Agenda packet — San Jacinto City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 10 of 11)

than 0.990, an additional five-point calibration would have been performed. Method reporting limits were calculated to be 1-1000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3 ) for the individual
compounds.

A daily calibration check was performed using a pre-mixed standard supplied by Scotty Analyzed Gases. The standard contained common halogenated solvents and aromatic hydrocarbons (see Table 1). The individual compound concentrations in the standards ranged between 0.025 nanograms per microliter (ng/ul) and 0.25 ng/ul.

TABLE 1
Acetone Benzene Bromobenzene Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane 2-Butanone (MEK) n-Butylbenzene sec-Butylbenzene tert-Butylbenzene Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane
2-Chlorotoluene 4-Chlorotoluene Cyclohexane Dibromochloromethane 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-Dibromoethane Dibromomethane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane 2,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichloropropane 1,1-Dichloropropene Ethylbenzene Freon 113 Hexachlorobutadiene Isopropylbenzene p-Isopropyltoluene Methylene Chloride 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Naphthalene n-Propylbenzene Styrene 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride m/p-Xylene o-Xylene Diisopropyl Ether Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether MTBE Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether Tertiary Butyl Alcohol Isobutane Sample Replicates
A replicate analysis (duplicate) was run to evaluate the reproducibility of the sampling system and instrument. The difference between samples did not vary more than 20%.

Equipment Blanks
Blanks were run at the beginning of each workday and after calibrations. The blanks were collected using an ambient air sample. These blanks checked the septum, syringe, GC column, GC detector and the ambient air. Contamination was not found in any of the blanks analyzed during this investigation. Blank results are given along with the sample results.

Purge Volume
The standard purge volume of three volumes was purged in accordance with the July 2015 DTSC/RWQCB Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations.

Tracer Gas Leak Test
A tracer gas was applied to the soil gas probes at each point of connection in which ambient air could enter the sampling system. These points include the top of the sampling probe where the tubing meets the probe connection and the surface bentonite seals. Isobutane was used as the tracer gas. No Isobutane was found in any of the samples collected.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Shut-in Test
A shut-in test was conducted prior to purging or sampling each location to check for leaks in the above-ground sampling system. The system was evaluated to a minimum measured vacuum of 100 inches of water. The vacuum gauge was calibrated and sensitive enough to indicate a water pressure change of at least 0.5 inches.

Scope of Work
To achieve the objective of this investigation a total of 20 vapor samples were collected from 7 locations at the site. Sampling depths, vacuum readings, purge volume and sampling volumes are given on the analytical results page. All the collected vapor samples were analyzed on-site using Optimal’s mobile laboratory.

Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface soil conditions offered sampling flows at 0” water vacuum.

Results
During this vapor investigation, two samples contained levels of Chloroform ranging from 13 ug/m3
to 17 ug/m3. One sample contained 16 ug/m3 of Tetrachloroethene (PCE). One sample contained 5 ug/m3 of Benzene. None of the other compounds listed in Table 1 above were detected above the listed reporting limits. A complete table of analytical results is included with this report.

Disclaimer
All conclusions presented in this letter are based solely on the information collected by the soil vapor survey conducted by Optimal Technology. Soil vapor testing is only a subsurface screening tool and does not represent actual contaminant concentrations in either the soil and/or groundwater. We enjoyed working with you on this project and look forward to future projects.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (877) 764-5427.

Sincerely,
John Rice
Project Manager
2369 Rutland Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) S 1667 Cross Bridge Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235 OIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 10/11/21 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 1 of 6 BLANK-1 SV-12-5 SV-12-15 SV-12-25 SV-1A-25 SV-13-5 SV-13-15 SV-13-25 Sampling Depth (Ft.) N/A 5.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 Purge Volume (ml) N/A 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,474 3,226 2,329 2,474 Vacuum (in. of Water) N/A0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 11111111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3
) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) Acetone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benzene 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5
Bromobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromoform 80 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromomethane 150 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2-Butanone (MEK) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
n-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
sec-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
tert-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroform 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cyclohexane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromoethane 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromomethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 200 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

SAMPLE ID
2369 Rutland Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) S 1667 Cross Bridge Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235 OIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 10/11/21 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 2 of 6 BLANK-1 SV-12-5 SV-12-15 SV-12-25 SV-1A-25 SV-13-5 SV-13-15 SV-13-25 Sampling Depth (Ft.) N/A 5.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 Purge Volume (ml) N/A 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,474 3,226 2,329 2,474 Vacuum (in. of Water) N/A0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 11111111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3
) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) 1,1-Dichloropropene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Freon 113 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Isopropylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Methylene Chloride 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Naphthalene 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
n-Propylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Styrene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Toluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 60 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene (TCE) 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
m/p-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
o-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Diisopropyl Ether (DIPE) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MTBE 350 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Tertiary Butyl Alcohol 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
SURROGATE QC LIMITS Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Dibromofluoromethane 70-130% N/A 89% 99% 93% 105% 117% 114% 108% 4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-130% N/A 105% 115% 110% 125% 123% 118% 119% Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 10/11/21 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 3 of 6 SV-14-5 SV-14-15 SV-14-25
SV-14-25
Dup SV-15-5 SV-15-15 SV-15-25 SV-3A-15
Sampling Depth (Ft.) 5.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 Purge Volume (ml) 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,474 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,329 Vacuum (in. of Water) 00000000
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 11111111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3
) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) Acetone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benzene 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromoform 80 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromomethane 150 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2-Butanone (MEK) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
n-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
sec-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
tert-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroform 4 17 13 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cyclohexane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromoethane 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromomethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 200 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 10/11/21 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 4 of 6 SV-14-5 SV-14-15 SV-14-25
SV-14-25
Dup SV-15-5 SV-15-15 SV-15-25 SV-3A-15
Sampling Depth (Ft.) 5.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 Purge Volume (ml) 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,474 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,329 Vacuum (in. of Water) 00000000
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 11111111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3
) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) 1,1-Dichloropropene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Freon 113 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Isopropylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Methylene Chloride 30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Naphthalene 2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
n-Propylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Styrene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Toluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 60 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene (TCE) 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
m/p-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
o-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Diisopropyl Ether (DIPE) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
MTBE 350 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Tertiary Butyl Alcohol 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
SURROGATE QC LIMITS Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Dibromofluoromethane 70-130% 96% 101% 99% 90% 87% 98% 109% 114% 4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-130% 106% 117% 105% 104% 106% 113% 116% 111% Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 10/11/21 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 5 of 6 SV-3A-25 SV-11-5 SV-11-15 SV-11-25
SV-11-25
Dup
Sampling Depth (Ft.) 25.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 25.0
Purge Volume (ml) 2,474 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,474
Vacuum (in. of Water) 00000
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 11111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3
) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3)
Acetone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Benzene 3 ND ND ND ND ND
Bromobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Bromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane 2 ND ND ND ND ND
Bromoform 80 ND ND ND ND ND
Bromomethane 150 ND ND ND ND ND
2-Butanone (MEK) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
n-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
sec-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
tert-Butylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 2 ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Chloroform 4 ND ND ND ND ND
Chloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
2-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
4-Chlorotoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Cyclohexane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromochloromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibromoethane 1 ND ND ND ND ND
Dibromomethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8 ND ND ND ND ND
Dichlorodifluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane 50 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 200 ND ND ND ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 9 ND ND ND ND ND
2,2-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS
Site Name: 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 10/11/21 Analyst: J. Rice Collector: J. Rice Inst. ID: Agilent 6890N Method: Modified EPA 8260B Detector: Agilent 5973N Mass Spectrometer Page: 6 of 6 SV-3A-25 SV-11-5 SV-11-15 SV-11-25
SV-11-25
Dup
Sampling Depth (Ft.) 25.0 5.0 15.0 25.0 25.0
Purge Volume (ml) 2,474 3,226 2,329 2,474 2,474
Vacuum (in. of Water) 00000
Injection Volume (ul) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Dilution Factor 11111
COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/m3
) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3) CONC (ug/m3)
1,1-Dichloropropene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 30 ND ND ND ND ND
Freon 113 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 4 ND ND ND ND ND
Isopropylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
p-Isopropyltoluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Methylene Chloride 30 ND ND ND ND ND
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Naphthalene 2 ND ND ND ND ND
n-Propylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Styrene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 10 ND 16 ND ND ND
Toluene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 60 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 ND ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene (TCE) 10 ND ND ND ND ND
Trichlorofluoromethane 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 10 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Vinyl Chloride 1 ND ND ND ND ND
m/p-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
o-Xylene 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Diisopropyl Ether (DIPE) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
MTBE 350 ND ND ND ND ND
Tert-Amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Tertiary Butyl Alcohol 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1000 ND ND ND ND ND
SURROGATE QC LIMITS Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Recovery % Dibromofluoromethane 70-130% 110% 103% 88% 83% 80%
4-Bromofluorobenzene 70-130% 94% 105% 97% 99% 89%
Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGY
Specializing in Environmental Field Services

CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM
Page: 1 of 1
Site Name/Number PO# / Project Ref#
Site Address 870 N. Sanderson Ave., San Jacinto, CA
Company Name
Contact Person(s): Phone# Email:

Comments:

TESTS REQUIRED (please mark with an "X")
Sample Sampling Date Time Soil Gas Soil Gas Soil Gas
Identification Device Collected Collected Mod 8260B Mod 8021B Mod 8015 BLANK-1 Syringe 10/11/21 9:00 AM x
SV-12-5 Syringe 10/11/21 9:27 AM x
SV-12-15 Syringe 10/11/21 9:47 AM x
SV-12-25 Syringe 10/11/21 10:08 AM x
SV-1A-25 Syringe 10/11/21 10:28 AM x
SV-13-5 Syringe 10/11/21 10:53 AM x
SV-13-15 Syringe 10/11/21 11:15 AM x
SV-13-25 Syringe 10/11/21 11:34 AM x
SV-14-5 Syringe 10/11/21 12:00 PM x
SV-14-15 Syringe 10/11/21 12:18 PM x
SV-14-25 Syringe 10/11/21 12:36 PM x
SV-14-25 Dup Syringe 10/11/21 12:36 PM x
SV-15-5 Syringe 10/11/21 1:00 PM x
SV-15-15 Syringe 10/11/21 1:19 PM x
SV-15-25 Syringe 10/11/21 1:37 PM x
SV-3A-15 Syringe 10/11/21 1:57 PM x
SV-3A-25 Syringe 10/11/21 2:16 PM x
SV-11-5 Syringe 10/11/21 2:35 PM x
SV-11-15 Syringe 10/11/21 2:58 PM x
SV-11-25 Syringe 10/11/21 3:17 PM x
SV-11-25 Dup Syringe 10/11/21 3:37 PM x
Collected & Tested by:

Notes
Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California
2217.0025L105/CVRS ROUX

ATTACHMENT B
Boring Logs

1.6 0.2

0.2 0.1
Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil-vapor probes
at 5 and 15 feet bgs
Soil Sample SV-1-5 @ 1108
Soil Sample SV-1-10 @ 1252
Soil Sample SV-1-15 @ 1256
Soil Sample SV-1-20 @ 1307
Terminal Depth: 20' bgs.

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), dry, nonplastic, fine sand, trace
angular gravel to 1/4", (fines: 85%, sand:
10%, gravel: 5%).
@ 3 feet bgs: As above, except brown
(10YR 5/3), slightly moist, (fines: 75%,
sand: 20%, gravel: 5%).

Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
dark gray (10YR 4/1), moist, fine to
medium grained sand, few silt, (fines: 10%,
sand: 90%, gravel: 0%).

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), moist, nonplastic, fine sand, (fines:
85%, sand: 15%, gravel: 0%).

Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, fine to medium grained sand,
trace fine calcitic gravel to 1/4", (fines:
20%, sand: 75%, gravel: 5%)
Hydrated #8 Bentonite
Dry #8
bentonite
#3 Sand

1.5" probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

1.5" Large Bore 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25/2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20

EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
1 NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-1
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

10.0 7.5

3.2 5.3

1.7 2.7
Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary 1" stainless steel
soil vapor probe at 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT (ML): gray (10YR 5/1), dry, few fine
Sand, trace angular gravel to 5mm (85%
Silt, 10% Sand, 5% Gravel), non-plastic.

Silty SAND (SM): brown (10YR 5/3),
slightly moist, fine Sand, little Silt, trace
angular gravel, (70% Sand, 25% Silt, 5%
Gravel), non-plastic.

Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
dark gray (10YR 5/1), moist, fine to
medium Sand, few Silt, no Gravel (90%
Sand, 10% Silt), non-plastic.

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), moist, little fine Sand, trace Clay,
(85% Silt, 15% Sand, <5% Clay).

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Probe NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-1A
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.2 0.0

0.0 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Soil Sample SV-2-5 @ 1238
Soil Sample SV-2-10 @ 1355
Soil Sample SV-2-15 @ 1402
Temporary soil-vapor probes
at 5 and 15 feet bgs
Soil Sample SV-2-20 @ 1409
Terminal Depth: 20 bgs.

SILT (ML): gray (10YR 5/1), moist,
nonplastic, trace fine sand, (fines: 95%,
sand: 5%, gravel: 0%)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): very dark gray
(10YR 3/1), moist, medium plasticity, fine
to medium grained sand, (fines: 70%,
sand: 30%, gravel: 0%)
Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, fine to medium grained sand,
(fines: 30%, sand: 70%, gravel: 0%)
@ 14 feet bgs: As above, except dark grey
(10YR 4/1), fine sand, (fines: 20%, sand:
80%, gravel: 0%)
Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

1.5" Large Bore 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25/2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20

EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
1 NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-2
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.0 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Soil Sample SV-3-5 @ 1100
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), fine Sand, trace angular Gravel to
1/4", (fines: 85%, sand: 10%, gravel: 5%),
non-plastic.

Sandy SILT (ML): brown (10YR 5/3),
slightly moist, fine to medium Sand (fines:
70%, sand: 25%, gravel: 5%), non-plastic.

