safety
*** 1.746 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 190.576 855.063
2 200.513 853.942
3 210.493 853.303
4 220.491 853.147
5 230.486 853.474
6 240.453 854.284
7 250.369 855.575
8 260.212 857.344
9 269.957 859.587
10 279.583 862.297
11 289.066 865.470
12 298.385 869.098
13 307.517 873.172
14 316.442 877.682
15 325.139 882.619
16 333.587 887.970
17 341.766 893.724
18 349.657 899.865
19 357.243 906.382
20 364.504 913.257
21 371.425 920.475
22 377.102 927.000
Circle Center At X = 218.731 ; Y = 1059.851 ; and Radius = 206.715 Factor of Safety
*** 1.746 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01.OUT Page 6 1 187.864 855.095
2 197.814 854.093
3 207.810 853.811
4 217.800 854.250
5 227.733 855.407
6 237.557 857.277
7 247.220 859.850
8 256.673 863.112
9 265.866 867.047
10 274.752 871.634
11 283.285 876.849
12 291.419 882.665
13 299.114 889.052
14 306.328 895.977
15 313.024 903.404
16 315.825 907.000
Circle Center At X = 206.762 ; Y = 992.188 ; and Radius = 138.390 Factor of Safety
*** 1.747 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 193.288 855.032
2 203.235 854.001
3 213.220 853.453
4 223.219 853.387
5 233.211 853.805
6 243.170 854.705
7 253.074 856.086
8 262.900 857.943
9 272.625 860.273
10 282.226 863.070
11 291.681 866.327
12 300.967 870.038
13 310.062 874.193
14 318.947 878.783
15 327.599 883.796
16 335.999 889.222
17 344.128 895.048
18 351.965 901.259
19 359.492 907.841
20 366.693 914.780
21 373.551 922.059
22 377.774 927.000
Circle Center At X = 219.598 ; Y = 1060.032 ; and Radius = 206.682 Factor of Safety
*** 1.747 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Design; P-Static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\01p.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:41PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2W1 W1
W1
bcd ef ghija
# FS
a 1.13
b 1.13
c 1.
13 d 1.14
e 1.14
f 1.14
g 1.15
h 1.15
i 1.15
j 1.15
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
90.0 90.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
36.0 36.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
Load Value
Peak(A) 0.550(g)
kh Coef. 0.160(g)<
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.13
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Design; P-Static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\01p.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:41PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:41PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Design; P-Stati c
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
11 Top Boundaries
16 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 861.00 20.00 860.00 2 2 20.00 860.00 24.00 857.00 2 3 24.00 857.00 196.00 855.00 2 4 196.00 855.00 289.00 901.00 1 5 289.00 901.00 301.00 901.00 1 6 301.00 901.00 315.00 907.00 1 7 315.00 907.00 325.00 907.00 1 8 325.00 907.00 362.50 927.00 2 9 362.50 927.00 390.00 927.00 2 10 390.00 927.00 396.00 928.00 2 11 396.00 928.00 480.00 928.00 2 12 199.00 855.00 255.00 860.00 2 13 255.00 860.00 312.00 900.00 2 14 312.00 900.00 314.00 905.00 2 15 314.00 905.00 320.00 906.00 2 16 320.00 906.00 325.00 907.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 310.00 905.00
3 480.00 820.00
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.550(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.160(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.OUT Page 2 80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 116.00(ft)
and X = 196.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 310.00(ft)
and X = 385.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.085 FS Min = 1.130 FS Ave = 1.564
Standard Deviation = 0.231 Coefficient of Variation = 14.79 % Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 187.864 855.095
2 197.814 854.093
3 207.810 853.811
4 217.800 854.250
5 227.733 855.407
6 237.557 857.277
7 247.220 859.850
8 256.673 863.112
9 265.866 867.047
10 274.752 871.634
11 283.285 876.849
12 291.419 882.665
13 299.114 889.052
14 306.328 895.977
15 313.024 903.404
16 315.825 907.000
Circle Center At X = 206.762 ; Y = 992.188 ; and Radius = 138.390 Factor of Safety
*** 1.130 ***
Individual data on the 28 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 8.1 353.6 25361.5 25672.7 0. 0. 56.6 0.0 0.0 2 1.8 275.2 6257.1 5780.7 0. 0. 44.0 0.0 0.0 3 1.2 300.9 4030.3 3770.5 0. 0. 48.1 0.0 0.0 4 8.8 4997.7 28419.1 28083.4 0. 0. 799.6 0.0 0.0 5 10.0 11127.5 28993.4 31805.1 0. 0. 1780.4 0.0 0.0 6 9.9 15985.1 25419.2 31307.1 0. 0. 2557.6 0.0 0.0 7 9.8 19784.8 21798.4 30362.6 0. 0. 3165.6 0.0 0.0 8 6.6 15040.8 12754.2 19924.1 0. 0. 2406.5 0.0 0.0 9 3.1 7433.9 5446.4 9052.3 0. 0. 1189.4 0.0 0.0 10 9.5 24038.5 14693.1 27155.8 0. 0. 3846.2 0.0 0.0 11 7.1 18805.0 8989.5 19401.4 0. 0. 3008.8 0.0 0.0 12 2.1 5690.9 2348.8 5509.0 0. 0. 910.5 0.0 0.0 13 8.9 23901.2 8193.3 22251.6 0. 0. 3824.2 0.0 0.0 14 8.5 22342.7 5308.6 19193.3 0. 0. 3574.8 0.0 0.0 15 5.7 14193.0 2153.9 11446.3 0. 0. 2270.9 0.0 0.0 16 2.4 5573.6 603.8 4305.2 0. 0. 891.8 0.0 0.0 17 7.7 13980.2 1920.5 11944.0 0. 0. 2236.8 0.0 0.0 18 1.9 2499.7 470.9 2454.4 0. 0. 399.9 0.0 0.0 19 5.3 5575.8 1033.9 5336.2 0. 0. 892.1 0.0 0.0 20 0.1 90.1 11.9 86.3 0. 0. 14.4 0.0 0.0 21 3.6 2578.8 219.9 2304.3 0. 0. 412.6 0.0 0.0 22 3.0 1371.2 0.0 638.3 0. 0. 219.4 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.2 0. 0. 2.5 0.0 0.0 24 0.6 188.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 30.2 0.0 0.0 25 0.3 68.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 11.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.3 65.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 10.5 0.0 0.0 P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.OUT Page 3 27 0.7 112.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 18.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.8 52.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 8.4 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 191.932 855.047
2 201.877 854.004
3 211.874 853.754
4 221.859 854.300
5 231.769 855.638
6 241.542 857.759
7 251.115 860.651
8 260.427 864.294
9 269.421 868.666
10 278.039 873.739
11 286.226 879.482
12 293.930 885.856
13 301.104 892.823
14 307.701 900.339
15 311.575 905.532
Circle Center At X = 210.011 ; Y = 979.441 ; and Radius = 125.700 Factor of Safety
*** 1.132 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 182.440 855.158
2 192.371 853.978
3 202.360 853.511
4 212.357 853.760
5 222.310 854.724
6 232.169 856.397
7 241.883 858.772
8 251.402 861.835
9 260.678 865.571
10 269.663 869.962
11 278.310 874.984
12 286.577 880.611
13 294.419 886.816
14 301.797 893.566
15 308.674 900.826
16 313.050 906.164
Circle Center At X = 203.906 ; Y = 992.917 ; and Radius = 139.422 Factor of Safety
*** 1.134 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 185.152 855.126
2 195.072 853.858
3 205.059 853.348
4 215.055 853.601
5 225.004 854.613
6 234.847 856.380
7 244.526 858.891
8 253.987 862.132
9 263.173 866.084
10 272.031 870.723
11 280.511 876.023
12 288.563 881.954
13 296.140 888.480
14 303.198 895.564
15 309.696 903.165
16 311.358 905.439
Circle Center At X = 206.776 ; Y = 984.330 ; and Radius = 131.001 Factor of Safety
*** 1.136 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.OUT Page 4 1 191.932 855.047
2 201.872 853.955
3 211.866 853.595
4 221.859 853.969
5 231.797 855.076
6 241.628 856.908
7 251.298 859.456
8 260.755 862.707
9 269.948 866.643
10 278.827 871.242
11 287.345 876.481
12 295.456 882.330
13 303.116 888.758
14 310.284 895.731
15 316.921 903.211
16 319.815 907.000
Circle Center At X = 211.806 ; Y = 989.497 ; and Radius = 135.910 Factor of Safety
*** 1.142 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 175.661 855.237
2 185.568 853.877
3 195.543 853.176
4 205.543 853.137
5 215.524 853.758
6 225.442 855.038
7 235.253 856.971
8 244.915 859.549
9 254.386 862.760
10 263.623 866.590
11 272.587 871.023
12 281.238 876.038
13 289.539 881.615
14 297.453 887.728
15 304.945 894.352
16 311.983 901.456
17 316.792 907.000
Circle Center At X = 201.145 ; Y = 1004.218 ; and Radius = 151.145 Factor of Safety
*** 1.144 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 185.152 855.126
2 195.097 854.075
3 205.089 853.668
4 215.086 853.909
5 225.046 854.795
6 234.929 856.323
7 244.692 858.487
8 254.295 861.277
9 263.697 864.683
10 272.860 868.689
11 281.744 873.279
12 290.313 878.433
13 298.531 884.131
14 306.364 890.348
15 313.778 897.058
16 320.743 904.234
17 323.101 907.000
Circle Center At X = 206.372 ; Y = 1008.280 ; and Radius = 154.617 Factor of Safety
*** 1.145 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 174.305 855.252
2 184.218 853.935
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\01p.OUT Page 5 3 194.194 853.240
4 204.193 853.169
5 214.178 853.723
6 224.109 854.899
7 233.946 856.693
8 243.653 859.098
9 253.190 862.105
10 262.521 865.702
11 271.609 869.874
12 280.419 874.605
13 288.916 879.878
14 297.067 885.671
15 304.840 891.962
16 312.205 898.726
17 319.134 905.937
18 320.034 907.000
Circle Center At X = 200.341 ; Y = 1013.002 ; and Radius = 159.884 Factor of Safety
*** 1.148 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 189.220 855.079
2 199.095 853.505
3 209.065 852.731
4 219.065 852.761
5 229.031 853.595
6 238.896 855.228
7 248.599 857.650
8 258.075 860.843
9 267.264 864.789
10 276.105 869.461
11 284.543 874.829
12 292.521 880.858
13 299.988 887.509
14 306.896 894.739
15 313.201 902.502
16 316.289 907.000
Circle Center At X = 213.717 ; Y = 976.577 ; and Radius = 123.943 Factor of Safety
*** 1.153 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 172.949 855.268
2 182.810 853.607
3 192.762 852.627
4 202.758 852.335
5 212.750 852.731
6 222.691 853.814
7 232.534 855.578
8 242.233 858.015
9 251.741 861.113
10 261.013 864.858
11 270.006 869.232
12 278.676 874.214
13 286.983 879.782
14 294.887 885.907
15 302.352 892.562
16 309.341 899.714
17 315.540 907.000
Circle Center At X = 202.003 ; Y = 997.607 ; and Radius = 145.274 Factor of Safety
*** 1.153 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\02.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:43PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2
W1 W1W1 W1
W1 W1 W1
W1
bcdefg hija
# FS
a 0.90
b 0.91
c 0.
91 d 0.91
e 0.91
f 0.92
g 0.92
h 0.92
i 0.92
j 0.92
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=0.90
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\02.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:43PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2
W1 W1W1 W1
W1 W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:43PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Rapid Drawdown
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
11 Top Boundaries
16 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 861.00 20.00 860.00 2 2 20.00 860.00 24.00 857.00 2 3 24.00 857.00 196.00 855.00 2 4 196.00 855.00 289.00 901.00 1 5 289.00 901.00 301.00 901.00 1 6 301.00 901.00 315.00 907.00 1 7 315.00 907.00 325.00 907.00 1 8 325.00 907.00 362.50 927.00 2 9 362.50 927.00 390.00 927.00 2 10 390.00 927.00 396.00 928.00 2 11 396.00 928.00 480.00 928.00 2 12 199.00 855.00 255.00 860.00 2 13 255.00 860.00 312.00 900.00 2 14 312.00 900.00 314.00 905.00 2 15 314.00 905.00 320.00 906.00 2 16 320.00 906.00 325.00 907.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 8 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 859.00
2 20.00 858.00
3 24.00 855.00
4 196.00 853.00
5 289.00 899.00
6 301.00 899.00
7 310.00 903.00
8 480.00 818.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.OUT Page 2 80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 116.00(ft)
and X = 196.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 310.00(ft)
and X = 385.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 1.857 FS Min = 0.902 FS Ave = 1.354
Standard Deviation = 0.193 Coefficient of Variation = 14.25 % Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 191.932 855.047
2 201.877 854.004
3 211.874 853.754
4 221.859 854.300
5 231.769 855.638
6 241.542 857.759
7 251.115 860.651
8 260.427 864.294
9 269.421 868.666
10 278.039 873.739
11 286.226 879.482
12 293.930 885.856
13 301.104 892.823
14 307.701 900.339
15 311.575 905.532
Circle Center At X = 210.011 ; Y = 979.441 ; and Radius = 125.700 Factor of Safety
*** 0.902 ***
Individual data on the 24 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.1 92.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.7 385.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.3 74.5 0.0 1.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 1.3 391.1 0.0 40.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 1.6 658.7 0.0 129.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 10.0 7798.0 0.0 2532.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 10.0 13532.6 0.0 5229.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 9.9 18162.2 0.0 7468.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9.8 21589.8 0.0 9233.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 4.9 11858.5 0.0 5234.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 4.7 11907.0 0.0 5281.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 9.3 24687.9 0.0 11305.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 2.3 6102.0 0.0 2899.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 6.7 18300.9 0.0 8697.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 8.6 23003.0 0.0 11390.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 8.2 20624.0 0.0 10686.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 2.8 6553.5 0.0 3583.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 4.9 10166.4 0.0 6062.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 5.4 8150.3 0.0 4963.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 1.6 1784.6 0.0 1008.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.1 102.9 0.0 51.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 6.6 4652.8 0.0 2250.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 1.8 592.5 0.0 143.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 2.0 228.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.OUT Page 3 1 187.864 855.095
2 197.814 854.093
3 207.810 853.811
4 217.800 854.250
5 227.733 855.407
6 237.557 857.277
7 247.220 859.850
8 256.673 863.112
9 265.866 867.047
10 274.752 871.634
11 283.285 876.849
12 291.419 882.665
13 299.114 889.052
14 306.328 895.977
15 313.024 903.404
16 315.825 907.000
Circle Center At X = 206.762 ; Y = 992.188 ; and Radius = 138.390 Factor of Safety
*** 0.907 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 185.152 855.126
2 195.072 853.858
3 205.059 853.348
4 215.055 853.601
5 225.004 854.613
6 234.847 856.380
7 244.526 858.891
8 253.987 862.132
9 263.173 866.084
10 272.031 870.723
11 280.511 876.023
12 288.563 881.954
13 296.140 888.480
14 303.198 895.564
15 309.696 903.165
16 311.358 905.439
Circle Center At X = 206.776 ; Y = 984.330 ; and Radius = 131.001 Factor of Safety
*** 0.909 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 182.440 855.158
2 192.371 853.978
3 202.360 853.511
4 212.357 853.760
5 222.310 854.724
6 232.169 856.397
7 241.883 858.772
8 251.402 861.835
9 260.678 865.571
10 269.663 869.962
11 278.310 874.984
12 286.577 880.611
13 294.419 886.816
14 301.797 893.566
15 308.674 900.826
16 313.050 906.164
Circle Center At X = 203.906 ; Y = 992.917 ; and Radius = 139.422 Factor of Safety
*** 0.914 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 190.576 855.063
2 200.444 853.446
3 210.415 852.678
4 220.414 852.766
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.OUT Page 4 5 230.370 853.708
6 240.208 855.499
7 249.858 858.124
8 259.247 861.565
9 268.308 865.796
10 276.973 870.787
11 285.181 876.500
12 292.869 882.894
13 299.983 889.923
14 306.469 897.534
15 312.281 905.671
16 312.411 905.890
Circle Center At X = 214.393 ; Y = 969.408 ; and Radius = 116.799 Factor of Safety
*** 0.914 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 193.288 855.032
2 203.183 853.589
3 213.165 852.980
4 223.162 853.208
5 233.105 854.271
6 242.925 856.163
7 252.552 858.869
8 261.919 862.371
9 270.960 866.644
10 279.612 871.658
11 287.814 877.379
12 295.509 883.765
13 302.642 890.773
14 309.165 898.353
15 315.030 906.452
16 315.361 907.000
Circle Center At X = 215.453 ; Y = 972.323 ; and Radius = 119.368 Factor of Safety
*** 0.915 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 193.288 855.032
2 203.145 853.348
3 213.114 852.564
4 223.114 852.686
5 233.061 853.713
6 242.874 855.637
7 252.473 858.442
8 261.778 862.104
9 270.713 866.594
10 279.205 871.875
11 287.184 877.903
12 294.584 884.629
13 301.345 891.997
14 307.411 899.947
15 310.679 905.148
Circle Center At X = 216.768 ; Y = 962.812 ; and Radius = 110.309 Factor of Safety
*** 0.917 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 189.220 855.079
2 199.095 853.505
3 209.065 852.731
4 219.065 852.761
5 229.031 853.595
6 238.896 855.228
7 248.599 857.650
8 258.075 860.843
9 267.264 864.789
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02.OUT Page 5 10 276.105 869.461
11 284.543 874.829
12 292.521 880.858
13 299.988 887.509
14 306.896 894.739
15 313.201 902.502
16 316.289 907.000
Circle Center At X = 213.717 ; Y = 976.577 ; and Radius = 123.943 Factor of Safety
*** 0.917 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 191.932 855.047
2 201.872 853.955
3 211.866 853.595
4 221.859 853.969
5 231.797 855.076
6 241.628 856.908
7 251.298 859.456
8 260.755 862.707
9 269.948 866.643
10 278.827 871.242
11 287.345 876.481
12 295.456 882.330
13 303.116 888.758
14 310.284 895.731
15 316.921 903.211
16 319.815 907.000
Circle Center At X = 211.806 ; Y = 989.497 ; and Radius = 135.910 Factor of Safety
*** 0.917 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 186.508 855.110
2 196.315 853.155
3 206.253 852.042
4 216.250 851.779
5 226.232 852.369
6 236.128 853.806
7 245.866 856.081
8 255.375 859.177
9 264.586 863.071
10 273.431 867.735
11 281.848 873.135
12 289.774 879.233
13 297.152 885.983
14 303.928 893.337
15 310.053 901.242
16 313.309 906.275
Circle Center At X = 214.348 ; Y = 968.822 ; and Radius = 117.070 Factor of Safety
*** 0.923 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\02m.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:48PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2
W1 W1W1 W1
W1
W1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
760
810
860
910
960
1010
1060
1110
DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\d-d'\02m.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 10:48PM 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
22 2
W1 W1W1 W1
W1
W1
b cd
efghi j
a
# FS
a 1.10
b 1.10
c 1.