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-3
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

2.0 3.1

1.7 1.0
Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil vapor probes
at 15' and 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), dry, few fine Sand, trace angular
Gravel to 5mm, (85% Silt, 10% Sand, 5%
Gravel), non-plastic
Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
brown (10YR 5/3), moist, few Gravel to
5mm, few Silt, (80% Sand, 10% Gravel,
10% Silt).

Silty SAND (SM): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), fine to medium Sand, little Silt (80%
Sand, 20% Silt).

Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, fine to medium Sand, some
Silt, trace Gravel to 1/4" (70% Sand, 30%
Silt, <5% Gravel).

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Probe NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel 0.1 ft 150 micron

GRAVEL PACK SIZES
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-3A
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.1 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Soil Sample SV-4-5 @ 1119
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), dry, fine Sand, trace angular gravel to
1/2", (fines: 85%, sand: 10%, gravel: 5%),
medium plasticity, no odor or staining.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP): brown (10YR
5/3), slightly moist, fine to medium Sand,
(fines: 5%, sand: 95%, gravel: 0%).

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

3.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-4
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.0 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Soil Sample SV-5-0.5 @ 1147
Soil Sample SV-5-5 @ 1158
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), dry, little fine Sand, trace fine Gravel
to 1/4" (fines: 85%, sand: 10%, gravel:
5%).
@ 3 feet bgs: Same as above, except
angular calcite Gravel to 1/3".

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

3.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-5
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.1 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): pale brown (10YR
6/3), dry, fine Sand, angular Gravel to 1/2"
(fines: 70%, sand: 20%, gravel: 10%),
non-plastic.

SILT (ML): grayish brown (10YR 5/2),
slighly moist, fine sand, trace angular
gravel to 1/4", non-plastic
Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-6
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.1 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
Sandy SILT (ML): pale brown (10YR 6/3),
dry, fine Sand, angular Gravel to 1/2"
(fines: 70%, sand: 20%, gravel: 10%),
non-plastic.

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), slighly moist, trace fine Gravel (fines:
85%, sand: 10%, gravel: 5%), non-plastic.

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-7
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.0 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
Sandy SILT (ML): pale brown (10YR 6/3),
dry, fine Sand, angular gravel to 1/2" (fines:
70%, sand: 20%, gravel: 10%), non-plastic.

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), slighly moist, trace fine Gravel (fines:
85%, sand: 10%, gravel: 5%), non-plastic.

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-8
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

0.1 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil-vapor probe
at 5 feet bgs
Terminal Depth: 5.5' bgs
Sandy SILT (ML): pale brown (10YR 6/3),
dry, fine Sand, angular gravel to 1/2" (fines:
70%, sand: 20%, gravel: 10%), non-plastic.

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), slighly moist, trace fine Gravel to 1/4"
(fines: 85%, sand: 10%, gravel: 5%),
non-plastic.

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-9
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), slighly moist, trace fine Gravel (fines:
85%, sand: 10%, gravel: 5%), non-plastic.

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

Hand Auger 9/7/21-9/7/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD
NA

START-FINISH DATE
Hand Auger / HA

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.75-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental / Frank Rodriquez
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 EASTING
of
5 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
D. Williams
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-10
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

1.3 1.0

3.2 3.1

1.5 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil vapor probes
at 5', 15', and 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), dry, fine Sand, little Silt, trace angular
gravel to 1cm (80% Silt, 15% Sand, 5%
Gravel), non-plastic.

SILT (ML): gray (10YR 5/1), moist, few fine
Sand (90% Silt, 10% Sand, 0% Gravel),
non-plastic.

Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, medium to fine Sand, some
Silt, trace Clay, (70% Sand, 30% Silt, <5%
Clay), non-plastic.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP): dark gray
(10YR 4/1), moist, fine Sand, few Silt (90%
Sand, 10% Silt).

Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Stainless
Steel Probe
Hydrated Bentonite
Dry Bentonite
#3 Sand
1" Probe NOTES: No odor or staining observed unless otherwise stated.

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-11
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

1.2 2.3

5.5 3.3

4.0 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil vapor probes
at 5', 15', and 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT (ML): grayish brown (10YR 5/2), few
fine Sand, trace angular gravel,
non-plastic.

Silty SAND (SM): brown (10YR 5/3), fine
Sand, little Silt, trace angular Gravel (80%
Sand, 15% Silt, 5% Gravel), non-plastic.

SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), moist, litltle Sand, (85% Silt, 15%
Sand).

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-12
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

1.1 2.5

3.0 1.5

1.3 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil vapor probes
at 5', 15', and 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown (10YR
5/2), dry, few fine Sand, trace angular
Gravel to 1cm (85% Silt, 10% Sand, 5%
Gravel).

SILT (ML): gray (10YR 5/1), moist, trace
fine Sand (95% Silt, 5% Sand), non-plastic.

Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, fine to medium Sand, little Silt,
trace Clay (75% Sand, 20% Silt, 5% Clay).
@15' bgs: As above, except dark gray
(10YR 4/1), no Clay, (80% Sand, 20% Silt).

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-13
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

3.7 0.0

3.1 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil vapor probes
at 5', 15', and 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT (ML): grayish brown (10YR 5/2), dry,
few fine Sand, trace angular gravel to
5mm, (85% Silt, 10% Sand, 5% Gravel),
non-plastic.
@ 5' bgs: moist, trace fine Sand, no Gravel
(95% Silt, 5% Sand).

Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, fine to medium sand, some
Silt, trace Clay, (70% Sand, 30% Silt, <5%
Clay), non-plastic.
@ 15' bgs: As above, except dark gray
(10YR 4/1), moist, fine Sand, little Silt,
(80% Sand, 20% Silt).

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-14
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21

3.5 2.1

1.7 2.1

1.5 Hand augered to 5 ft below
ground surface (bgs)
Temporary soil vapor probes
at 5', 15', and 25' bgs
Terminal Depth: 25.5' bgs
SILT with Sand and Gravel (ML): brown
(10YR 5/3), dry, few fine Sand, few angular
Gravel (80% Silt, 10% Sand, 10% Gravel),
non-plastic.

SILT with Sand (ML): brown (10YR 5/3),
slightly moist, little fine Sand, no Gravel
(80% Silt, 20% Sand), non-plastic.

Poorly-Graded SAND with Silt(SP-SM):
grayish brown (10YR 5/2), moist, fine to
medium Sand, few Silt (90% Sand, 10%
Silt).

Silty SAND (SM): very dark gray (10YR
3/1), moist, fine to medium Sand, some
Silt, trace Gravel to 1/4", (70% Sand, 30%
Silt, <5% Gravel).

1.5" Large Bore 10/8/21-10/8/21

DRILLING EQUIPMENT/METHOD

2.25-in. Drive Sampler

START-FINISH DATE
Geoprobe 6620DT / DPT

DRILLING CONTRACTOR/DRILLER

2.25-in.

BOREHOLE DIAMETER SAMPLING METHOD

GEOGRAPHIC AREA

DRILL BIT DIAMETER/TYPE
Strong Arm Environmental /
PID
V a l u e s
(ppm)
REMARKS Graphic
Log
Depth,
feet Blow
Counts
per 6"
V i s u a l D e s c r i p t i o n
SCREEN:

GROUND SURFACE
TYPE DIA. 1/4"
(Feet) #3 Sand

0.1 GRAVEL PACK SIZES

TOTAL LENGTH SLOT SIZE
CASING MAT./DIA.

Porous Filter
ELEVATION OF:

Nylaflow / 1/4" MAT. S. Steel ft 150 micron
San Jacinto, California
PROJECT NO./NAME
Not Measured Not Measured

BORING LOG
5 10
15 20
25 EASTING
of
5 10
15 20
25 1

NORTHING
1 LOCATION

LOGGED BY
J. Knight
Page
WELL NO.
870 North Sanderson Avenue
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804 Telephone: (310) 879 - 4900

APPROVED BY
SV-15
2217.0025L / Shea San Jacinto
D. Williams
BORING/FEET 2021_1220_SAN JACINTO.GPJ ROUX.GDT 12/20/21 Environmental Consulting
& Management
+1.800.322.ROUX
rouxinc.com
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
________________________________
South-Southwest of North Sanderson
Avenue and North Ramona Boulevard
San Jacinto, California
August 30, 2023
Prepared for:

Shea Properties
Prepared by:

Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California, 90804
2217.0030L100/R
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | i Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................iii

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Services........................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Standard of Care ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 User Reliance ................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Subject Property Description.................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Subject Property Location and Description .................................................................................... 5

2.2 Vicinity General Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Past Use of the Subject Property ................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Physical Setting.............................................................................................................................. 6

3. Sources of Information ........................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Historical Sources........................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Government Databases ................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Site Reconnaissance...................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Interviews ....................................................................................................................................... 7

3.5 User Provided Information.............................................................................................................. 8

3.6 Regulatory Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 9

4. Subject Property History....................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Subject Property History............................................................................................................... 11

5. Current Subject Property Conditions .................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Site Reconnaissance.................................................................................................................... 15

5.2 Phase I ESA Observations........................................................................................................... 15

5.2.1 Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area ...................................................................... 16

6. Summary of Key Previous Investigations............................................................................................. 17

6.1 Phase I ESA (South Shore, 2021)................................................................................................ 17

7. Database Records Review ................................................................................................................... 18

7.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources.................................................................................... 18

7.1.1 Subject Property (Target Property)................................................................................... 18

7.1.2 Adjoining and Nearby Properties ...................................................................................... 18

7.1.3 Orphan Subject Properties................................................................................................ 19

8. Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 20

8.1 Data Gaps .................................................................................................................................... 20

8.2 Recognized Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................ 20

8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions....................................................................... 20

8.4 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions ........................................................................ 20

8.5 Other Environmental Features ..................................................................................................... 20

9. References ........................................................................................................................................... 21

10. Signature of Environmental Professional ............................................................................................. 22 Table of Contents (Continued)
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | ii Tables

1. Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary Figures

1. Site Location Map

2. Site Plan
Appendices
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Historical Topographic Maps
C. Historical Aerial Photographs
D. Certified Sanborn Report
E. EDR City Directory Image Report
F. EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck®
G. Photographic Log
H. Pertinent Historical Documentation
I. Professional Profiles
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | iii Executive Summary
Shea Properties (User) retained Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located approximately 1,800 feet south-southwest of the corner of North Sanderson Avenue and North Ramona Boulevard in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California (the Subject Property). Roux performed this Phase I ESA in general accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-21) in an effort to identify, to the extent feasible, the presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with respect to the Subject Property as defined in ASTM E1527-

21. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 9.1 of this report.

The Subject Property consists of one approximately 38-acre parcel, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN, 432-030-012), located on the west side of North Sanderson Avenue in an agricultural area of San Jacinto, California. The Subject Property is currently used for agricultural production (unknown row crop).

According to historical sources, the Subject Property was vacant land as early as 1901. By at least 1949, agricultural operations began at the Subject Property and are currently present. Since initial agricultural development of the Subject Property, a rotation of row crops, feed crops for livestock, and fallow land have been present at the Subject Property.

On July 28, 2023, Roux visually assessed the Subject Property during the site reconnaissance for potential RECs, including, but not limited to, potential underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment, hazardous materials storage or handling areas, containerized or bulk wastes, and visual indications of impacted soil.

Roux also performed a records review in an effort to identify RECs in connection with the Subject Property.

This records review addressed the Subject Property and surrounding properties. Roux reviewed commercially available records associated with the Subject Property and nearby properties to assess potential concerns associated with the migration of hazardous substances. The records review also included reasonably ascertainable historical data, which can be helpful in identifying the past uses of the Subject Property and surrounding areas, as it may relate to the environmental condition of the Subject Property.

Roux performed interviews and/or file reviews with various government agencies and other parties with possible knowledge of the Subject Property and surrounding properties in an effort to identify current and past uses of the Subject Property and surrounding areas, as they may relate to the environmental condition of the Subject Property.

ASTM E 1527-21 defines a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) as:
“The presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at the Subject Property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at the Subject Property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition.”
A Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (cREC) as:
“A recognized environmental condition affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | iv petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to implementation of required controls (for example, activity and use limitations and other property use limitations.” And a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (hREC) as:
“A previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the Subject Property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations and other property use limitations.”
The term recognized environmental condition is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the findings of this Phase I ESA. Although the Executive Summary is an integral part of a report, it does not substitute for reading the entire report or the appended or referenced documents in order to fully understand the findings and potential environmental concerns associated with the Subject Property.

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
Based on the information obtained through the performance of this Phase I ESA, Roux identified the following RECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.

To the extent possible, the locations of the RECs are shown in Figure 2. To avoid confusion, all RECs, cRECs, hRECs, and OEFs are numbered sequentially.

REC 1 - Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area. Based on a review of historical sources, the Subject Property was developed for agricultural use (row crops and feed crops) as early as 1949, with increased agricultural development noted from at least 1978 to 2016. During the site reconnaissance, row crops were observed on the Subject Property. Agricultural production history at the Subject Property is not currently known. Based on the long term agricultural use, it is likely that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, have been used on-site, and the potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-site soils is considered a REC.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (cRECs)
Roux did not identify known or suspected cRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.

Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (hRECs)
Roux did not identify known or suspected hRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.

Other Environmental Features (OEFs)
Roux did not identify known or suspected OEFs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 1

1. Introduction
Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) completed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located approximately 1,800 feet south-southwest of the corner of North Sanderson Avenue and North Ramona Boulevard in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California (the Subject Property). The Subject Property location is shown in Figure 1 and the Subject Property and vicinity is shown in Figure 2.

Roux performed this Phase I ESA in compliance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) E1527-21 and the terms and conditions of Roux’ proposal dated May 24, 2023.

Roux conducted this Phase I ESA for the benefit of Shea Properties (the User).

The following sections of this report present our Phase I ESA findings and conclusions. A glossary containing terms and definitions presented in ASTM E1527-21 is included in Appendix A – Glossary of Terms. Other appendices presented at the end of the report include historical topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, regulatory records review documentation, applicable historical records, and personnel qualifications.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to identify and report, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with respect to the Subject Property. Performing a Phase I ESA in general compliance with ASTM E 1527-21 may enable a User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability. That is, the practice that constitutes one of the requirements for “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined in 42 USC Section 9601(35) (B).

1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services for this Phase I ESA included, but was not limited to, the activities listed below. • A review of reasonably ascertainable and practicably reviewable topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and city directories, if available, to investigate current and past uses of the Subject Property and surrounding properties;
• A review of specific government lists pursuant to ASTM Standard E 1527-21 regarding environmental activities for the Subject Property and local area properties; • A review of recorded land title records, building, assessors, and fire department records, for permits, citations, and reports connected to the Subject Property that were reasonably ascertainable, practicably reviewable, and publicly available within reasonable time and cost; • An inspection by an environmental professional to investigate the current use of the Subject Property and to identify environmental concerns including but not limited to, the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, wastes, underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), or other environmental concerns;
• Interviews with available representatives of the owner of the Subject Property, occupants, and local government officials by an environmental professional; and • Preparation of this Phase I ESA report.

Roux initiated this Phase I ESA pursuant to receipt of written authorization to proceed on May 24, 2023. 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 2

1.3 Standard of Care
Roux conducted this Phase I ESA using a defined scope of services considered appropriate and agreed upon by all parties on the date the service was authorized, unless the scope of services or the methods used were later modified, in writing, and accepted by all parties prior to performance. Roux conducted this Phase I ESA in accordance with generally accepted practices in a manner consistent with that level of care exercised by other members of our profession in the same locality and under similar conditions of time and accessibility of improvements and information. No other representations, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended to be part of this Phase I ESA.

Please note that the scope of services performed in execution of this assessment may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other parties. We, therefore, are not responsible for independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on our assessment. Furthermore, this Phase I ESA relates to the environmental conditions of the Subject Property and does not address issues raised in transactions such as business risk, purchase of business entities, or interests therein, or of their assets, that may well involve environmental liabilities pertaining to properties previously owned or operated or other off-site liabilities.

Additionally, the findings of this Phase I ESA are based on Roux’ observations, inquiries, and historical research using reasonably ascertainable and practically reviewable information obtained within reasonable time and cost constraints. Roux does not represent that this Phase I ESA is an exhaustive investigation that reflects the findings of all of the information available for the Subject Property, nor is it representative of future Subject Property conditions. If additional information is generated from the Subject Property, it should be provided to Roux so that we may evaluate its impact on our conclusions. As such, activities or episodes that transpire subsequent to this Phase I ESA are not considered in this assessment. It is not intended that a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-21 be an exhaustive assessment of a property nor can it wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property.

1.4 Assumptions
This Phase I ESA Report, including the exhibits attached hereto, describes the results of Roux’ investigation to identify the presence of recognized environmental conditions connected with the Subject Property in accordance with ASTM E1527-21, as allowed by and consistent with the regulatory requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiry Rule, 40 CFR Part 312, Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquires Under CERCLA, Final Rule, published December 30, 2013 (AAI Rule). Specifically, the preamble to the amended AAI Rule states:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is taking final action to amend the standards and practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to reference a standard practice recently made available by ASTM International, a widely recognized standards development organization. Specifically, this final rule amends the ‘‘All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’’ at 40 CFR Part 312 to reference ASTM International’s E1527–13 ‘‘Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process’’ and make clear that persons conducting all appropriate inquiries may use the procedures included in this standard to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule1. 1 Federal Register: December 30, 2013 (Volume 78, Number 250) Page 79319 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 3 As of February 13, 2023, the EPA indicated that the updated standard ASTM E1527-21 is now AAI compliant.

While ASTM E1527-21 is now the current standard, the previous standard (ASTM E1527-13) is still AAI compliant until February 13, 2024.

One of the requirements that a person acquiring real property must meet in order to qualify for either the innocent landowner, contiguous owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser (collectively hereinafter “Prospective Purchaser”) defense to liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields’ Revitalization Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (collectively referred to hereafter as “CERCLA”) is that person must conduct all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property in conformance with the AAI Rule (or the ASTM E1527-21) prior to acquisition of the property. The User has acknowledged that, under the AAI Rule, Roux’ performance of this Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-21 will not alone result in the User satisfying all requirements of the AAI Rule and will not in itself provide a defense to CERCLA liability. The User has acknowledged that the AAI Rule also requires that the Prospective Purchaser undertake certain additional inquiries and post-acquisition activities to satisfy the CERCLA AAI requirements. Accordingly, Roux makes no guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, regarding this Phase I ESA, including without limitation, that this Phase I ESA will qualify the User for a defense to CERCLA liability.

Roux has performed this Phase I ESA in a professional manner using that degree of skill and care exercised for similar projects under similar conditions by reputable and competent environmental consultants.

Professional judgments expressed herein are based on the facts currently available to Roux.

The AAI Rule requires, and the conclusions and recommendations stated herein represent, the application of a variety of engineering and technical disciplines to material facts and conditions associated with the Subject Property. As such, these conclusions and recommendations are based on subjective interpretations and the exercise of discretion based on the facts available to Roux and conditions at the time of the performance of this Phase I ESA. Many of these facts and conditions are subject to change over time.

Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations must be considered within this context.

The User has agreed that Roux shall not be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed at the time this Phase I ESA was performed. To the extent practicable, Roux has identified data gaps, and has evaluated the potential significance of such data gaps. Recommendations to address those data gaps are presented herein and are based on the data available at the time of the performance of this Phase I ESA. Implementation of the recommendations may not fully address the data gaps, and the information obtained from execution of those recommendations may alter and/or modify the interpretation of the Subject Property conditions and conclusions, herein. This Phase I ESA does not include consideration of matters specifically excluded by ASTM E1527-21, including but not limited to, asbestos-containing building materials, radon, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, and mold unless specifically identified herein.

Emerging contaminants that are not defined as hazardous substances under CERCLA including, but not limited to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are outside the scope of the Phase I ESA. This Phase I ESA does not include the completion of searches for recorded environmental liens.

Roux has not collected any soil and/or groundwater samples on the Subject Property for Phase I purposes, and is relying on information presented by others, often in preliminary, draft, or verbal form. By referencing 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 4 this information, Roux does not accept responsibility for the accuracy of the underlying data, sampling methods, laboratory analysis, or documentation.

This Phase I ESA Report should not be considered a legal interpretation of existing environmental laws and regulations. This Phase I ESA was conducted with a reasonable degree of inquiry to identify recognized environmental conditions, but uncertainty is not eliminated. No Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property.

The Phase I ESA process is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, the uncertainty involved with identifying recognized environmental conditions.

This Phase I ESA Report is not an appraisal or value judgment of the Subject Property. The User has agreed that Roux shall not be liable for any use of this Phase I ESA Report as an appraisal or value judgment of the Subject Property.

This Phase I ESA Report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the User for specific application to the Subject Property covered by this Phase I ESA Report. The User has agreed that any third-party use of this Phase I ESA Report, upon disclosure by the User, is the sole responsibility and at the sole liability of the User.

1.5 User Reliance
No additional parties may use the information contained in this report without obtaining the written permission of Roux or the User. Roux’ duties and obligations extend to the User and to no other party. Roux’ duties and obligations to the User are not transferable to persons, corporations, or organizations without the express written consent of the User and Roux. The User may rely upon the information provided in this Phase I ESA report for a period of 180 days from the earliest of the previously listed components. After 180 days, this Phase I ESA should be updated in accordance with ASTM E1527-21 guidance. Roux will not be liable for any consequential damages arising from the use of this report for other than its intended purpose, for use of this report beyond 180 days of its issue date, or from unauthorized use by third parties. Dates components used in the preparation of this Phase I ESA were obtained are summarized below:

Phase ESA Component Dates
Component Date Obtained Expiration Date
Radius Report May 31, 2023 November 27, 2023
Knowledgeable Person Interview August 10, 2023 February 6, 2024 Site Reconnaissance July 28, 2023 January 24, 2023
This Phase I ESA report must be read and interpreted as a whole and can only be considered representative of the conditions of the Subject Property as of the date of our site reconnaissance described herein. Roux makes no representation whatsoever concerning the condition of the Subject Property beyond the date of our site reconnaissance described herein. Individual sections and appendices of this report are dependent on the balance of this report, and on the terms, conditions, and stipulations contained in the proposal and written amendments accepted by Roux.
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 5

2. Subject Property Description

2.1 Subject Property Location and Description
Subject Property Information
Legal Description Lot 128 MB 008/357 SD San Jacinto Rancho Address No assigned addresses currently exist
City City of San Jacinto
County Riverside
State California
Location Approximately 1,800 feet south-southwest of the corner of North Sanderson Avenue and North Ramona Boulevard
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 432-030-012
Site Acreage (per Los Angeles
County Assessor Website) 38.15 acres
Site Occupant(s) None
On-site Operations Agricultural production (unknown row crops) Description of On-site Structures No structures currently occupy the Subject Property Site Paving Unpaved
Site Vicinity Agricultural (dry farming, animal grazing pastures, dairies), commercial, and residential use
Refer to Section 5.0 for a detailed description of the current condition of the Subject Property and operations.

2.2 Vicinity General Characteristics
The facilities and improvements which are adjoining to the Subject Property are provided in the following table. Selected adjoining and nearby properties are shown in Figure 2.

Direction from Subject
Property Improvements / Use (Addresses)
North Agricultural land
East North Sanderson Avenue followed by a single-family residential dwelling (1727 North Sanderson Avenue) and agricultural land
South Agricultural land
West Agricultural land

2.3 Past Use of the Subject Property
The Subject Property was vacant land as early as 1901. By at least 1949, agricultural operations began at the Subject Property. Since initial agricultural development of the Subject Property, a rotation of row crops, 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 6 feed crops for livestock, and fallow land have been present at the Subject Property. At the time of site reconnaissance, row crops were present at the Subject Property.

2.4 Physical Setting
Roux obtained and reviewed published, reasonably ascertainable information concerning the physical setting of the Subject Property. The following is a summary of the information reviewed from those physical setting sources.

Physical Setting Summary
United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Topographic Map Lakeview, California Quadrangle
Approximate Subject Property
Elevation / Source
1,465 feet above mean sea level (msl) / Lakewood, California (2018) 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map published by the USGS
Nearest Surface Water Features
/ Approximate Distance
A pond associated with the California Equine Retirement Foundation is located approximately 4,500 feet south-southeast, reclamation ponds associated with the San Jacinto Valley Regional Reclamation Facility are located approximately 5,100 feet to the south and south-southwest, the San Jacinto Reservoir is located approximately 6,050 feet to the southeast, and the San Jacinto River is located approximately 7,000 feet to the north of the Subject Property.

Regional Geology / Source
Quaternary deposits: alluvium, lake, playa and terrace, consolidated and semiconsolidated / California Department of Conservation, 2010 Geologic Map of California
Subject Property Topography /
Source
Generally flat with a gradual slope to the north / Site observation and USGS topographic map
Hydrogeological Region / Source
Located along the eastern portion of the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin / California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, Update 2003 and Interim Update 2016
Depth to Groundwater / Source
Perched groundwater zones in the site vicinity were reported to be approximately 11 to 13 feet below ground surface (bgs) / Monitoring well installation report for a facility approximately 2,600 feet north-northeast of the Subject Property (Leighton, 2009)
Groundwater Gradient Direction /
Source
Groundwater in the site vicinity is reported to flow to the southwest with a hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.004 feet per foot / Monitoring well installation report for a facility approximately 2,600 feet north-northeast of the Subject Property (Leighton, 2009)
On-site or Nearby Soils
Soils in the site vicinity are reported to be silty sands to a depth of approximately 16 feet bgs, fine-grained sand from 16 to 20 feet bgs, and silty sand from 20 feet bgs to a total depth explored of 22 feet bgs / Monitoring well installation report for a facility approximately 2,600 feet north-northeast of the Subject Property (Leighton, 2009)
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 7

3. Sources of Information
Sources of information utilized in preparing this Phase I ESA report included historical topographic maps; historical aerial photographs; a walkover survey of the Subject Property and adjoining properties; in-person discussions with User and tenant personnel; a review of records available at selected local and state regulatory agencies; a review of databases maintained by local, state, and federal government agencies; and other records available from commercial and online sources.

3.1 Historical Sources
To help understand the history of the Subject Property and adjoining properties, historical sources were obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), of Shelton, Connecticut. The sources and locations within the Appendices are provided in the table below.

EDR Historical Sources
Historical Range Source Appendix
1901 – 2018 U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps B
1938 – 2020 EDR Aerial Photographs “Decade Package” C
No Available Coverage EDR “Certified Sanborn® Map Report” D 1971 – 2020 EDR “City Directory Image Report” E

3.2 Government Databases
To document potential sources of contamination at or near the Subject Property, a government records search was conducted by EDR. The search included local, state, and federal records for the Subject Property and for other properties within ASTM-standard distances of the Subject Property. The records search is summarized in Section 8.0 and a copy of “The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®,” dated May 31, 2023, is included in its entirety as Appendix F. As recommended by ASTM, all but a few of the databases searched were “current,” i.e., had been updated within 90 days prior to the search date.

3.3 Site Reconnaissance
On July 28, 2023, Roux personnel conducted a reconnaissance of the Subject Property. During the site reconnaissance, Roux representative Ms. Audrey Clark was able to access all areas of the Subject Property, which was used for agricultural production at the time of the reconnaissance. The observations made during the site reconnaissance are discussed in Section 5.0 and throughout the report. A photographic log of the site reconnaissance is included as Appendix G.

3.4 Interviews
On August 10, 2023, Roux contacted Mr. Jay Pierce, a representative of the Subject Property ownership, via telephone for an interview regarding the history of the Subject Property. Mr. Pierce has been associated with the Subject Property since approximately 2001 and was not aware of the current type of crop being grown on-site. Mr. Pierce confirmed that crop production has varied over the years and has included watermelon 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 8 and grain for animal feed. Mr. Pierce referred to a previous Phase I ESA report which is discussed below in Section 6.0.