10 d 1.10
e 1.11
f 1.11
g 1.11
h 1.12
i 1.12
j 1.12
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.10
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 10:48PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; D-D'; Rapid Drawdown
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
11 Top Boundaries
16 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 861.00 20.00 860.00 2 2 20.00 860.00 24.00 857.00 2 3 24.00 857.00 196.00 855.00 2 4 196.00 855.00 289.00 901.00 1 5 289.00 901.00 301.00 901.00 1 6 301.00 901.00 315.00 907.00 1 7 315.00 907.00 325.00 907.00 1 8 325.00 907.00 362.50 927.00 2 9 362.50 927.00 390.00 927.00 2 10 390.00 927.00 396.00 928.00 2 11 396.00 928.00 480.00 928.00 2 12 199.00 855.00 255.00 860.00 2 13 255.00 860.00 312.00 900.00 2 14 312.00 900.00 314.00 905.00 2 15 314.00 905.00 320.00 906.00 2 16 320.00 906.00 325.00 907.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 6 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 859.00
2 20.00 858.00
3 24.00 855.00
4 196.00 853.00
5 244.00 877.00
6 480.00 759.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 116.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.OUT Page 2 and X = 196.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 240.00(ft)
and X = 385.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 5.180 FS Min = 1.095 FS Ave = 1.766
Standard Deviation = 0.340 Coefficient of Variation = 19.25 % Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 191.932 855.047
2 201.876 853.994
3 211.866 854.453
4 221.672 856.413
5 231.070 859.830
6 239.845 864.625
7 247.797 870.689
8 254.743 877.883
9 260.525 886.042
10 261.107 887.204
Circle Center At X = 203.875 ; Y = 919.838 ; and Radius = 65.882 Factor of Safety
*** 1.095 ***
Individual data on the 16 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.1 93.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.7 379.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.3 83.1 0.0 1.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 1.2 372.6 0.0 39.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 1.7 679.7 0.0 135.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 10.0 7376.4 0.0 2365.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 9.8 11578.4 0.0 4465.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 2.2 3055.3 0.0 1274.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 7.2 10365.7 0.0 4377.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 8.8 12940.6 0.0 5897.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 4.2 5736.0 0.0 2861.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 3.8 4756.5 0.0 1826.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 2.9 3156.0 0.0 512.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 4.1 3555.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 5.8 2444.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.6 30.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 193.288 855.032
2 203.178 853.551
3 213.175 853.766
4 222.992 855.670
5 232.345 859.209
6 240.964 864.280
7 248.600 870.737
8 255.033 878.393
9 259.802 886.558
Circle Center At X = 206.916 ; Y = 912.290 ; and Radius = 58.858 Factor of Safety
*** 1.097 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.OUT Page 3 1 194.644 855.016
2 204.580 853.887
3 214.572 854.280
4 224.389 856.186
5 233.802 859.560
6 242.595 864.324
7 250.561 870.368
8 257.518 877.552
9 263.303 885.708
10 265.023 889.141
Circle Center At X = 207.056 ; Y = 919.055 ; and Radius = 65.231 Factor of Safety
*** 1.099 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 190.576 855.063
2 200.445 853.449
3 210.444 853.616
4 220.253 855.557
5 229.562 859.211
6 238.072 864.462
7 245.514 871.142
8 251.649 879.038
9 254.109 883.742
Circle Center At X = 204.516 ; Y = 909.328 ; and Radius = 56.027 Factor of Safety
*** 1.103 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 194.644 855.016
2 204.540 853.577
3 214.538 853.751
4 224.378 855.533
5 233.803 858.876
6 242.566 863.694
7 250.438 869.860
8 257.215 877.213
9 262.719 885.562
10 264.122 888.695
Circle Center At X = 208.508 ; Y = 914.919 ; and Radius = 61.487 Factor of Safety
*** 1.105 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 187.864 855.095
2 197.717 853.384
3 207.715 853.187
4 217.627 854.508
5 227.225 857.317
6 236.286 861.548
7 244.600 867.104
8 251.977 873.855
9 258.244 881.648
10 261.607 887.451
Circle Center At X = 204.029 ; Y = 918.464 ; and Radius = 65.399 Factor of Safety
*** 1.111 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 193.288 855.032
2 203.115 853.178
3 213.113 852.980
4 223.005 854.443
5 232.518 857.526
6 241.388 862.144
7 249.369 868.169
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\D-D'\02m.OUT Page 4 8 256.241 875.434
9 261.813 883.738
10 264.033 888.651
Circle Center At X = 209.326 ; Y = 912.527 ; and Radius = 59.690 Factor of Safety
*** 1.114 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 187.864 855.095
2 197.777 853.775
3 207.775 853.982
4 217.624 855.712
5 227.094 858.923
6 235.964 863.540
7 244.026 869.457
8 251.092 876.533
9 256.996 884.604
10 257.391 885.365
Circle Center At X = 201.441 ; Y = 918.893 ; and Radius = 65.227 Factor of Safety
*** 1.115 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 196.000 855.000
2 205.885 853.488
3 215.854 854.267
4 225.385 857.296
5 233.975 862.416
6 241.173 869.357
7 246.601 877.756
8 247.590 880.518
Circle Center At X = 207.532 ; Y = 896.596 ; and Radius = 43.165 Factor of Safety
*** 1.122 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 189.220 855.079
2 199.082 853.420
3 209.080 853.622
4 218.866 855.678
5 228.100 859.516
6 236.461 865.002
7 243.657 871.946
8 249.437 880.106
9 250.223 881.820
Circle Center At X = 203.003 ; Y = 906.875 ; and Radius = 53.598 Factor of Safety
*** 1.123 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC LAKE RIALTO\STED\2208XX\SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS E-E'.DOC Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Cross-Section E-E’
Filename
Description
Factor of Safety (FS)
Static Pseudostatic
01, 01p Design Condition 1.50 1.09
02 Rapid Drawdown Condition-Operating Lake
Level El 905’ 0.91 --
02m Rapid Drawdown-Maximum Groundwater El
883’ (22’ feet bgs) 1.10 --
Project No.: 20079-02
Project Name: DWC / Lake Rialto
NMG
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\01.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:21PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2W1 W1
W1
bc d efg hi ja
# FS
a 1.5
b 1.5
c 1.