No previous Subject Property owners/operators were available for an interview. This data gap is not considered significant due to sufficient information regarding Subject Property history available from EDR historical documents and public records requests.

3.5 User Provided Information
ASTM E1527-21 provides an optional User Questionnaire to present select User-provided information that can assist in identifying possible RECs in connection with the Subject Property. According to ASTM E1527- 21, these tasks do not require the technical expertise of an environmental professional and the environmental professional generally does not perform these tasks. Roux administered the optional questionnaire to the User at the beginning of this Phase I ESA to assist them with these tasks; however, the completed questionnaire has not been returned to Roux as of this report date. 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 9

3.6 Regulatory Agencies
Roux contacted governmental agencies for reasonably ascertainable information concerning environmental conditions at the Subject Property. Roux contacted or reviewed information from the agencies provided in the following table. Refer to Appendix H – Pertinent Historical Documentation for copies of the records reviewed. A summary of the information gathered from the regulatory agencies is provided in the table and details regarding the records were incorporated into applicable sections as noted.

Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) –
FOIAonline 5/30/2023 Pending A response has not been received as of this report date. N/A National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS)
Online Database 5/31/2023 N/A No pipelines were found within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property. N/A
State
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB): GeoTracker Online Database 5/31/2023 N/A
No records were associated with the Subject Property and no records were identified within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property.

N/A
SWRCB: Storm Water Multiple Application and
Report Tracking System (SMARTS) Online
Database
5/31/2023 N/A No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Sacramento Office 5/30/2023 6/1/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A DTSC Chatsworth Office 5/30/2023 5/31/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A DTSC Cypress Office 5/30/2023 6/6/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A DTSC: EnviroStor Online Database 5/31/2023 N/A
No records were associated with the Subject Property.

One EnviroStor record was listed on an adjoining property west of the Subject Property. The Proposed High School at the Villages of San Jacinto facility is listed as a DTSC Site Cleanup Program and discussed below in Section 7.1.2.

7.1.2 DTSC: Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HWTS) Online Database 5/31/2023 N/A No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 10 Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 5/30/2023 5/31/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) 5/30/2023 Pending A response has not been received as of this report date. N/A CalEPA CalRecycle 5/30/2023 6/23/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A CalEPA CalRecycle Solid Waste Information
System (SWIS) Online Database 5/31/2023 N/A No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A State of California Department of Conservation:

Geological Energy Management (CalGEM)
Online Database
5/31/2023 N/A No on-site and nearby oil well records. N/A County / Regional
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SARWQCB) 5/31/2023 6/5/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property as the SARWQCB does not store records by APN. N/A
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) 5/30/2023 5/30/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (FIND)
Online Database 5/31/2023 N/A No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A Riverside County Department of Environmental
Health (RCDEH) Land Use and Water
Resources
5/30/2023 6/14/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property as the RCDEH does not store records by APN. N/A
RCDEH Hazardous Materials and Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs) 5/30/2023 5/31/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A Riverside County Building and Safety
Department (RCBSD) 5/30/2023 5/30/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A RCBSD Online Database 5/30/2032 N/A No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A City / Local
City of San Jacinto City Clerk 5/30/2023 6/15/2023 No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 11

4. Subject Property History
This section documents the history of the Subject Property and adjoining properties and describes current conditions and existing or former environmental features.

4.1 Subject Property History
The history of the Subject Property and, to a lesser extent, the surrounding area, including previous land use, has been compiled based on information from the exhaustive list of sources provided in Section 3.

Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description Predevelopment History
1900s 1901
Historical Topographic
Map: Elsinore / San
Jacinto (30-minute)
The Subject Property appear to be undeveloped vacant
land.

Adjoining properties appear as vacant land.

Roads are depicted to the north (currently
Ramona Expressway) and east (currently
Ramona Boulevard). Minor homesteads or
residential dwellings are depicted during this
period.
1920s No sources available.
1930s 1938 EDR Aerial Photograph The Subject Property is depicted as undeveloped vacant land.

The Colorado River Aqueduct is depicted to
the north of the Subject Property.

Early Agricultural Use
1940s
1943
Historical Topographic
Map: Perris / Banning
(15-minute)
No significant changes from prior topographic maps.

No significant changes from prior Subject
Property history except for some additional
residential dwellings to the north and east and
the appearance of a dirt road in the Subject
Property’s vicinity on the west.
1948
Historical Topographic
Map: Banning (15-
minute)
The Subject Property is located in an unmapped region
of the topographic map.

No significant changes from prior topographic
maps.
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 12 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 1949 EDR Aerial Photograph
The Subject Property is depicted as developed by
agricultural related activities (row crops). An unpaved road is depicted along the eastern boundary of the
Subject Property.

Adjoining properties are depicted as
developed by row crops.
1950s
1953
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
The Subject Property is depicted as vacant land
(identified as developed by row crops in aerial photos).

A dirt road is depicted to run along the eastern boundary of the of the Subject Property’s parcel.

The Colorado River Aqueduct is present to the
north of the Subject Property. The San Jacinto
Reservoir is depicted approximately 1-mile
southeast of the Subject Property.

EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
1956
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
The Subject Property is located in an unmapped region
of the topographic map.

No significant changes from prior topographic
maps.
1960s
1961 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.

Adjoining properties during this period are
depicted as being developed by duck ponds to
the north and east of the Subject Property. No
other configurational changes were noted.
1967 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
1970s
1967 /
1972
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (15-minute)
No significant changes from prior topographic maps. No significant changes from prior topographic maps.
1975 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
1978 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
1979
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior topographic maps.

Asphalt surfacing of the former identified
unpaved road on the eastern elevation of the
Subject Property (North Sanderson Avenue).
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 13 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 1980s
1985 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.

Adjoining properties to the north and to the
east following North Sanderson Avenue
appear to be vacant land covered in native
vegetation. Adjoining properties to the west
and south appear to be agriculturally
developed by row crops as identified
previously.
1989 EDR Aerial Photograph No agricultural activities appear to be present. The Subject Property is vacant.

Limited row crops appear to the east following
North Sanderson Avenue. The other adjoining
properties have had no significant changes
from what has been identified previously.
1990s 1996
EDR Aerial Photograph Agricultural activities resume with row crops.

Agricultural fields to the east following North
Sanderson Avenue appear to be dormant as
well as to the west. Row crops are developed
on the northern and southern adjoining
properties. Potential construction is noted to
the northeast across from North Sanderson
Avenue.

Historical Topographic
Map: San Jacinto (7.5-
minute)
The Subject Property is located in an unmapped region
of the topographic map.

No significant changes from prior topographic
maps.
2000s
2002 EDR Aerial Photograph No agricultural activities appear to be present. The Subject Property is vacant.

Agricultural fields to the east following North
Sanderson Avenue have had no significant
changes. Adjoining properties to the north,
south and appear to be fallow land. Limited
row crops are depicted on the western
adjoining property.
2006 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.

No significant changes from prior history
except the western adjoining property, which
appears to be dormant.
2009 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 14 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 2010s
2012
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / Sab
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior topographic maps. No significant changes from prior topographic maps.
2012 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
2015
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior topographic maps. No significant changes from prior topographic maps.
2016 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior aerial photographs. No significant changes from prior aerial photographs.
2018
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior topographic maps. No significant changes from prior topographic maps.
2020s 2020 EDR Aerial Photograph
No significant changes from prior aerial photographs;
however, the Subject Property appears to have active
agricultural growth.

No significant changes from prior aerial
photographs.

The Subject Property continued to be used for agricultural purposes (row crops). Environmental concerns associated with historical and current agricultural operations are discussed below in Section 5.2. 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 15

5. Current Subject Property Conditions
A Roux representative conducted a reconnaissance of the Subject Property and surrounding areas on July 28, 2023. During the Subject Property visit, Roux representative, Ms. Audrey Clark, observed the Subject Property and adjoining properties from reasonably accessible locations on the Subject Property and public thoroughfares. During the site reconnaissance, the weather was clear, and the temperature was approximately 100° Fahrenheit. The following sections summarize observations during the inspection. Roux documented the site reconnaissance with photographs which are provided in Appendix G.

5.1 Site Reconnaissance
The Subject Property is currently agricultural land used for growing row crops. Roux observed a PVC-piping irrigation system used at the Subject property and surrounding properties. North Sanderson Avenue is located immediately east of the Subject Property. The adjoining properties to the north, east, south, and west are mainly agricultural and/or fallow land. To the east, there is a single-family residence and agricultural land.

5.2 Phase I ESA Observations
During the site reconnaissance, Roux personnel attempted to identify any environmental features that may be relevant in the context of the Phase I ESA. The features identified are summarized in the table below.

Any such features are discussed in the following subsections.

Feature
Observed on
the Subject
Property
Observed on
an Adjoining
Property
Areas of stressed vegetation
Areas which receive flood or storm water from
potentially contaminated areas
Air Compressor Vent Discharges
Chemical Storage and/or Use
Drainage Swales and Culverts
Discharge Areas
Discolored or Spill Areas
Drums (55 Gallons or Larger)
Electrical Transformers
Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area X X
Hydraulic Lifts
Incinerators
Landfills or Landfarms
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 16 Feature
Observed on
the Subject
Property
Observed on
an Adjoining
Property
Loading and Unloading Areas
Non-Contact Cooling Water Discharge
Oil-Water Separator(s)
Open Areas Away from Production Areas
Process Area Sinks and Piping
Rail Cars/Railroad Spurs
Septic Systems Leach Fields or Seepage Pits
Silos
Sprayfields
Storm Sewer and Spill Containment Collection
System
Storm Water Detention Pond
Surface Impoundments and Lagoons
Underground / Aboveground Storage Tanks and
Associated Piping
Waste Piles

5.2.1 Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area
The Subject Property has been primarily developed for agricultural purposes (row crops and feed crops) since 1949. At the time of Roux’s site reconnaissance, the Subject Property was primarily developed with row crops (unknown crop). According to a representative of the Subject Property owner, agricultural production at the site has included watermelon and grain (likely wheat). Agricultural production history at the Subject Property is not currently known. Based on the long term agricultural use, it is likely that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, have been used on-site, and the potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-site soils is considered a REC.

2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 17

6. Summary of Key Previous Investigations
The following sections provide a summary of previous environmental investigations at the Subject Property.

Previous environmental investigation reports are included in Appendix H.

Roux conducted previous investigations at the southwest adjoining property in 2021. The off-site investigations were prepared under separate covers and no environmental issues were identified that would be considered a REC to the Subject Property in the context of this Phase I ESA.

6.1 Phase I ESA (South Shore, 2021)
South Shore Testing and Environmental (South Shore) conducted a Phase I ESA of the Subject Property in 2021 on behalf of the current property owner, J.D. Pierce Company, Inc. At the time of the assessment, the Subject Property was vacant agricultural land and proposed to be redeveloped for residential use. South Shore identified the potential presence of pesticides in soil from historical agricultural use as a REC and recommended further investigation.

According to Mr. Pierce, while the previous site assessment recommended further investigation into the presence of pesticides in shallow soil, no such subsurface investigations have been conducted to date.

2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 18

7. Database Records Review

7.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources
According to ASTM Standard E1527-21, the purpose of reviewing regulatory records is to obtain and review records that will help identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property.

In addition, some records to be reviewed pertain not only to the Subject Property, but also to properties within an additional “approximate minimum search distance” in order to help assess the likelihood of problems from migrating hazardous substances or petroleum products. The basis of the “approximate minimum search distance” is the Subject Property boundary.

Roux retained EDR of Shelton, Connecticut to provide an ASTM Radius Map Report (EDR Report) for this Subject Property. This report is a computerized search of select state and federal environmental databases that identify various properties with a record of environmental activity. Roux reviewed the report and summarized the relevant findings in the following sections. A copy of the compiled EDR Report has been included as Appendix F. The EDR report includes a detailed description of each of the databases searched, providing a summary of the type of information provided by each. A summary of Roux’ review of the EDR Report listings is provided in Table 1.

The following section describes the findings of the database search. Roux used professional judgement in determining which EDR-listed sites to include in the narrative of this report. Facilities adjoining the Subject Property were included due to their proximity to the Subject Property and the potential for surface water discharges (e.g., storm water runoff, surface water effluent discharges) to enter the Subject Property or through the migration of groundwater. Sites with listings indicative of a release (e.g., SHWS, LUST, RELEASE) are likewise discussed below. Non-adjoining facilities with database listings not necessarily indicative of a release (hazardous waste generator, FINDS, ECHO, NPDES, HAZNET, AST, or UST) will not be discussed unless considered potentially relevant in context of the Phase I ESA.

7.1.1 Subject Property (Target Property)
No listings for the Subject Property were identified in the EDR Report.

7.1.2 Adjoining and Nearby Properties
Discussions of adjoining and nearby properties of potential environmental concern as noted in Table 1 are provided below.
• Proposed High School at the Villages of San Jacinto (Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue). The Proposed High School at the Villages of San Jacinto (Proposed High School) was located approximately 0.15 mile west of the Subject Property and is listed on the ENVIROSTOR and SCH databases. The ENVIROSTOR listing indicates soil samples, composite surface soil samples, and discrete soil samples were collected from the property to determine potential threat to public health and/or the environment related to former agricultural use of the site. A letter of “No Further Action” was given on September 24, 2008. Based on the “No Further Action” letter and the lack of additional investigation, the Proposed High School property is not considered an environmental concern in the context of the Phase I ESA.
• San Jacinto Mobil (2070 North Sanderson Avenue). The San Jacinto Mobil facility is located approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the Subject Property and is listed on the LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank), CORTESE, and CERS databases. The LUST database indicates there is a cleanup case for diesel, gasoline, waste oil, motor oil, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil in 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 19 groundwater. According to groundwater monitoring reports, samples collected towards the direction of the Subject Property were non-detectable or had low detections of chemicals of concern (Leighton, 2009). On May 27, 2010, the facility was granted case closure by RCDEH. Due to the closure status and low detections, the San Jacinto Mobil facility is not considered an environmental concern in the context of the Phase I ESA.

7.1.3 Orphan Subject Properties
The EDR Report includes a section addressing “Orphan” sites. Orphan listings are sites, which, due to incomplete geographic location data, incomplete address information or incorrect address information, cannot be plotted correctly. The database report identified no unmapped facilities. 2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 20

8. Findings
Roux has performed this Phase I ESA in general compliance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21. Roux separated the findings of this assessment into the following four categories:
recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized environmental conditions and other environmental features.

8.1 Data Gaps
During conduct of this ESA, the following data gaps, as defined in ASTM Standard E1527-21 were identified:
• The timing of the report did not allow for all contacted agencies to respond to the records requests issued. This data gap is not considered significant due to sufficient information available from previous environmental reports, the EDR report, and city, county, and state websites. • Previous Subject Property owners/operators were not available for an interview. This data gap is not considered significant due to sufficient information regarding Subject Property history available from EDR historical documents and FOIA requests.

8.2 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Based on the information obtained through the performance of this ESA, Roux identified the following RECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties. To the extent possible, the locations of the RECs are shown in Figure 2. To avoid confusion, all RECs, cRECs, hRECs, and OEFs are numbered sequentially.

REC 1 - Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area. Based on a review of historical sources, the Subject Property was developed for agricultural use (row crops and feed crops) as early as 1949, with increased agricultural development noted from at least 1978 to 2016. During the site reconnaissance in July 2023, row crops were observed on the Subject Property. Agricultural production history at the Subject Property is not currently known. Based on the long term agricultural use, it is likely that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, have been used on-site, and the potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-site soils is considered a REC.

8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux did not identify known or suspected cRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.

8.4 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux did not identify known or suspected hRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.

8.5 Other Environmental Features
Roux did not identify known or suspected OEFs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjoining properties.
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 21

9. References
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-21) EDR, The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®, May 31, 2023 EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, May 31, 2023
EDR, EDR Historical Topo Map Report, May 31, 2023
EDR, Certified Sanborn Map Report, May 31, 2023
EDR, The EDR-City Directory Abstract, June 2, 2023
Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton), Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation Report and Results of Groundwater Monitoring, Former San Jacinto Mobil, Site No. 200824216, 2070 North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California, August 24, 2009
South Shore Testing and Environmental (South Shore), Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Undeveloped Agricultural Land, Tentative Tract Map No. 38107, APN 432-030-012, San Jacinto, California, June 28, 2021.
2217.0030L100/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 22

10. Signature of Environmental Professional
Roux performed this assessment in accordance with the generally accepted practices for environmental assessments at the time of implementation. Roux made a reasonable effort to ensure that the information presented in this report is materially complete and accurate.

Roux completed a Phase I ESA in general compliance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the property located along North Sanderson Avenue, approximately 1,800 feet south-southwest of the corner of North Sanderson Avenue and North Ramona Boulevard, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California.
“We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312” and, “We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.” Roux performed this Phase I ESA by, or under direct supervision of, the undersigned environmental professionals. Copies of professional profiles for the undersigned environmental professionals and report preparers are included in Appendix I.

Respectfully Submitted,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

Rocio Quinones
Project Scientist
Mauricio Escobar, P.G.

Vice President / Principal Geologist
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
SSW of Sanderson Avenue and Ramona Boulevard, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L100/CVRS ROUX
TABLES

1. Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report)
Summary
Table 1: Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary Avenue and Ramona Boulevard, San Jacinto, California
Site Name Address Database Listings Distance
(Miles) Direction Discussed in Report Text

PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL AT THE

VILLAGES OF SAN JACINT
RAMONA

BOULEVARD/CAWSTON
AVENUE
ENVIROSTOR,SCH 0.148 WSW No
BETTY GOEDHART 2004 N. RAMONA BLVD. RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.193 NE No
SAN JACINTO MOBIL 2070 N SANDERSON AVE. LUST,CORTESE,CE RS 0.493 NNE Yes
MOBIL SAN JACINTO 2070 SANDERSON LUST 0.493 NNE Yes
Orange: Facility has an associated release case impacting soil only and/or VOCs are not a potential contaminant of concern Notes
Blue: Facility does not have associated database listings indicative of a release or contamination Green: Facility is hydraulically downgradient or crossgradient and/or is a closed release case 1 of 1 2217.0030L000
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
SSW of Sanderson Avenue and Ramona Boulevard, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L100/CVRS ROUX

FIGURES

1. Site Location Map

2. Site Plan
1,000 0 1,000'
\\SRVLACAFP1\LA SHARED\CLIENTS\2217.0030L SHEA SAN JACINTO SEC SANDERSON MHE\09GIS\SITE LOCATION.MXD

QUADRANGLE LOCATION
"

PROPERTY

SITE LOCATION MAP

SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF NORTH SANDERSON

AVENUE AND NORTH RAMONA BOULEVARD

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
1 SHEA PROPERTIES
Prepared for:

Title:

File: Site Location.mxd
Date: 06/09/23 FIGURE
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project: 2217.0030L
Prepared by: O.B.

Project Mgr: R.Q.

Compiled by: O.B.

NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE HISTORICAL AGRICULTURAL USE (SITEWIDE) 1 AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL APPROXIMATE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION (REC) LEGEND Prepared for: Title: Compiled by:

Prepared by:Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: ROUX FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE AND NORTH RAMONA AVENUE, SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES C.J. M.B. R.Q. 27 JULY 2023 AS SHOWN 2217.0025L 001_2217.00XX_SITE PLAN.DWG \\SRVLACAFP1\LA SHARED\CLIENTS\2217.0030L SHEA SAN JACINTO SEC SANDERSON MHE\10CAD\001_2217.00XX_SITE PLAN.DWG Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 200' 0' 200' 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
SSW of Sanderson Avenue and Ramona Boulevard, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L100/CVRS ROUX

APPENDICES
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Historical Topographic Maps
C. Historical Aerial Photographs
D. Certified Sanborn Report
E. EDR City Directory Image Report
F. EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck®
G. Photographic Log
H. Pertinent Historical Documentation
I. Professional Profiles
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
SSW of Sanderson Avenue and Ramona Boulevard, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L100/CVRS ROUX

APPENDIX G
Photographic Log
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 1 of 12 ends

Photo 1 View of Subject Property facing northwest from North Sanderson Avenue
Photo 2 View of North Sanderson Road and eastern adjoining property San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 2 of 12 ends

Photo 3 Agricultural crops
Photo 4 Southern property boundary
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 3 of 12 ends

Photo 5 Southern adjoining property
Photo 6 View of Subject Property facing west
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 4 of 12 ends

Photo 7 View of northern adjoining property
Photo 8 Adjoining residence to the east
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 5 of 12 ends

Photo 9 Adjoining property to the east
Photo 10 View of southern adjoining property
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 6 of 12 ends

Photo 11 Irrigation system
Photo 12 Piping along southern edge of Subject Property San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 7 of 12 ends

Photo 13 Irrigation water delivery
Photo 14 View of Subject Property facing northeast
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 8 of 12 ends

Photo 15 View of Subject Property facing east
Photo 16 View of western adjoining property
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 9 of 12 ends

Photo 17 View of western property boundary
Photo 18 Irrigation water delivery system
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 10 of 12 ends

Photo 19 View of northwestern area of Subject Property
Photo 20 Northern adjoining property
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 11 of 12 ends

Photo 21 Northern property boundary
Photo 22 View of Subject Property facing south
San Jacinto Inspection Date: 07/28/2023

Page 12 of 12 ends

Photo 23 View of Subject Property facing
2217.0030L102/LR
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450 ■ Long Beach, California 90804 ■ +1.310.879.4900 ■ www.rouxinc.com California ■ Illinois ■ Massachusetts ■ New Jersey ■ New York ■ Texas ■ Virginia

November 15, 2023
Steven Perales
Director, Industrial Acquisitions & Development
Shea Properties
130 Vantis Drive, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Re: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report, J.D. Pierce Property, Approximately 38-Acre Property, North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Perales:

Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) has prepared this Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report (Phase II Report) to Shea Properties (Client), to summarize the findings of shallow soil sampling conducted at the 38-acre vacant property located approximately 1,800 feet south-southwest of the corner of North Sanderson Avenue and North Ramona Boulevard in the City of San Jacinto, California (Site; Figure 1).

Roux completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated August 30, 2023, which identified a recognized environmental concern (REC) associated with potential pesticide impacts to shallow soils from agricultural (row crop) use as early as 1949, with increased agricultural use noted from at least 1978 to 2016.

To address the identified environmental concern, Roux collected composite and discrete soil samples from twelve locations (quadrants) across the Site to establish baseline conditions and identify potential impacts in the shallow soil associated with historical agricultural use. Soil sampling was conducted in general accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties, dated August 7, 2008.

BACKGROUND
The Site consists of approximately 38 acres of agricultural land bounded to the east by North Sanderson Avenue. The adjoining properties to the north, south, and west, as well as east beyond North Sanderson Avenue, are mainly agricultural and/or fallow land. No mailing addresses are currently assigned to the Site. The Site has been primarily developed for agricultural purposes (row crops and feed crops) since 1949. According to a representative of the Site owner, agricultural production at the Site has included watermelon and grain for animal feed. At the time of Roux’s Phase II fieldwork, the Site was being used to grow corn. As discussed above, the extensive agricultural use of the Site and therefore, likely use of pesticides represents a REC. Typical pesticide uses during this time period included the use of arsenicbased and lead-based pesticides (up until the 1960s) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs, 1940s to 1970s).

At the time of the Roux’s sampling event, the Site had been cleared with four evenly spaced aisles, each approximately 10 to 12 feet wide. Due to the presence of corn crops in the remaining areas of the Site, sample collection in a grid formation was not feasible. However, because application of pesticides is expected to have been to be uniform across the Site, the samples collected and data generated during this investigation are considered representative of the entire Site.

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
The following sections summarize the investigation methods used during soil sampling events, including pre-field activities, sampling locations and procedures, and field observations.

Mr. Steven Perales
November 15, 2023

Page 2 ends

ROUX │ Phase II Environmental Investigation Letter Report 2217.0030L102/LR Pre-Field Activities
Prior to the start of field activities, Roux prepared a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to ensure worker safety. In addition to containing information regarding Roux’s standard safety practices, the HASP contained information about potential hazards related to Site activities and provided the locations and contact information of nearby emergency services. Field workers acknowledged their familiarity with all safety procedures and indicated their intent to follow the HASP by signing the HASP after the tailgate safety meeting, which took place at the beginning of each field day. All personnel working in the exclusion zone were Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trained, consistent with federal regulation 29 CFR 1910.120. At least 48 hours prior to fieldwork, the Site boundary was marked in white paint and Underground Service Alert (USA) of Southern California was notified of the intended work (USA Ticket Number B232820188). USA notified companies and agencies that may have underground utilities in the vicinity to mark their respective utilities on the ground with spray paint so that they were avoided during drilling.

Shallow Soil Sampling
On October 13, 2023, a total of 28 soil samples were collected from 12 quadrants (Figure 2). In addition, one randomly selected discrete soil sample (14 total) was collected from each quadrant (SS-1 through SS-12), including two duplicates (SS-Q1-DUP and SS-Q9-DUP). Four samples were collected with a trowel from each quadrant and composited in the field into a laboratory-provided glass jar. Twelve (12) composite samples (SS-COMP-1 through SS-COMP-12) were collected from the 12 quadrants with two duplicate composite samples (SS-COMP-4-DUP and SS-COMP-12-DUP).

All soil samples were collected across the Site at a depth of 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) as shown in Figure 2. Sampling equipment was cleaned in a solution of laboratory-grade detergent and rinsed with distilled water prior to sample collection at each quadrant location.

Composite and discrete soil samples were labeled with unique sample identifiers, placed on ice, and transported under proper chain-of-custody procedures to Enthalpy Analytical (Enthalpy) of Orange, California, a California-certified laboratory, for analysis. A total of 14 composite soil samples (12 primary and 2 duplicate) were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) by USEPA Method 8081A. A total of 14 discrete soil samples were analyzed for lead and arsenic by USEPA Method 6010B.

Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil
No OCP constituents were reported at concentrations above their respective laboratory method reporting limits (MRLs), as presented in Table 1. All MRLs were below applicable USEPA RSLs and DTSC SLs.
1 Bradford, G. R., Change, A. C., Page, A. L., Bakhtar, D., Frampton, J. A., and Wright, H. Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. March 1996.
2 Chernoff, G., Bosan, W., and Oudiz, D. and DTSC, Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil. March 2008.

Mr. Steven Perales
November 15, 2023

Page 3 ends

ROUX │ Phase II Environmental Investigation Letter Report 2217.0030L102/LR Arsenic in Soil
Arsenic was detected above the laboratory reporting limit in 11 of the 12 samples at concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 2.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Arsenic was detected above the DTSC SL of

0.36 mg/kg for commercial/industrial soil; however, detections of arsenic did not exceed the regional background concentration of 12 mg/kg in any sample (Table 2). Detections of arsenic did not exceed the USEPA RSL of 3.0 mg/kg for commercial/industrial soil.

Lead in Soil
Lead was detected above the laboratory reporting limit in all 12 samples at concentrations ranging from

3.8 to 9.9 mg/kg, well below the DTSC SL for commercial/industrial soil of 500 mg/kg and USEPA RSL for commercial/industrial soil of 800 mg/kg (Table 2).

CONCLUSIONS
The results of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation indicate that shallow soil OCP and select metals concentrations are below conservative regulatory thresholds for commercial/industrial land use and/or regional background concentrations. The REC identified in the Phase I ESA has been addressed and no further investigation is recommended at this time.