5 d 1.5
e 1.5
f 1.5
g 1.5
h 1.5
i 1.5
j 1.5
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.5
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Design
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\01.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:33PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 11:21PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Design
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
14 Top Boundaries
18 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 857.00 20.00 857.00 2 2 20.00 857.00 30.00 862.00 2 3 30.00 862.00 50.00 862.00 2 4 50.00 862.00 84.00 879.00 2 5 84.00 879.00 180.00 926.00 1 6 180.00 926.00 185.00 929.00 2 7 185.00 929.00 208.00 929.00 2 8 208.00 929.00 257.00 905.00 2 9 257.00 905.00 260.00 909.00 2 10 260.00 909.00 270.00 909.00 2 11 270.00 909.00 275.00 909.00 1 12 275.00 909.00 285.00 905.00 1 13 285.00 905.00 320.00 912.00 2 14 320.00 912.00 335.00 912.00 2 15 84.00 879.00 120.00 880.00 2 16 120.00 880.00 180.00 926.00 2 17 270.00 909.00 278.00 905.00 2 18 278.00 905.00 285.00 905.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 137.00 905.00
3 335.00 806.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 50.00(ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Page 2 Each Surface Terminates Between X = 137.00(ft)
and X = 219.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.884 FS Min = 1.484 FS Ave = 2.120
Standard Deviation = 0.329 Coefficient of Variation = 15.51 % Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 30.508 862.000
2 40.468 861.097
3 50.462 860.755
4 60.459 860.975
5 70.429 861.756
6 80.339 863.095
7 90.158 864.990
8 99.855 867.432
9 109.399 870.416
10 118.761 873.931
11 127.911 877.966
12 136.820 882.508
13 145.459 887.544
14 153.802 893.058
15 161.822 899.031
16 169.494 905.445
17 176.793 912.280
18 183.698 919.514
19 190.184 927.125
20 191.609 929.000
Circle Center At X = 51.578 ; Y = 1038.521 ; and Radius = 177.774 Factor of Safety
*** 1.484 ***
Individual data on the 27 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 10.0 539.6 26722.4 27113.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 9.5 1219.5 25577.2 26226.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.5 75.0 1381.6 1275.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 4637.5 28087.5 27540.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 10.0 9997.6 24536.6 27228.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 9.9 14586.9 20953.9 26566.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 3.7 6430.5 6875.1 9668.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 6.2 11905.3 10478.3 15889.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9.7 21152.4 13886.5 24204.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 9.5 23107.0 10544.6 22511.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 9.4 24214.0 7332.5 20484.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 1.2 3288.0 746.9 2601.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 7.9 21207.8 3538.8 15526.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 8.9 23991.0 1436.7 15452.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.2 483.8 1.2 292.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 8.5 22270.3 0.0 9791.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 1.0 2545.4 0.0 841.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 7.4 18309.1 0.0 3866.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 2.8 6743.7 0.0 352.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 5.2 11631.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 7.7 15411.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 7.3 12071.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 3.2 4330.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 3.7 4229.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 1.3 1302.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Page 3 26 5.2 3058.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 1.4 160.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 34.746 862.000
2 44.705 861.094
3 54.698 860.740
4 64.696 860.939
5 74.668 861.692
6 84.583 862.995
7 94.410 864.845
8 104.120 867.235
9 113.683 870.160
10 123.070 873.609
11 132.251 877.572
12 141.199 882.037
13 149.886 886.990
14 158.285 892.416
15 166.372 898.299
16 174.121 904.620
17 181.508 911.360
18 188.511 918.499
19 195.108 926.014
20 197.450 929.000
Circle Center At X = 56.126 ; Y = 1041.135 ; and Radius = 180.407 Factor of Safety
*** 1.486 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 40.678 862.000
2 50.624 860.959
3 60.616 860.562
4 70.613 860.810
5 80.573 861.702
6 90.455 863.235
7 100.217 865.402
8 109.819 868.194
9 119.221 871.600
10 128.384 875.605
11 137.270 880.192
12 145.841 885.344
13 154.062 891.037
14 161.899 897.249
15 169.319 903.953
16 176.290 911.122
17 182.785 918.726
18 188.776 926.732
19 190.255 929.000
Circle Center At X = 61.774 ; Y = 1015.516 ; and Radius = 154.959 Factor of Safety
*** 1.488 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 34.746 862.000
2 44.671 860.776
3 54.651 860.150
4 64.651 860.122
5 74.635 860.694
6 84.566 861.864
7 94.409 863.626
8 104.129 865.975
9 113.691 868.903
10 123.060 872.399
11 132.203 876.450
12 141.087 881.041
13 149.679 886.157
14 157.950 891.778
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Page 4 15 165.868 897.885
16 173.406 904.456
17 180.537 911.467
18 187.235 918.892
19 193.476 926.706
20 195.093 929.000
Circle Center At X = 60.132 ; Y = 1026.618 ; and Radius = 166.564 Factor of Safety
*** 1.493 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 34.746 862.000
2 44.700 861.046
3 54.692 860.637
4 64.691 860.773
5 74.668 861.454
6 84.592 862.678
7 94.436 864.441
8 104.168 866.738
9 113.761 869.563
10 123.186 872.906
11 132.414 876.758
12 141.418 881.108
13 150.172 885.942
14 158.650 891.246
15 166.825 897.005
16 174.674 903.201
17 182.174 909.815
18 189.302 916.829
19 196.037 924.221
20 199.937 929.000
Circle Center At X = 57.231 ; Y = 1043.704 ; and Radius = 183.090 Factor of Safety
*** 1.496 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 27.966 860.983
2 37.933 860.170
3 47.929 859.871
4 57.926 860.086
5 67.900 860.814
6 77.823 862.054
7 87.669 863.802
8 97.412 866.054
9 107.026 868.804
10 116.487 872.044
11 125.768 875.766
12 134.846 879.960
13 143.697 884.615
14 152.296 889.718
15 160.622 895.257
16 168.652 901.217
17 176.366 907.581
18 183.742 914.333
19 190.761 921.456
20 197.405 928.930
21 197.462 929.000
Circle Center At X = 48.751 ; Y = 1054.391 ; and Radius = 194.521 Factor of Safety
*** 1.496 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 47.458 862.000
2 57.417 861.097
3 67.415 860.889
4 77.403 861.375
5 87.333 862.554
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Page 5 6 97.157 864.419
7 106.829 866.963
8 116.300 870.173
9 125.525 874.032
10 134.460 878.523
11 143.061 883.624
12 151.287 889.310
13 159.098 895.553
14 166.457 902.324
15 173.328 909.590
16 179.677 917.316
17 185.475 925.464
18 187.638 929.000
Circle Center At X = 65.458 ; Y = 1004.483 ; and Radius = 143.616 Factor of Safety
*** 1.497 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 36.441 862.000
2 46.354 860.688
3 56.331 860.002
4 66.331 859.947
5 76.314 860.522
6 86.241 861.725
7 96.073 863.551
8 105.771 865.992
9 115.295 869.040
10 124.608 872.682
11 133.673 876.903
12 142.455 881.688
13 150.917 887.015
14 159.027 892.866
15 166.752 899.216
16 174.062 906.040
17 180.928 913.311
18 187.321 921.000
19 193.162 929.000
Circle Center At X = 62.207 ; Y = 1018.532 ; and Radius = 158.638 Factor of Safety
*** 1.497 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 33.898 862.000
2 43.839 860.916
3 53.829 860.454
4 63.827 860.618
5 73.796 861.406
6 83.696 862.815
7 93.489 864.841
8 103.136 867.474
9 112.600 870.704
10 121.844 874.520
11 130.831 878.905
12 139.526 883.844
13 147.896 889.316
14 155.908 895.300
15 163.530 901.773
16 170.733 908.710
17 177.488 916.083
18 183.770 923.864
19 187.411 929.000
Circle Center At X = 56.210 ; Y = 1020.419 ; and Radius = 159.983 Factor of Safety
*** 1.499 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 24.576 859.288
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01.OUT Page 6 2 34.575 859.113
3 44.571 859.395
4 54.544 860.133
5 64.472 861.325
6 74.336 862.969
7 84.115 865.061
8 93.788 867.598
9 103.335 870.574
10 112.736 873.982
11 121.972 877.816
12 131.023 882.068
13 139.871 886.728
14 148.496 891.787
15 156.882 897.235
16 165.011 903.060
17 172.865 909.250
18 180.428 915.792
19 187.685 922.672
20 193.776 929.000
Circle Center At X = 33.426 ; Y = 1077.999 ; and Radius = 218.890 Factor of Safety
*** 1.499 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Design; P-Static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\01p.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:24PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2W1 W1
W1
b
c defghija
# FS
a 1.09
b 1.10
c 1.