CLOSING
Should you have any questions or require any further information regarding the contents of this Report, please do not hesitate to contact Rocio Quinones by telephone at 562-446-8638 or by email at [email protected] or Mauricio Escobar by telephone at 310-879-4920 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

Rocio Quinones
Project Scientist
Mauricio Escobar, P.G. - CA
Principal Geologist
Enclosures:

Table 1 Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil
Table 2 Arsenic and Lead in Soil
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Soil Sampling Locations
Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Reports
Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
Approximately 38-Acre Property, North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L102/CVRS ROUX
TABLES

1. Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil

2. Arsenic and Lead in Soil
Table 1
Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil
South-Southwest of the Corner of North Ramona Boulevard and North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California
Sample ID
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet bgs) Date Sampled
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
4,4'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Chlordane (Technical)
360 1300 2500 NS 630 180 330 NS 140 9300 250000 NS 4900000 9600 NS NS 8500 4100000 2100 NS240 820 2000 NS 630 180 330 NS 93 9300 160000 NS 3200000 6200 NS NS 7100 2600000 1200 NS SS-COMP-Q1 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51SS-COMP-Q2 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51SS-COMP-Q3 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51SS-COMP-Q4 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <100 <50 SS-COMP-Q4-DUP 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 SS-COMP-Q5 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51SS-COMP-Q6 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51SS-COMP-Q7 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 <99 <50SS-COMP-Q8 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <100 <50SS-COMP-Q9 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 SS-COMP-Q10 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 SS-COMP-Q11 0.5 10/13/2023 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <4.9 <9.8 <98 <49 SS-COMP-Q12 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 SS-COMP-Q12-DUP 0.5 10/13/2023 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 Notes:OCPs = organochlorine pesticidesUSEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agencyµg/Kg = microgram per kilogrambgs = below ground surfaceNS = No standard establishedItalics indicates duplicate sample<X = analyte not detected above laboratory RDLDTSC SL = Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3, Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) for Soil, revised May 2022.USEPA RSL = USEPA Regional Screening Levels for Soil, Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 1.0, May 2023.

Analytical Method
Units
USEPA Industrial Soil RSLs
DTSC Commercial/Industrial Soil SL
USEPA 8081
ug/Kg

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 2
Arsenic and Lead in Soil
South-Southwest of the Corner of North Ramona Boulevard and North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California
Sample ID
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet bgs) Date Sampled
ArsenicLead
12a 12.4-97.1

3.0 800

0.36 500*
SS-Q1 0.5 10/13/2023 1.9 9.8
SS-Q1-DUP 0.5 10/13/2023 2.1 9.9
SS-Q2 0.5 10/13/2023 1.7 5.7
SS-Q3 0.5 10/13/2023 1.7 4.5
SS-Q4 0.5 10/13/2023 1.8 4.8
SS-Q5 0.5 10/13/2023 1.8 6.7
SS-Q6 0.5 10/13/2023 1.8 3.8
SS-Q7 0.5 10/13/2023 1.5 4.8
SS-Q8 0.5 10/13/2023 2.9 6.4
SS-Q9 0.5 10/13/2023 <0.97 4.2
SS-Q9-DUP 0.5 10/13/2023 2.0 4.4
SS-Q10 0.5 10/13/2023 1.8 4.8
SS-Q11 0.5 10/13/2023 1.8 5.6
SS-Q12 0.5 10/13/2023 2.0 4.9
Notes:

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
* SL is for "Lead and Compounds"
mg/Kg = milligram per kilogram
bgs = below ground surface
NS = No standard established
Bold indicates that sample exceeds laboratory reporting detection limit (RDL) Highlight indicates detection exceeds at least one SL
Analytical Method USEPA 6010B
Units mg/Kg
Typical range for California Soil1
USEPA RSL - Industrial Soil
DTSC Commercial/Industrial Soil SL
USEPA RSL = USEPA Regional Screening Level for industrial soil, dated May 2023 Italics indicates duplicate sample
<X = analyte not detected above laboratory RDL
1 Bradford, G.R., Chang, A.C., Page, A.L., Bakhtar, D., Frampton, J.A., and Wright, H., 1996, Background of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils, Kearney Foundation of Soil Sciences Special Report, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California a
Upper-bound background concentrations from Chernoff, G., Bosan, W., and Outiz, D., DTSC. Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil.

DTSC SL = Department of Toxic Substances Control Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3 Screening Level for industrial/commercial soil, revised May 2022

Page 1 of 1 ends

Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
Approximately 38-Acre Property, North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L102/CVRS ROUX

FIGURES

1. Site Location Map

2. Soil Sampling Locations
1,000
0 1,000'
S:\GIS\PROJECTS\2217\0030L\100\SITE LOCATION.MXD
QUADRANGLE LOCATION "

SITE LOCATION MAP

NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
1 SHEA PROPERTIES
Prepared for:

Title:

File: Site Location.mxd
Date: 11/03/23 FIGURE
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project: 2217.0030L
Prepared by: O.B.

Project Mgr: R.Q.

Compiled by: O.B.

NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL Q10 Q7 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q6 Q8 Q9 Q11 Q12 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY ROUX INDIVIDUAL SAMPLING LOCATION QUADRANT NUMBER LEGEND Prepared for: Title: Compiled by:

Prepared by:Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: ROUX FIGURE 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES A.P. A.P. R.Q. 31 OCT 2023 1" = 200' 2217.0030L 003_2217.0030L_SOIL LOCATIONS.DWG S:\CLIENTS\2217.0030L SHEA SAN JACINTO SEC SANDERSON MHE\10CAD\003_2217.0030L_SOIL LOCATIONS.DWG Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 200' 0' 200' Q1 Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
Approximately 38-Acre Property, North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California 2217.0030L102/CVRS ROUX

APPENDIX A
Laboratory Analytical Reports
Enthalpy Analytical
931 West Barkley Ave
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 771-6900
enthalpy.com
Lab Job Number: 494008
Report Level: II
Report Date: 10/25/2023
Analytical Report prepared for:

Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Location: Shea San Jacinto, 2217.0030L
Diane Galvan, Project Manager
714-771-9928
[email protected]
This data package has been reviewed for technical correctness and completeness. Release of this data has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or the Manager's designee, as verified by the above signature which applies to this PDF file as well as any associated electronic data deliverable files. The results contained in this report meet all requirements of NELAP and pertain only to those samples which were submitted for analysis. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety.

CA ELAP# 1338, NELAP# 4038, SCAQMD LAP# 18LA0518, LACSD ID# 10105 Authorized for release by:
1 of 29
Sample Summary
Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Lab Job #: 494008
Location: Shea San Jacinto, 2217.0030L
Date Received: 10/16/23
Sample ID Lab ID Collected Matrix
SS-COMP-Q1 494008-001 10/13/23 07:27 Soil
SS-COMP-Q2 494008-002 10/13/23 07:35 Soil
SS-COMP-Q3 494008-003 10/13/23 07:43 Soil
SS-COMP-Q4 494008-004 10/13/23 08:06 Soil
SS-COMP-Q5 494008-005 10/13/23 08:15 Soil
SS-COMP-Q6 494008-006 10/13/23 08:24 Soil
SS-COMP-Q7 494008-007 10/13/23 09:02 Soil
SS-COMP-Q8 494008-008 10/13/23 09:16 Soil
SS-COMP-Q9 494008-009 10/13/23 09:28 Soil
SS-COMP-Q10 494008-010 10/13/23 10:23 Soil
SS-COMP-Q11 494008-011 10/13/23 10:16 Soil
SS-COMP-Q12 494008-012 10/13/23 10:10 Soil
SS-Q1 494008-013 10/13/23 07:24 Soil
SS-Q2 494008-014 10/13/23 07:32 Soil
SS-Q3 494008-015 10/13/23 07:40 Soil
SS-Q4 494008-016 10/13/23 08:03 Soil
SS-Q5 494008-017 10/13/23 08:12 Soil
SS-Q6 494008-018 10/13/23 08:22 Soil
SS-Q7 494008-019 10/13/23 08:56 Soil
SS-Q8 494008-020 10/13/23 09:16 Soil
SS-Q9 494008-021 10/13/23 09:30 Soil
SS-Q10 494008-022 10/13/23 10:22 Soil
SS-Q11 494008-023 10/13/23 10:14 Soil
SS-Q12 494008-024 10/13/23 10:11 Soil
SS-Q1-DUP 494008-025 10/13/23 07:24 Soil
SS-COMP-Q4-DUP 494008-026 10/13/23 08:06 Soil
2 of 29
Sample Summary
Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Lab Job #: 494008
Location: Shea San Jacinto, 2217.0030L
Date Received: 10/16/23
Sample ID Lab ID Collected Matrix
SS-Q9-DUP 494008-027 10/13/23 09:30 Soil
SS-COMP-Q12-DUP 494008-028 10/13/23 10:10 Soil
3 of 29
4 of 29
5 of 29
6 of 29
7 of 29
Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Lab Job #: 494008
Location: Shea San Jacinto, 2217.0030L
Date Received: 10/16/23
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q1 Lab ID: 494008-001 Collected: 10/13/23 07:27 Matrix: Soil
494008-001 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 76% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 65% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 1 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 8 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q2 Lab ID: 494008-002 Collected: 10/13/23 07:35 Matrix: Soil
494008-002 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 85% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 73% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 2 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 9 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q3 Lab ID: 494008-003 Collected: 10/13/23 07:43 Matrix: Soil
494008-003 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 71% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 65% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 3 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 10 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q4 Lab ID: 494008-004 Collected: 10/13/23 08:06 Matrix: Soil
494008-004 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 75% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 69% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 11 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q5 Lab ID: 494008-005 Collected: 10/13/23 08:15 Matrix: Soil
494008-005 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 75% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 69% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 5 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 12 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q6 Lab ID: 494008-006 Collected: 10/13/23 08:24 Matrix: Soil
494008-006 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 74% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 72% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 6 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 13 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q7 Lab ID: 494008-007 Collected: 10/13/23 09:02 Matrix: Soil
494008-007 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 9.9 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 99 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 79% %REC 23-120 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 72% %REC 24-120 0.99 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 7 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 14 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q8 Lab ID: 494008-008 Collected: 10/13/23 09:16 Matrix: Soil
494008-008 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 71% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 70% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 8 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 15 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q9 Lab ID: 494008-009 Collected: 10/13/23 09:28 Matrix: Soil
494008-009 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 75% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 74% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 9 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 16 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q10 Lab ID: 494008-010 Collected: 10/13/23 10:23 Matrix: Soil
494008-010 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 78% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 76% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 10 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 17 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q11 Lab ID: 494008-011 Collected: 10/13/23 10:16 Matrix: Soil
494008-011 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Aldrin ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN 4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Endrin ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 4.9 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 9.8 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 98 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 49 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN Surrogates Limits
TCMX 78% %REC 23-120 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN
Decachlorobiphenyl 75% %REC 24-120 0.98 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 TRN 11 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 18 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q12 Lab ID: 494008-012 Collected: 10/13/23 10:10 Matrix: Soil
494008-012 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 77% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 75% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Sample ID: SS-Q1 Lab ID: 494008-013 Collected: 10/13/23 07:24 Matrix: Soil
494008-013 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.9 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 9.8 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
12 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 19 of 29
Sample ID: SS-Q2 Lab ID: 494008-014 Collected: 10/13/23 07:32 Matrix: Soil
494008-014 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.7 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 5.7 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q3 Lab ID: 494008-015 Collected: 10/13/23 07:40 Matrix: Soil
494008-015 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.7 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 4.5 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q4 Lab ID: 494008-016 Collected: 10/13/23 08:03 Matrix: Soil
494008-016 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.8 mg/Kg 0.96 0.96 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 4.8 mg/Kg 0.96 0.96 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q5 Lab ID: 494008-017 Collected: 10/13/23 08:12 Matrix: Soil
494008-017 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.8 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 6.7 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q6 Lab ID: 494008-018 Collected: 10/13/23 08:22 Matrix: Soil
494008-018 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.8 mg/Kg 1.0 1 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Lead 3.8 mg/Kg 1.0 1 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
13 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 20 of 29
Sample ID: SS-Q7 Lab ID: 494008-019 Collected: 10/13/23 08:56 Matrix: Soil
494008-019 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.5 mg/Kg 0.99 0.99 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 4.8 mg/Kg 0.99 0.99 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q8 Lab ID: 494008-020 Collected: 10/13/23 09:16 Matrix: Soil
494008-020 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 2.9 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 6.4 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q9 Lab ID: 494008-021 Collected: 10/13/23 09:30 Matrix: Soil
494008-021 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic ND mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 4.2 mg/Kg 0.97 0.97 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q10 Lab ID: 494008-022 Collected: 10/13/23 10:22 Matrix: Soil
494008-022 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.8 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 4.8 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q11 Lab ID: 494008-023 Collected: 10/13/23 10:14 Matrix: Soil
494008-023 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.8 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 5.6 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
14 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 21 of 29
Sample ID: SS-Q12 Lab ID: 494008-024 Collected: 10/13/23 10:11 Matrix: Soil
494008-024 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 2.0 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 4.9 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Sample ID: SS-Q1-DUP Lab ID: 494008-025 Collected: 10/13/23 07:24 Matrix: Soil
494008-025 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 2.1 mg/Kg 0.99 0.99 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW Lead 9.9 mg/Kg 0.99 0.99 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
15 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 22 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q4-DUP Lab ID: 494008-026 Collected: 10/13/23 08:06 Matrix: Soil
494008-026 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 78% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 73% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Sample ID: SS-Q9-DUP Lab ID: 494008-027 Collected: 10/13/23 09:30 Matrix: Soil
494008-027 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 2.0 mg/Kg 1.0 1 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
Lead 4.4 mg/Kg 1.0 1 324582 10/16/23 10/17/23 SBW
16 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 23 of 29
Sample ID: SS-COMP-Q12-DUP Lab ID: 494008-028 Collected: 10/13/23 10:10 Matrix: Soil
494008-028 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 74% %REC 23-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 76% %REC 24-120 1 324712 10/18/23 10/19/23 MES ND Not Detected
17 of 17
Analysis Results for 494008
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 24 of 29
Type: Blank Lab ID: QC1100696 Batch: 324582
Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B
QC1100696 Analyte Result Qual Units RL Prepared Analyzed Arsenic ND mg/Kg 1.0 10/16/23 10/17/23
Lead ND mg/Kg 1.0 10/16/23 10/17/23
Type: Lab Control Sample Lab ID: QC1100697 Batch: 324582 Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B
QC1100697 Analyte Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits Arsenic 95.05 100.0 mg/Kg 95% 80-120
Lead 106.5 100.0 mg/Kg 107% 80-120
Type: Matrix Spike Lab ID: QC1100698 Batch: 324582
Matrix (Source ID): Soil (494008-013) Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B QC1100698 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits DF
Arsenic 95.49 1.943 98.04 mg/Kg 95% 75-125 0.98
Lead 106.5 9.821 98.04 mg/Kg 99% 75-125 0.98
Type: Matrix Spike Duplicate Lab ID: QC1100699 Batch: 324582 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (494008-013) Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B QC1100699 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits RPD
RPD
Lim DF
Arsenic 96.72 1.943 98.04 mg/Kg 97% 75-125 1 35 0.98
Lead 105.8 9.821 98.04 mg/Kg 98% 75-125 1 20 0.98
Type: Post Digest Spike Lab ID: QC1100700 Batch: 324582 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (494008-013) Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B QC1100700 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits DF
Arsenic 95.77 1.943 95.24 mg/Kg 99% 75-125 0.95
Lead 107.6 9.821 95.24 mg/Kg 103% 75-125 0.95
1 of 5
Batch QC
25 of 29
Type: Blank Lab ID: QC1101125 Batch: 324712
Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546
QC1101125 Analyte Result Qual Units RL Prepared Analyzed alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 10/18/23 10/19/23
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 10/18/23 10/19/23
Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 10/18/23 10/19/23
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 10/18/23 10/19/23
Surrogates Limits
TCMX 78% %REC 23-120 10/18/23 10/19/23
Decachlorobiphenyl 68% %REC 24-120 10/18/23 10/19/23
2 of 5
Batch QC
26 of 29
Type: Lab Control Sample Lab ID: QC1101126 Batch: 324712 Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546
QC1101126 Analyte Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits alpha-BHC 51.73 50.51 ug/Kg 102% 22-129
beta-BHC 48.12 50.51 ug/Kg 95% 28-125
gamma-BHC 52.40 50.51 ug/Kg 104% 22-128
delta-BHC 54.07 50.51 ug/Kg 107% 24-131
Heptachlor 51.01 50.51 ug/Kg 101% 18-124
Aldrin 46.52 50.51 ug/Kg 92% 23-120
Heptachlor epoxide 49.64 50.51 ug/Kg 98% 26-120
Endosulfan I 50.97 50.51 ug/Kg 101% 25-126
Dieldrin 48.91 50.51 ug/Kg 97% 23-124
4,4'-DDE 52.03 50.51 ug/Kg 103% 28-121
Endrin 51.91 50.51 ug/Kg 103% 25-127
Endosulfan II 50.43 50.51 ug/Kg 100% 29-121
Endosulfan sulfate 45.44 50.51 ug/Kg 90% 30-121
4,4'-DDD 51.94 50.51 ug/Kg 103% 26-120
Endrin aldehyde 32.33 50.51 ug/Kg 64% 10-120
Endrin ketone 45.29 50.51 ug/Kg 90% 28-125
4,4'-DDT 51.06 50.51 ug/Kg 101% 22-125
Methoxychlor 50.10 50.51 ug/Kg 99% 28-130
Surrogates
TCMX 41.61 50.51 ug/Kg 82% 23-120
Decachlorobiphenyl 40.90 50.51 ug/Kg 81% 24-120
3 of 5
Batch QC
27 of 29
Type: Matrix Spike Lab ID: QC1101127 Batch: 324712
Matrix (Source ID): Soil (494008-011) Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546 QC1101127 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits DF
alpha-BHC 44.71 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 89% 46-120 1
beta-BHC 41.58 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 83% 41-120 1
gamma-BHC 45.00 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 90% 41-120 1
delta-BHC 48.29 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 97% 38-123 1
Heptachlor 44.70 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 89% 39-120 1
Aldrin 43.32 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 87% 34-120 1
Heptachlor epoxide 44.27 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 89% 43-120 1
Endosulfan I 43.02 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 86% 45-120 1
Dieldrin 42.32 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 85% 45-120 1
4,4'-DDE 46.62 2.926 50.00 ug/Kg 87% 34-120 1
Endrin 44.09 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 88% 40-120 1
Endosulfan II 42.67 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 85% 41-120 1
Endosulfan sulfate 37.81 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 76% 42-120 1
4,4'-DDD 42.56 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 85% 41-120 1
Endrin aldehyde 29.21 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 58% 30-120 1
Endrin ketone 35.97 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 72% 45-120 1
4,4'-DDT 43.58 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 87% 35-127 1
Methoxychlor 41.06 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 82% 42-136 1
Surrogates
TCMX 34.74 50.00 ug/Kg 69% 23-120 1
Decachlorobiphenyl 32.97 50.00 ug/Kg 66% 24-120 1
4 of 5
Batch QC
28 of 29
Type: Matrix Spike Duplicate Lab ID: QC1101128 Batch: 324712 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (494008-011) Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546 QC1101128 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits RPD
RPD
Lim DF
alpha-BHC 45.05 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 91% 46-120 2 30 0.99
beta-BHC 41.60 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 84% 41-120 1 30 0.99
gamma-BHC 47.14 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 95% 41-120 6 30 0.99
delta-BHC 52.23 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 106% 38-123 9 30 0.99
Heptachlor 44.87 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 91% 39-120 1 30 0.99
Aldrin 44.77 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 90% 34-120 4 30 0.99
Heptachlor epoxide 44.79 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 90% 43-120 2 30 0.99 Endosulfan I 42.93 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 87% 45-120 1 30 0.99
Dieldrin 41.42 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 84% 45-120 1 30 0.99
4,4'-DDE 48.20 2.926 49.50 ug/Kg 91% 34-120 4 30 0.99
Endrin 44.80 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 91% 40-120 3 30 0.99
Endosulfan II 41.83 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 84% 41-120 1 30 0.99 Endosulfan sulfate 39.73 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 80% 42-120 6 30 0.99 4,4'-DDD 46.71 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 94% 41-120 10 30 0.99
Endrin aldehyde 28.43 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 57% 30-120 2 30 0.99 Endrin ketone 37.74 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 76% 45-120 6 30 0.99 4,4'-DDT 39.47 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 80% 35-127 9 30 0.99
Methoxychlor 35.89 ND 49.50 ug/Kg 73% 42-136 12 30 0.99 Surrogates
TCMX 35.63 49.50 ug/Kg 72% 23-120 0.99
Decachlorobiphenyl 34.81 49.50 ug/Kg 70% 24-120 0.99
ND Not Detected
5 of 5
Batch QC
29 of 29