11 d 1.11
e 1.11
f 1.11
g 1.11
h 1.11
i 1.11
j 1.11
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
90.0 90.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
36.0 36.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
Load Value
Peak(A) 0.550(g)
kh Coef. 0.160(g)<
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.09
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Design; P-Static
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\01p.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:24PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2W1 W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 11:24PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Design; P-Stati c
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
14 Top Boundaries
18 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 857.00 20.00 857.00 2 2 20.00 857.00 30.00 862.00 2 3 30.00 862.00 50.00 862.00 2 4 50.00 862.00 84.00 879.00 2 5 84.00 879.00 180.00 926.00 1 6 180.00 926.00 185.00 929.00 2 7 185.00 929.00 208.00 929.00 2 8 208.00 929.00 257.00 905.00 2 9 257.00 905.00 260.00 909.00 2 10 260.00 909.00 270.00 909.00 2 11 270.00 909.00 275.00 909.00 1 12 275.00 909.00 285.00 905.00 1 13 285.00 905.00 320.00 912.00 2 14 320.00 912.00 335.00 912.00 2 15 84.00 879.00 120.00 880.00 2 16 120.00 880.00 180.00 926.00 2 17 270.00 909.00 278.00 905.00 2 18 278.00 905.00 285.00 905.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 90.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 905.00
2 137.00 905.00
3 335.00 806.00
Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.550(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.160(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Page 2 Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 50.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 137.00(ft)
and X = 219.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.076 FS Min = 1.086 FS Ave = 1.563
Standard Deviation = 0.267 Coefficient of Variation = 17.07 % Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 50.000 862.000
2 59.972 862.748
3 69.885 864.061
4 79.708 865.935
5 89.409 868.363
6 98.957 871.337
7 108.320 874.848
8 117.469 878.885
9 126.374 883.435
10 135.006 888.482
11 143.339 894.012
12 151.344 900.005
13 158.996 906.443
14 166.270 913.304
15 173.144 920.568
16 176.130 924.105
Circle Center At X = 41.910 ; Y = 1037.561 ; and Radius = 175.747 Factor of Safety
*** 1.086 ***
Individual data on the 22 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 10.0 2535.4 28180.6 26598.5 0. 0. 405.7 0.0 0.0 2 9.9 7208.5 24576.9 25955.4 0. 0. 1153.4 0.0 0.0 3 9.8 11080.7 20971.3 24961.2 0. 0. 1772.9 0.0 0.0 4 4.3 5899.4 8105.9 10636.0 0. 0. 943.9 0.0 0.0 5 5.4 8203.6 9273.5 12983.2 0. 0. 1312.6 0.0 0.0 6 9.5 16195.1 13939.6 21933.8 0. 0. 2591.2 0.0 0.0 7 9.4 17440.3 10659.2 19910.2 0. 0. 2790.5 0.0 0.0 8 9.1 17872.8 7534.8 17555.2 0. 0. 2859.6 0.0 0.0 9 2.2 4274.9 1364.6 3872.6 0. 0. 684.0 0.0 0.0 10 1.1 2104.9 614.8 1849.2 0. 0. 336.8 0.0 0.0 11 5.7 11151.5 2620.2 9154.4 0. 0. 1784.2 0.0 0.0 12 8.6 16471.2 1884.0 11881.8 0. 0. 2635.4 0.0 0.0 13 2.0 3663.9 74.8 2367.2 0. 0. 586.2 0.0 0.0 14 6.3 11098.7 0.0 4916.1 0. 0. 1775.8 0.0 0.0 15 3.1 5087.0 0.0 1281.9 0. 0. 813.9 0.0 0.0 16 3.2 4852.9 0.0 435.5 0. 0. 776.5 0.0 0.0 17 1.7 2550.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 408.1 0.0 0.0 18 7.7 9751.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1560.3 0.0 0.0 19 7.3 6655.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1064.8 0.0 0.0 20 6.9 3319.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 531.1 0.0 0.0 21 0.4 97.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 15.6 0.0 0.0 22 2.6 274.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 43.9 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Page 3 No. (ft) (ft)
1 50.000 862.000
2 59.918 863.278
3 69.762 865.040
4 79.507 867.282
5 89.131 869.999
6 98.610 873.183
7 107.922 876.829
8 117.044 880.925
9 125.955 885.464
10 134.633 890.434
11 143.057 895.823
12 151.206 901.618
13 159.063 907.805
14 166.606 914.369
15 173.820 921.295
16 176.768 924.418
Circle Center At X = 29.014 ; Y = 1064.561 ; and Radius = 203.645 Factor of Safety
*** 1.095 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 35.593 862.000
2 45.548 861.053
3 55.543 860.734
4 65.538 861.043
5 75.494 861.981
6 85.372 863.542
7 95.132 865.721
8 104.735 868.509
9 114.144 871.895
10 123.322 875.866
11 132.232 880.406
12 140.839 885.497
13 149.109 891.119
14 157.009 897.250
15 164.509 903.865
16 171.577 910.938
17 178.188 918.442
18 184.313 926.346
19 186.114 929.000
Circle Center At X = 55.620 ; Y = 1019.750 ; and Radius = 159.016 Factor of Safety
*** 1.107 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 30.508 862.000
2 40.468 861.097
3 50.462 860.755
4 60.459 860.975
5 70.429 861.756
6 80.339 863.095
7 90.158 864.990
8 99.855 867.432
9 109.399 870.416
10 118.761 873.931
11 127.911 877.966
12 136.820 882.508
13 145.459 887.544
14 153.802 893.058
15 161.822 899.031
16 169.494 905.445
17 176.793 912.280
18 183.698 919.514
19 190.184 927.125
20 191.609 929.000
Circle Center At X = 51.578 ; Y = 1038.521 ; and Radius = 177.774 Factor of Safety
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Page 4 *** 1.109 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 33.898 862.000
2 43.839 860.916
3 53.829 860.454
4 63.827 860.618
5 73.796 861.406
6 83.696 862.815
7 93.489 864.841
8 103.136 867.474
9 112.600 870.704
10 121.844 874.520
11 130.831 878.905
12 139.526 883.844
13 147.896 889.316
14 155.908 895.300
15 163.530 901.773
16 170.733 908.710
17 177.488 916.083
18 183.770 923.864
19 187.411 929.000
Circle Center At X = 56.210 ; Y = 1020.419 ; and Radius = 159.983 Factor of Safety
*** 1.110 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 27.966 860.983
2 37.960 860.643
3 47.959 860.814
4 57.936 861.493
5 67.865 862.680
6 77.721 864.371
7 87.478 866.562
8 97.111 869.247
9 106.594 872.420
10 115.903 876.072
11 125.015 880.193
12 133.904 884.774
13 142.548 889.801
14 150.926 895.262
15 159.014 901.143
16 166.791 907.428
17 174.239 914.102
18 181.336 921.146
19 188.066 928.543
20 188.441 929.000
Circle Center At X = 39.635 ; Y = 1056.768 ; and Radius = 196.132 Factor of Safety
*** 1.110 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 24.576 859.288
2 34.568 858.877
3 44.567 858.970
4 54.550 859.566
5 64.489 860.665
6 74.360 862.264
7 84.139 864.358
8 93.799 866.943
9 103.317 870.010
10 112.668 873.554
11 121.828 877.565
12 130.775 882.032
13 139.485 886.944
14 147.937 892.289
15 156.109 898.053
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Page 5 16 163.979 904.222
17 171.529 910.780
18 178.738 917.709
19 185.590 924.994
20 188.994 929.000
Circle Center At X = 37.773 ; Y = 1056.910 ; and Radius = 198.062 Factor of Safety
*** 1.111 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 40.678 862.000
2 50.624 860.959
3 60.616 860.562
4 70.613 860.810
5 80.573 861.702
6 90.455 863.235
7 100.217 865.402
8 109.819 868.194
9 119.221 871.600
10 128.384 875.605
11 137.270 880.192
12 145.841 885.344
13 154.062 891.037
14 161.899 897.249
15 169.319 903.953
16 176.290 911.122
17 182.785 918.726
18 188.776 926.732
19 190.255 929.000
Circle Center At X = 61.774 ; Y = 1015.516 ; and Radius = 154.959 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 23.729 858.864
2 33.710 858.258
3 43.710 858.178
4 53.700 858.623
5 63.653 859.593
6 73.541 861.085
7 83.337 863.095
8 93.014 865.617
9 102.545 868.644
10 111.903 872.168
11 121.063 876.180
12 130.000 880.667
13 138.688 885.618
14 147.105 891.019
15 155.225 896.854
16 163.028 903.109
17 170.490 909.765
18 177.593 916.805
19 184.316 924.208
20 188.228 929.000
Circle Center At X = 40.278 ; Y = 1048.029 ; and Radius = 189.887 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 47.458 862.000
2 57.417 861.097
3 67.415 860.889
4 77.403 861.375
5 87.333 862.554
6 97.157 864.419
7 106.829 866.963
8 116.300 870.173
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\01p.OUT Page 6 9 125.525 874.032
10 134.460 878.523
11 143.061 883.624
12 151.287 889.310
13 159.098 895.553
14 166.457 902.324
15 173.328 909.590
16 179.677 917.316
17 185.475 925.464
18 187.638 929.000
Circle Center At X = 65.458 ; Y = 1004.483 ; and Radius = 143.616 Factor of Safety
*** 1.113 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\02.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:27PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2
W1 W1 W1
W1
W1
W1
b cd
ef g
h
ija
# FS
a 0.91
b 0.92
c 0.
92 d 0.92
e 0.92
f 0.92
g 0.92
h 0.93
i 0.93
j 0.93
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=0.91
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\02.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:27PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2
W1 W1 W1
W1
W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 11:27PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Rapid Drawdown
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
14 Top Boundaries
18 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 857.00 20.00 857.00 2 2 20.00 857.00 30.00 862.00 2 3 30.00 862.00 50.00 862.00 2 4 50.00 862.00 84.00 879.00 2 5 84.00 879.00 180.00 926.00 1 6 180.00 926.00 185.00 929.00 2 7 185.00 929.00 208.00 929.00 2 8 208.00 929.00 257.00 905.00 2 9 257.00 905.00 260.00 909.00 2 10 260.00 909.00 270.00 909.00 2 11 270.00 909.00 275.00 909.00 1 12 275.00 909.00 285.00 905.00 1 13 285.00 905.00 320.00 912.00 2 14 320.00 912.00 335.00 912.00 2 15 84.00 879.00 120.00 880.00 2 16 120.00 880.00 180.00 926.00 2 17 270.00 909.00 278.00 905.00 2 18 278.00 905.00 285.00 905.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 6 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 855.00
2 20.00 855.00
3 30.00 855.00
4 50.00 860.00
5 137.00 903.00
6 335.00 763.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.OUT Page 2 80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 50.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 137.00(ft)
and X = 219.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 1.941 FS Min = 0.912 FS Ave = 1.404
Standard Deviation = 0.256 Coefficient of Variation = 18.25 % Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 48.305 862.000
2 58.253 860.976
3 68.252 861.020
4 78.190 862.132
5 87.953 864.300
6 97.427 867.498
7 106.506 871.690
8 115.085 876.828
9 123.066 882.853
10 130.358 889.697
11 136.877 897.280
12 142.549 905.516
13 144.131 908.439
Circle Center At X = 62.839 ; Y = 954.335 ; and Radius = 93.472 Factor of Safety
*** 0.912 ***
Individual data on the 19 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 1.7 17.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 3.1 402.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 5.2 2234.7 0.0 456.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 9153.9 0.0 3124.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.9 14351.8 0.0 5571.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 5.8 10297.2 0.0 4216.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 4.0 7639.4 0.0 3171.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.8 1509.9 0.0 649.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 8.7 18222.6 0.0 7904.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 9.1 19830.5 0.0 9054.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 8.6 18386.2 0.0 8885.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 4.2 8433.5 0.0 4354.8 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 3.8 7208.0 0.0 3692.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 7.3 11931.9 0.0 6550.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 6.5 7669.3 0.0 4412.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.1 111.2 0.0 68.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 2.6 1926.4 0.0 652.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 3.0 1282.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 1.6 203.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 42.373 862.000
2 52.325 861.019
3 62.325 860.957
4 72.288 861.813
5 82.130 863.581
6 91.769 866.245
7 101.122 869.784
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.OUT Page 3 8 110.111 874.166
9 118.659 879.355
10 126.694 885.308
11 134.149 891.973
12 140.960 899.295
13 147.070 907.212
14 149.523 911.079
Circle Center At X = 58.050 ; Y = 969.279 ; and Radius = 108.418 Factor of Safety
*** 0.915 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 46.610 862.000
2 56.542 860.836
3 66.540 860.636
4 76.511 861.400
5 86.361 863.123
6 96.000 865.787
7 105.336 869.369
8 114.284 873.835
9 122.759 879.142
10 130.683 885.243
11 137.982 892.079
12 144.587 899.587
13 150.437 907.697
14 153.567 913.059
Circle Center At X = 63.655 ; Y = 963.849 ; and Radius = 103.265 Factor of Safety
*** 0.917 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 46.610 862.000
2 56.507 860.570
3 66.501 860.198
4 76.477 860.887
5 86.324 862.630
6 95.931 865.406
7 105.189 869.185
8 113.995 873.924
9 122.249 879.570
10 129.857 886.059
11 136.736 893.318
12 142.806 901.264
13 147.999 909.810
14 148.319 910.490
Circle Center At X = 65.019 ; Y = 954.301 ; and Radius = 94.119 Factor of Safety
*** 0.918 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 45.763 862.000
2 55.714 861.016
3 65.714 860.923
4 75.682 861.723
5 85.539 863.408
6 95.206 865.965
7 104.607 869.375
8 113.667 873.609
9 122.312 878.633
10 130.476 884.409
11 138.091 890.890
12 145.099 898.024
13 151.442 905.755
14 157.071 914.020
15 157.649 915.058
Circle Center At X = 61.751 ; Y = 972.885 ; and Radius = 112.031 Factor of Safety
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.OUT Page 4 *** 0.920 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 42.373 862.000
2 52.250 860.439
3 62.234 859.874
4 72.225 860.312
5 82.121 861.749
6 91.824 864.169
7 101.235 867.548
8 110.261 871.853
9 118.811 877.040
10 126.798 883.057
11 134.143 889.844
12 140.771 897.331
13 146.616 905.445
14 150.008 911.317
Circle Center At X = 62.891 ; Y = 959.335 ; and Radius = 99.475 Factor of Safety
*** 0.922 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 50.000 862.000
2 59.934 860.853
3 69.933 860.695
4 79.898 861.530
5 89.731 863.348
6 99.336 866.131
7 108.618 869.853
8 117.485 874.476
9 125.850 879.955
10 133.631 886.236
11 140.752 893.258
12 147.141 900.950
13 152.737 909.238
14 155.239 913.877
Circle Center At X = 66.561 ; Y = 961.087 ; and Radius = 100.462 Factor of Safety
*** 0.923 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 43.220 862.000
2 53.077 860.312
3 63.059 859.720
4 73.046 860.233
5 82.915 861.844
6 92.547 864.534
7 101.823 868.269
8 110.631 873.004
9 118.863 878.681
10 126.419 885.232
11 133.207 892.576
12 139.143 900.623
13 143.490 908.125
Circle Center At X = 63.414 ; Y = 950.275 ; and Radius = 90.555 Factor of Safety
*** 0.925 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 43.220 862.000
2 53.104 860.480
3 63.088 859.916
4 73.080 860.313
5 82.988 861.667
6 92.721 863.965
7 102.187 867.188
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02.OUT Page 5 8 111.301 871.303
9 119.978 876.275
10 128.137 882.056
11 135.704 888.594
12 142.609 895.827
13 148.787 903.690
14 154.182 912.110
15 155.038 913.779
Circle Center At X = 63.960 ; Y = 963.985 ; and Radius = 104.073 Factor of Safety
*** 0.925 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 38.983 862.000
2 48.939 861.063
3 58.938 860.951
4 68.913 861.664
5 78.795 863.198
6 88.516 865.541
7 98.011 868.678
8 107.215 872.588
9 116.065 877.244
10 124.501 882.615
11 132.465 888.662
12 139.903 895.347
13 146.764 902.622
14 153.001 910.438
15 155.343 913.928
Circle Center At X = 55.297 ; Y = 982.012 ; and Radius = 121.115 Factor of Safety
*** 0.926 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\02m.pl2 Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:16PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2
W1 W1 W1
W1
W1
W1
bcde
fgh ij
a
# FS
a 1.10
b 1.11
c 1.
11 d 1.11
e 1.11
f 1.11
g 1.11
h 1.11
i 1.12
j 1.12
Soil
Desc.
Afu
Qal
Water
Soil
Type
No.
1 2
3 Total
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Saturated
Unit Wt.
(pcf)
120.0
120.0
62.0 Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
75.0 75.0
0.0 Friction
Angle
(deg)
30.0 30.0
0.0 Pore
Pressure
Param.
0.00 0.00
0.00 Pressure
Constant
(psf)
0.0 0.0
0.0 Piez.
Surface
No.