ArcGIS Web Map
Maxar
RivCo_Well_Permits
12/19/2023, 1:45:26 PM
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
1:18,056
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
Maxar |
ArcGIS Web Map
Maxar
RivCo_Well_Permits
12/19/2023, 1:46:36 PM
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
1:18,056
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
Maxar |
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California 2217.0031L100/CVRS ROUX

APPENDIX I
Professional Profiles

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
1 Mauricio H. Escobar, PG
Vice President | Principal Geologist

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
21 years of consulting experience: Principal Geologist with Roux Associates (2011 to Present); Senior Manager, Manager, and Senior Associate with ENVIRON International Corporation (2004 to 2011); Project Geologist with URS Corporation (2001 to 2004); Geologist with Hart Crowser (1998 to 2001).

TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
Professional Geologist with over twenty years of experience designing, managing, and implementing environmental soil and groundwater investigations and remediation strategies for public and private clients. Experience as in-house consultant assisting with management of a $25MM yearly remediation portfolio for a Fortune 100 Company. Practice developing and implementing high-level strategies that consider legal and regulatory issues, communications and government relations, as well as technical challenges and costs. Significant assignments representing clients during Working Group meetings for Superfund sites and participation in technical committee meetings. Expertise in design and field implementation of in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) in hard rock and porous mediaflow aquifers.

Substantial experience evaluating and remediating industrial, commercial and residential sites impacted with numerous contaminants in multiple media, including crude oil, fuels, volatile organic compounds, chromium VI, 1,4-dioxane, and PCBs. Extensive experience managing implementation of remediation programs that utilize and consider multiple technologies including soil vapor extraction, dual phase extraction, traditional pump and treat, in-well stripping, air sparging, chemical oxidation and reduction, thermal treatment, and natural attenuation. Experience managing large-scale remedial excavations involving the use of heavy earth moving equipment.

Significant field experience using numerous drilling, soil sampling, groundwater sampling, and soil vapor sampling techniques.

CONTINUING EDUCATION
• Compounds of Emerging Concern in Groundwater, California Groundwater Resources Association, Concord, California, February 2012
• The Remediation Course, Princeton Groundwater, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 2010 • Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline, Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) in conjunction with the California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) and California Water Boards, Long Beach, California, June 2009 • The Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course, Princeton Groundwater, Orlando, Florida, February 2007
• Hydrogeologic Analysis of Fractured Bedrock Systems, Midwest GeoSciences Group, University of Nevada Las Vegas and Nevada Test Site at Yucca Mountain, March 2006

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
• PRP Representation of Fortune 100 Company, Omega Chemical Superfund Site, Whittier, California. Provide ongoing technical consulting to a Fortune 100 Company and major PRP at the Omega Chemical Superfund Site in Whittier, California. Active participant of the Omega PRP Group (OPOG) Technical Committee. Attend all pertinent technical meetings and provide Client with technical and strategic input that protects their best interests. Maintain constant interaction with the legal and finance teams as necessary to ensure the technical and legal strategies are in agreement and that adequate funding is reserved well in advance of regulatory commitments and OPOG cash calls. Pertinent technical issues include soil gas and vapor intrusion, and a regional groundwater plume. Regulatory oversight is provided by USEPA Region IX.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Main: (310 4900 ) 879-
Direct: (310) 879-4920
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.rouxinc.com
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway
Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Earth Science,
1995, University of California,
Berkeley
OSHA 40-Hour Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency
Response (HAZWOPER)
Certified
Research Assistant to UC
Berkeley Ph.D. Candidate
Dawnika L. Blatter and
Professor Ian S. E. Carmichael
in Study of Continental
Crustal Deformation from
Subduction of the Cocos
Plate in Western Mexico and
Study of Upper Mantle
Petrology in Central Mexico,
January to April 1996

PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
Professional Geologist, State of
California, No. 07506
Mauricio H. Escobar, PG | Professional Profile
www.rouxinc.com 2
• PRP Representation of Fortune 100 Company, BKK
Corporation Class I Landfill Organized Group, West Covina, California. Provide ongoing technical consulting to a Fortune 100 Company at the former BKK Corporation Class I Landfill site in West Covina, California. Participant in the BKK Technical Committee and attendant of pertinent technical meetings.

Maintain constant communication with the Client's legal and finance teams and responsible for informing Client on the direction the Organized Group is headed. Responsible for identifying financial commitments made as part of technical decisions. Trusted with voicing opinions, concerns, and/or offering direction to the Group (if and when necessary), to ensure the Organized Group's direction is consistent with the Client's strategy. Pertinent technical issues include upgrades to the landfill infrastructure and groundwater remedial
investigations in and around the landfill prism. Regulatory oversight is provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
• Portfolio Project Control - Fortune 100 Company, Torrance, California. Three years of experience working as a full-time inhouse consultant for a Fortune 100 Company assisting with management of all aspects of a complex multi-site portfolio.

General role included communication with alliance partners, vendors, corporate finance, attorneys, public
relations/communications, and procurement to track and
facilitate progress of 9 major projects ($400,000 to $1 MM/year) and 3 mega projects ($3MM to $10MM+/year) that were unique in nature and complexity. Portfolio included former chemical sites, landfills, aerospace facilities, and other heavy use industrial facilities that were undergoing State and RCRA closure, as well as sites under CERCLA Superfund actions with PRP commitments. Charged with helping to develop, evaluate, and refine remedial strategies and lifecycle costs for sites that utilized various cleanup technologies such as application of oxidants and reducing agents, thermal oxidation, groundwater pump and treat, dual-phase and 2-PHASE™ extraction, soil vapor extraction, air sparging, and in-well air stripping. Major role included verifying adequate funding and maintaining documentation consistent with Sarbanes Oxley.
• Strategy Expert Consulting - Fortune 100 Company, Los Angeles, California. Ongoing third-party technical and
strategic support to a Fortune 100 company for a major project involving former bulk storage and distribution facilities converted to open public space and residential uses. Site is undergoing remedial investigations and remedial alternatives evaluations under heavy regulatory and public scrutiny.

Charged with providing opinions and recommendations as to the direction the current consultant and the regulatory agencies want to take the project and evaluating the
conceptual site model and long term technical strategy. Active participant on technical team calls and ongoing direct
communications with internal legal team.
• Shipyard Decommissioning - Subsurface Assessment,
Remedial Investigation, Demolition and Closure, Campbell Shipyard - Marco, Port of San Diego, California. Lead
geologist in the preparation of a comprehensive subsurface study of the former Campbell Shipyard property at the Port of San Diego, California. Over 200 borings were necessary to delineate the extent of impacted soils. Relevant environmental issues included a former coal works gasification plant
immediately adjacent to the Site, a 2 to 4-foot thick lens of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) laden sediment
present throughout the Site below the water table, a former onsite diesel and kerosene tank farm, and numerous leaking fuel USTs. Responsibilities also included management of shipyard abandonment activities, such as abatement of asbestos and lead-based paint containing materials, demolition of on-site structures, crushing of asphalt and concrete into Class II base, and a comprehensive geophysical survey to locate all on-site utilities and buried structures. The work was performed under the regulatory oversight of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Diego Unified Port District.