W1
W1
W1
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.10
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
760
810
860
910
960
1010
DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Rapid Drawdown
p:\2020\20079-02 dwc lake rialto\sted\2208xx\e-e'\02m.plt Run By: TAC for TM 10/5/2022 11:16PM 1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16
17 18
2 2 2
2 1
2 2
2 2 2 1 1 2 2
2 2 2 2
W1 W1 W1
W1
W1
W1
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 ***
** GSTABL7 by Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D.,P.E.,D.GE **
** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Ver. 2.005.3, Feb. 2013 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
*********************************************************************************
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 10/5/2022
Time of Run: 11:16PM
Run By: TAC for TM
Input Data Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.in Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.OUT Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: DWC / Lake Rialto; E-E'; Rapid Drawdown
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
14 Top Boundaries
18 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 857.00 20.00 857.00 2 2 20.00 857.00 30.00 862.00 2 3 30.00 862.00 50.00 862.00 2 4 50.00 862.00 84.00 879.00 2 5 84.00 879.00 180.00 926.00 1 6 180.00 926.00 185.00 929.00 2 7 185.00 929.00 208.00 929.00 2 8 208.00 929.00 257.00 905.00 2 9 257.00 905.00 260.00 909.00 2 10 260.00 909.00 270.00 909.00 2 11 270.00 909.00 275.00 909.00 1 12 275.00 909.00 285.00 905.00 1 13 285.00 905.00 320.00 912.00 2 14 320.00 912.00 335.00 912.00 2 15 84.00 879.00 120.00 880.00 2 16 120.00 880.00 180.00 926.00 2 17 270.00 909.00 278.00 905.00 2 18 278.00 905.00 285.00 905.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 760.00(ft)
Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft)
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 120.0 120.0 75.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 62.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 (pcf)
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 6 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor = 0.50
Point X-Water Y-Water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 0.00 855.00
2 20.00 855.00
3 30.00 855.00
4 50.00 860.00
5 95.00 883.00
6 335.00 763.00
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.OUT Page 2 80 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 60 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 0.00(ft)
and X = 50.00(ft)
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 95.00(ft)
and X = 219.00(ft)
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft)
10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are
Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Attempted = 4800
Number of Trial Surfaces With Valid FS = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max = 2.400 FS Min = 1.102 FS Ave = 1.650
Standard Deviation = 0.273 Coefficient of Variation = 16.56 % Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 45.763 862.000
2 55.695 860.836
3 65.678 861.408
4 75.412 863.701
5 84.602 867.643
6 92.971 873.117
7 100.266 879.957
8 106.267 887.956
9 107.580 890.544
Circle Center At X = 57.404 ; Y = 918.360 ; and Radius = 57.550 Factor of Safety
*** 1.102 ***
Individual data on the 15 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.2 126.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.4 354.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 3.3 1185.8 0.0 192.9 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 10.0 7453.3 0.0 2427.7 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 9.7 11351.4 0.0 4445.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 8.6 11656.0 0.0 5039.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.6 840.5 0.0 367.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 2.8 3776.1 0.0 1812.5 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 5.6 7233.9 0.0 3470.4 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 2.0 2391.2 0.0 1309.1 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 4.7 4698.0 0.0 1666.2 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.6 474.9 0.0 34.6 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.2 185.7 0.0 4.3 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 5.8 3037.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 1.3 153.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.915 862.000
2 54.867 861.016
3 64.850 861.591
4 74.623 863.711
5 83.947 867.325
6 92.596 872.345
7 100.359 878.648
8 107.048 886.081
9 111.059 892.248
Circle Center At X = 56.182 ; Y = 925.128 ; and Radius = 64.126 Factor of Safety
*** 1.107 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.OUT Page 3 1 50.000 862.000
2 59.906 860.633
3 69.881 861.342
4 79.494 864.097
5 88.330 868.779
6 96.009 875.185
7 102.198 883.040
8 105.375 889.465
Circle Center At X = 61.529 ; Y = 908.311 ; and Radius = 47.724 Factor of Safety
*** 1.107 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.915 862.000
2 54.825 860.658
3 64.813 861.152
4 74.542 863.464
5 83.684 867.517
6 91.930 873.174
7 99.002 880.243
8 104.662 888.487
9 105.018 889.290
Circle Center At X = 57.143 ; Y = 915.045 ; and Radius = 54.437 Factor of Safety
*** 1.109 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 50.000 862.000
2 59.966 861.175
3 69.877 862.504
4 79.273 865.926
5 87.718 871.282
6 94.819 878.323
7 100.246 886.722
8 100.352 887.006
Circle Center At X = 58.801 ; Y = 907.476 ; and Radius = 46.320 Factor of Safety
*** 1.110 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 48.305 862.000
2 58.155 860.276
3 68.152 860.550
4 77.892 862.812
5 86.987 866.970
6 95.069 872.859
7 101.815 880.240
8 106.954 888.819
9 107.559 890.534
Circle Center At X = 61.792 ; Y = 910.043 ; and Radius = 49.901 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.915 862.000
2 54.813 860.570
3 64.801 861.049
4 74.516 863.419
5 83.604 867.593
6 91.731 873.418
7 98.603 880.683
8 103.647 888.619
Circle Center At X = 57.318 ; Y = 912.737 ; and Radius = 52.231 Factor of Safety
*** 1.112 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
P:\2020\20079-02 DWC Lake Rialto\Sted\2208XX\E-E'\02m.OUT Page 4 Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.068 862.000
2 54.005 860.882
3 63.987 861.485
4 73.717 863.791
5 82.908 867.732
6 91.287 873.191
7 98.605 880.005
8 104.646 887.974
9 105.429 889.491
Circle Center At X = 55.506 ; Y = 918.953 ; and Radius = 58.091 Factor of Safety
*** 1.114 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 43.220 862.000
2 53.083 860.350
3 63.083 860.371
4 72.939 862.063
5 82.374 865.378
6 91.121 870.223
7 98.936 876.462
8 105.599 883.919
9 110.736 892.090
Circle Center At X = 57.958 ; Y = 919.779 ; and Radius = 59.628 Factor of Safety
*** 1.115 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 46.610 862.000
2 56.558 860.976
3 66.509 861.965
4 76.060 864.926
5 84.825 869.740
6 92.448 876.212
7 98.622 884.079
8 99.998 886.833
Circle Center At X = 56.700 ; Y = 910.115 ; and Radius = 49.161 Factor of Safety
*** 1.119 ***
**** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ****
APPENDIX F
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-1
APPENDIX F
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Intent : These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these 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 Geotechnical Consultant : Prior to commenc ement of work, the owner shall employ a geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of 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 condi tions 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 revie w agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture -conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attain ed level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-2
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor : The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture -conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specificatio ns prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the 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 "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consult ant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
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 G eotechnical 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). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. 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
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-3 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 che mical 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.
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 overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic -rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluate d 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 illu stration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for 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.
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-4
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 s hall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that overs ize 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.
3.3 Import : If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. 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 c an 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 D1557-91).
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- 91). 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.
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-5
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 D1557-91.
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).
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.
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-6
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 Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
7.2 Bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provi sions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction.
Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed an d densified to a minimum 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface, except in traveled ways (see Section 7.6 below).
7.3 Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.4 Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.6 Trench backfill in the upper foot measured from finish grade within existing or future traveled way, shoulder, and other paved areas (or areas to receive pavement) should be placed to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction.
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL FILL KEY ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
DESIGN FINISH GRADE
BROW
BERM
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
MAINTAIN 9' MIN. HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM SLOPE FACE TO BENCH/BACKCUT
NATURAL
GRADE
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
PROJECTED SLOPE GRADIENT
(1:1 MAXIMUM)
BACKCUT -- VARIES
2' MINIMUM
KEY DEPTH
PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL
TO ORIGINAL GRADE
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
NOTE: BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. WHERE THE
NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
VARIABLE
COMPACTED FILL
KEY IN COMPETENT
MATERIAL. MINIMUM
WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR
AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT. FIGURE 1
4' TYPICAL
8/96 FILL KEY ABOVE NAT. SLOPE.ai
REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
FIGURE 2
DESIGN FINISH GRADE COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
BROW
BERM
4'
TYPICAL
CUT/FILL SHOWN ON
GRADING PLAN
NATURAL GRADE
CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
TYPICAL HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS
4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
VARIABLE
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT
MATERIAL. MINIMUM
WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR
AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
2'
NOTE: THE FILL PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHALL BE COMPACTED
AS STATED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.
9' MIN.
8/03 TYP FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE.ai
REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
TERRACE DRAIN
BROW
BERM
IN-PLACE EARTH MATERIAL
KEYWAY
COMPACTED FILL
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT (3' TYPICAL)
DESIGN FINISH GRADE
30' MAX
W
D
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2 % SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
2% TYP
SLOPE OF INTERFACE TO BE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
FOR SAFE WORKING CONDITIONS, AS RECOMMENDED
BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. TYPICAL HEIGHT OF
BENCHES 4 FEET.
KEY IN COMPETENT
MATERIAL. MINIMUM
WIDTH (W) AND DEPTH (D)
OF BUTTRESS KEY AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT.
NOTE: SUBDRAIN DETAILS, SEE FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 3
1/04 TYP BUTTRESS FILL.ai
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
COMPETENT MATERIAL
ACCEPTABLE TO THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
TYPICAL HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4'
OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
MAINTAIN A 9' MINIMUM HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT OR BENCH
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
2' MIN.
KEY BOTTOM
COMPACTED FILL
TERRACE DRAIN
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT (3' TYPICAL)
FIGURE 4
15' MINIMUM BACKCUT
AT TOP OF SLOPE
VARIABLE
15' MINIMUM
KEY WIDTH
9/96 STABILIZATION FILL.ai
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE
NOTE:
SEE FIGURE 5 FOR TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAILS FOR
STABILIZATION FILLS
NMGNMG
Geotechnical, Inc.Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICALTYPICAL ST STABILIZAABILIZATION TION AND BUTTRESS FILLAND BUTTRESS FILL SUBDRAINS SUBDRAINS
MINIMUM STMINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETANDARD GRADING DETAILSAILS OUTLETS OUTLETS TO BE SPO BE SPACED ACED AT 100' 100'
MAXIMUM INTERMAXIMUM INTERVALS. EXTEND 12 INCHESALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES
BEYOND FBEYOND FACE OF SLOPE ACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGHTIME OF ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION.GRADING CONSTRUCTION.
DESIGNDESIGN
FINISHFINISH
SLOPESLOPE
BROWBROW
BERMBERM
BLANKETBLANKET FILL FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY IF RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICALGEOTECHNICAL CONSUL CONSULTANTANT
(3' (3' TYPICAL)TYPICAL)
2' CLEAR
10' MIN
30' MAX
COMPACTED
FILL
2%
2%
4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE
TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
NOTE:
TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE
BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL.
"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET
FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT.
SIEVE SIZE
1"
3/4"
3/8"
NO. 4
NO. 8
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
PERCENTAGE
PASSING
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF THREE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE.
SEE FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION.
ALTERNATE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL, THREE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF SUBDRAIN (WITHOUT PIPE) MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC.
SEE GRAVEL SPECIFICATION, AND FIGURE 6 FOR
FILTER FABRIC SPECIFICATION
"GRAVEL" TO CONSIST OF 1/2" TO 1" CRUSHED ROCK
PER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS CONSTRUCTION.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES
ON ALL JOINTS.
MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40
ASTM D1527 OR D1785 OR SDR 35 ASTM D2751
OR D 3034. FOR FILL DEPTH OF 90 FEET OR
GREATER, USE ONLY SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF
8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER
FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH
PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE.
PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE.
SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
FIGURE 5
SEE DETAIL BELOW
DETAIL
OUTLET PIPE TO BE
CONNECTED TO
SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH
TEE OR ELBOW
8/96 ST8/96 STAB. BUTTRESS FILLAB. BUTTRESS FILL SUBDRAINS.ai SUBDRAINS.ai 30' MAX
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
FIGURE 6
NOTES: DOWNSTREAM 20' OF PIPE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED AND BACKFILLED WITH
FINE-GRAINED MATERIAL
PIPE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4-INCH DIAMETER. FOR RUNS OF 500 FEET OR MORE, USE 6-INCH
DIAMETER PIPE, OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT .
TYPICAL
BENCHING
SEE DETAIL BELOW
COMPETENT MATERIAL
NATURAL GRADE
FILTER FABRICS SHALL BE PERMEABLE NON-WOVEN POLYESTER, NYLON, OR POLYPROPYLENE MATERIAL CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING:
1) GRAB TENSILE STRENGTH. POUNDS, MIN. ASTM D 4632......................................................90 2) ELONGATION, AT PEAK LOAD, PERCENT, MIN. ASTM D 4632.................................................50 3) PUNCTURE STRENGTH, LBS., MIN. ASTM D 3787....................................................................45 4) COEFFICIENT OF WATER PERMITTIVITY, 1/SEC. ASTM D 4491............................................>0.7 5) BURST STRENGTH, P.S.I., MIN. ASTM D 3786..........................................................................180 6" MIN.
18" MIN.
3' TYPICAL
DEPTH AND
BEDDING MAY VARY
WITH PIPE AND LOAD
CHARACTERISTICS.
3' TYPICAL
DETAIL
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF NINE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT
OF PIPE. SEE FIGURE 5 FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.
ALTERNATE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL, NINE CUBIC FEET OF
GRAVEL PER FOOT OF SUBDRAIN (WITHOUT PIPE) MAY BE
ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE FIGURE 5 TO GRAVEL
SPECIFICATION. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER FABRIC SPECIFICATION.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES ON
ALL JOINTS.
MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 ASTM D 1527, OR
D 1785, OR SDR 35 ASTM 2751 OR D 3034. FOR FILL DEPTH OF 90 FEET OR GREATER, USE ONLY SCHEDULE 40 OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY
SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH
PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE.
COMPACTED FILL
MINIMUM
CLEARANCE
DIMENSIONS
Rev. 8/96 CANYON SUBDRAIN.ai
REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL
TYPICAL OVERSIZE ROCK PLACEMENT METHOD
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAIL
FOR STRUCTURAL FILL
PLACE OVERSIZE MATERIAL IN TRENCH.
FALSE SLOPE OR CUT SLOT INTO APPROVED
MATERIAL. OVERSIZE MATERIAL MAY BE PLACED
SIDE BY SIDE IF SIZE PERMITS. (NOT TO EXCEED
A WIDTH OF 4 FEET)
FILL VOIDS WITH
SELECT GRANULAR
SOIL PLACED BY
WATER
DENSIFICATION
AND MECHANICAL
COMPACTION.
NESTING OR
STACKING OF
OVERSIZE
MATERIAL
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
FIGURE 7
4’
4’
4' MIN.
15' MIN.
15' MIN.
NOTES:
A) OVERSIZED ROCK IS DEFINED AS LARGER THAN 12" IN SIZE (IN GREATEST DIMENSION).
B) SPACE BETWEEN ROCKROWS SHOULD BE ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.
C) THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF THE ROCKROW SHALL BE LIMITED TO FOUR FEET AND THE LENGTH LIMITED TO 300 FEET UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. OVERSIZE SHOULD BE PLACED WITH FLATEST SIDE ON THE BOTTOM.
D) OVERSIZE MATERIAL EXCEEDING FOUR FEET MAY BE PLACED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS IF APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT.
E) FILLING OF VOIDS WILL REQUIRE SELECT GRANULAR SOIL (SE > 20, OR LESS THAN 20 PERCENT FINES) AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. VOIDS IN THE ROCKROW TO BE FILLED BY WATER DENSIFYING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE ALONG WITH MECHANICAL COMPACTION EFFORT.
F) IF APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, ROCKROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK, PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION.
G) THE FIRST LIFT OF MATERIAL ABOVE THE ROCKROW SHALL CONSIST OF GRANULAR MATERIAL AND SHALL BE PROOF-ROLLED WITH A D-8 OR LARGER DOZER OR EQUIVALENT.
H) ROCKROWS NEAR SLOPES SHOULD BE ORIENTED PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE.
I) NESTING OR STACKING OF ROCKS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
FINISH GRADE
TYPICAL
ROCK ROW
FINISH
SLOPE
FACE
3/04 TYP OVERSIZE ROCK PLACEMENT.ai
PROFILE ALONG ROCKROW
300’ MAX.
SECTION THROUGH ROCKROW
4’ MAX.
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
10’ MIN.
10’ MIN.
4’
MAX.
4’
MAX.
NMG
Geotechnical, Inc.
TYPICAL OVEREXCAVATION OF DAYLIGHT LINE
MINIMUM STANDARD GRADING DETAILS
FIGURE 8
NOTE: DEEPER THAN THE 3-FOOT OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT IN STEEP TRANSITIONS.
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED FILL
5' MIN.
CUT LOT
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED FILL 3' MIN.
SEE NOTE
3' MIN.
SEE NOTE
5' MIN.
CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
TYPICAL BENCHING
TYPICAL BENCHING
DESIGN
FINISH GRADE
DESIGN
FINISH GRADE
8/96 OVEREXCAVATION OF DAYLIGHT LINE.ai
CEQA Plus Initial Study Appendices
City of Rialto
Rialto Habitat Nature Center Project APPENDIX E
Appendix E: Responses to Public Comments