Total cost of the work was approximately $1.3MM,
implemented over a 15-month period.
• Neutral Third-Party Oversight of Remediation Work, ITT Corporation and Home Depot, Glendale, California. Provided third party oversight for a site undergoing major remediation of VOCs and chromium VI in soils and groundwater. The site was a former electronics manufacturing facility redeveloped as a major box retailer in Glendale, California. Services were provided on behalf of the former facility owners/operators and the current property owners, both of whom had differing interests and views on the remedial work being performed.

Viewed all fieldwork and construction of remediation systems and attended quarterly meetings with consultants, attorneys, and clients to gauge progress, discuss ongoing work, and evaluate projected schedules for completion of remediation.

Technical challenges to remediation included dewatering of 20- foot thick perched zone impacted with VOC contamination, despite a leaking slurry wall originally designed to prevent onsite migration from upgradient sources.
• ISCO Demonstration Plan Using Permanganate, Wyle
Laboratories, Riverside County, California. Designed,
managed, and implemented an ISCO Demonstration Plan using sodium permanganate injection at a former industrial
manufacturing facility in Southern California. Main goals of the application were to demonstrate effective oxidation of
trichloroethene (TCE) in alluvium and fractured granitic bedrock, evaluate potential mobilization of naturally occurring reduced metals, and evaluate the potential application of ISCO Mauricio H. Escobar, PG | Professional Profile
www.rouxinc.com 3
at other areas of the Site, including off-site beneath residential homes. Twelve thousand gallons of 10% permanganate
solution were delivered to the subsurface through 47 multidepth permanent injection probes over a 22-day field event.

TCE concentrations were reduced from a maximum of 30,000 microgram per liter (µg/L) to non-detect at the source area.

Significantly, elevated hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)]
concentrations were observed in the area of injection and immediately downgradient. Following field observations, a Bench Scale Assessment (BSA) was conducted to evaluate
potential significant sources of Cr(VI), evaluate the capacity of the aquifer to naturally attenuate Cr(VI), and provide data sufficient to estimate distance and time Cr(VI) would revert to its trivalent form. BSA and field data showed that principal source of Cr(VI) was from the raw product, with secondary contribution from chromium in the native rock, and
deterioration of stainless steel well screens. Natural
attenuation of Cr(VI) to background concentrations was
estimated at 2 to 3 years post injection. Monitoring of the Demonstration Plan area for the 2+ years has proved those predictions accurate and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
recommending full-scale on- and off-site treatment of TCE with permanganate was submitted to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Total cost of the work was more than $1.0 million.
• Remedial Excavation and ISCO Used to Facilitate Property Transfer, Sanmina, Inc., Irvine, California. Managed and implemented an aggressive remedial strategy for a former electronics manufacturing facility in Southern California. The site had TCE concentrations in groundwater suggestive of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) and required
expedited soil and groundwater remediation, in lieu of ongoing 2-PHASE™ and dual-phase extraction (DPE) efforts, to
accommodate its divesture and redevelopment. Groundwater was generally encountered at 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) and contained TCE concentrations in the source area as high as 77,000 µg/L. The project was successfully completed by installing a 90-well dewatering system, excavating 13,000 cubic yards (cy) of soils, and removing 3,200 cy of TCE impacted soil along the axis of a residual TCE DNAPL mass; total depth of the excavation was 32 feet bgs. ISCO using sodium and potassium permanganate was used to remediate residual TCE-impacted soil and groundwater outside the area of excavation. Following implementation of the aggressive remedial strategy, TCE concentrations in groundwater were reduced by one to three orders of magnitude, suggesting the DNAPL had been removed and/or destroyed. The Orange County Health Care Agency
(OCHCA) provided soils closure and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board provided groundwater closure for the site 16 months after completion of remediation. The site was sold and redeveloped. Total cost of excavation and ISCO application was approximately $1.4 million.
• Assessment, Remediation and Closure of Former Industrial Facility for Residential Re-development, Former Boeing
Plant, Los Angeles, California. Managed the assessment, remediation, and closure of a former asphalt batch plant and defense contractor facility on behalf of a residential developer.

The work was performed simultaneously with planning and entitlement of the property, under the oversight of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division.

Unique challenges included the discovery of 15+ feet of buried asphalt debris and soils with elevated arsenic and chromium concentrations requiring off-site disposal. Developed sitespecific cleanup thresholds for VOCs and heavy metals by preparing a limited human health risk assessment and
incorporating Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) developed by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The entire project was implemented in 15 months from initial assessment to site closure at a cost of $250,000.
• Hydrocarbon Release Characterization and Remedial
Investigation, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, La Habra, California. Designed, managed, and implemented a subsurface investigation with the primary focus of characterizing lateral and vertical distribution of hydrocarbon impacts to the groundwater and unsaturated zone. The release was related to a pipeline booster station flange rupture dating to the early 1980s. Fractured siltstone bedrock presented unique
subsurface conditions and as a result, special consideration was given to drilling techniques and boring/well installations.

The project involved 12 months of fieldwork for the installation of soil vapor probes, backhoe trenches, soil borings, and monitoring wells. Discovery of up to 15-feet of light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) resulted in amendments to the original work scope to provide for LNAPL removal and
assessment of pneumatic and hydraulic properties of the soil/rock. A high vacuum DPE test was performed at selected wells to evaluate the feasibility of this technology for the removal of hydrocarbons. All work was conducted under the oversight of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in consideration of future residential development. Work was performed over a 2-year period at an approximate cost of $1.0 million.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation Work Plan for Bunker C Tank Farm
Redevelopment, Long Beach, California. Managed the
preparation of a RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan for a former power plant tank farm facility in Long Beach, California.

The site was being planned for redevelopment with a retail box store and restaurant uses. The RFI Work Plan was prepared as part of a Corrective Action Consent Agreement between the Mauricio H. Escobar, PG | Professional Profile
www.rouxinc.com 4
Client and the DTSC. The purpose of the RFI was to determine the nature and extent of releases at the site and to gather all the necessary data to support completion and implementation of a Corrective Measures Study (CMS).
• Remedial Investigation of Former Transformer Washing
Facility, General Electric and City of Los Angeles
Redevelopment Agency, Los Angeles, California. Prepared, managed, and implemented a Remedial Investigation Work
Plan for a former transformer washing facility under the oversight of the DTSC. The field investigation was intended to evaluate and delineate the nature and extent of residual VOC, PCB, and dioxin impacts at the Site, to support decisions regarding the need for, and extent of, future removal or remedial actions. The field program showed that shallow soils at the site were significantly impacted with PCBs and deep soils and groundwater were significantly impacted with TCE and tetrachloroethene (PCE). ISCO Demonstration Plan Using
Permanganate, Riverside County, California.
• Remedial Investigation and Remedial Action Plan for
Former Small Arms Firing Range, City of Huntington Beach Community Development Office, Huntington Beach,
California. Managed the preparation of a Remedial
Investigation and RAP for the City of Huntington Beach in their effort to assess the extent of contamination and remedial options for a former public and police firing range. The project was performed under the oversight of the OCHCA. Relevant issues included soil berms and coal-tar treated wood posts impregnated with lead-shot, shallow landfill conditions (<5- feet), lack of a landfill cap, heavy hydrocarbon contamination, and landfill gas issues. The RAP included remedial options, costing, and an outline for implementation. Special
consideration was given to the fact that the City intended to use the property for future Central Park recreational uses. The project was awarded on technical merit following a public bidding process that required the submittal of a formal proposal and interviews with City officials. Total cost of the project was $150,000, implemented over a 2-year period.

PRESENTATIONS*
Prevalence and Persistence of Hexavalent Chromium During In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Trichloroethylene with Permanganate, Antony D. G. Jones and Carol L. Serlin, ENVIRON, Irvine, CA; Mauricio H. Escobar, ENVIRON, Los Angeles, CA; George D.

Havalias and Maria C. Echarte, American Analytics, Inc., Chatsworth, CA. The 19th Annual AEHS Meeting and West Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments, & Water, San Diego, California, March 2009
Assessment of Microbial Community Composition Throughout In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Trichloroethylene with
Permanganate, Bram Sercu and Patricia Holden, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA; Antony D. G. Jones and Carol L. Serlin, ENVIRON, Irvine, CA; Mauricio H. Escobar, ENVIRON, Los Angeles, CA. The 19th Annual AEHS Meeting and West Coast Conference on Soils, Sediments, & Water, San Diego, California, March 2009
Evaluation of the Effects of ISCO on TCE Impacted Ground Water in Weathered Granitic Mass, Mauricio H. Escobar, ENVIRON, Los Angeles, CA; Antony D. G. Jones and Carol L. Serlin, ENVIRON, Irvine, CA. The 6th International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, San Diego, California, September 2008
Assessing Sources of Hexavalent Chromium during In-Situ Chemical Oxidation of Trichloroethylene with Permanganate, Antony D.

G. Jones and Carol L. Serlin, ENVIRON, Irvine, CA; Mauricio H.

Escobar, ENVIRON, Los Angeles, CA. The 6th International Conference on Oxidation and Reduction Technologies for InSitu Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, San Diego, California, September 2008
Aggressive DNAPL Remedial Program Replaces Conventional Methods and Facilitates Property Transaction, Mauricio H.

Escobar, Bita Tabatabai, and Douglas Jones, ENVIRON, Irvine, CA. The 4th International Conference on Oxidation and
Reduction Technologies for In-Situ Treatment of Soil and Groundwater, Chicago, Illinois, October 2005
.

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
1 Rocio Quiñones
Project Scientist

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
More than eight years of cumulative environmental consulting experience. Began as a Due Diligence Project Manager with AEI Consultants in June 2013. Joined Roux’ Long Beach office as a Project Scientist in December 2020.

TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
Provide comprehensive phase I/II environmental site assessments and investigations examining potential impacts on soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. Other areas of focus include litigation support including historical research, agency file reviews, and report writing.

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
ASTM E1527-13 Phase I ESAs
• Primary author of numerous Phase I ESAs conducting historical document review including agency files, aerial photographs, Sanborn fire insurance maps and site inspections for multiple sites in the greater Los Angeles basin. Compiled assessment observations in a Phase I report according to ASTM E1527-13 standard.
• Sites with Phase I ESA experience include current and historical industrial facilities, current oil production facility, school sites, agricultural sites, and multi-tenant commercial properties. • Project Scientist for an inactive steel mill in San Bernardino County, California. Performed site walk, interviews with key personnel, reviewed regulatory agency records including remediation reports, and identified data gaps in previous investigations. • Project Scientist for former chemical manufacturing facility in Northern California. Site under oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for releases of volatile organic compounds to soil, soil vapor, and groundwater. Reviewed previous investigation and remediation reports and assisted in writing a workplan for proposed remediation. • Project Scientist for current manufacturing facility / former plating facility located within a regional groundwater plume in Orange County, California. Reviewed regional groundwater reports and prepared a site investigation workplan to investigate potential on-site impacts to soil, soil vapor, and groundwater.

Site Investigation and Remediation
• Planned, oversaw, and managed several Phase II Environmental Site Assessments.

Conducted field investigations, completed data analyses, preparation of reports for submittal to regulatory agencies, and the provision of recommendations for remediation. • Experience includes Phase II subsurface investigations, soil sampling, and soil vapor sampling.

Site types include automotive repair and former manufacturing facilities. • Coordinate agency permitting and regulations, multiple subcontractors (geophysical, driller, laboratories, etc..), site personnel, and internal and client communication to ensure projects progress smoothly and any obstacles or delays are minimized and conveyed to clients as early as possible.
• Project Scientist for a soil investigation at an active large-scale printing facility in Orange County, California. Field work included coring, hand augering, and collection of soil samples to quantify potential impacts due to historical operations as part of property transaction due diligence.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Main: (310) 897-4900
Direct: (562) 446-8638
Email : [email protected]
Website: www.rouxinc.com
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway
Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804

EDUCATION
BA, Environmental Earth
Science, University of
California, Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
NRPP Certified Residential
Measurement Provider, NRPP
ID 111695 RT (2021)
SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust
Control Cert. # SC2103-
010405-10425 (2021)

PROFESSIONAL TRAININGS
Adult First Aid/CPR/AED
American Red Cross
OSHA 40-Hour HAZWOPER
(2021)
2217.0031L102/LR
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450 ■ Long Beach, California 90804 ■ +1.310.879.4900 ■ www.rouxinc.com California ■ Illinois ■ Massachusetts ■ New Jersey ■ New York ■ Texas ■ Virginia

March 14, 2024
Steven Perales
Director, Industrial Acquisitions & Development
Shea Properties
130 Vantis Drive, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Re: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report, Line E (Proposed Irrigation Channel), North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Perales:

Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) has prepared this Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report (Phase II Report) for Shea Properties (Client), to summarize the findings of shallow soil sampling conducted along portions of Line E (Proposed Irrigation Channel), North Sanderson Avenue, and Record Road in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California (Site; Figure 1). Roux completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated January 30, 2024, which identified a recognized environmental concern (REC) associated with potential impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-Site soils within Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 9 from agricultural operations (row crops). To address the identified environmental concern, Roux collected composite and discrete soil samples from eleven locations (quadrants) across the Site to establish baseline conditions and identify potential impacts in the shallow soil associated with historical agricultural use. Soil sampling was conducted in general accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties, dated August 7, 2008.

BACKGROUND
The Site consists of a proposed irrigation channel alignment and traverses nine individual parcels (collectively identified as the Parent Property) identified by Riverside County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 436-170-008, 436-170-016, 436-170-001, 436-030-004, 436-010-003, 432-030-012, 432-030- 010, 432-030-006, and 430-100-018 (Parcels 1 through 9). According to Site representatives, agricultural production at the Site has included watermelon, corn, and grain for animal feed. At the time of Roux’s Phase II fieldwork, the Site was fallow agricultural land.

According to historical aerial photographs, agricultural operations (row crops) have been conducted on Subject Property areas within Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 since at least 1949. Previous site investigations conducted within Parcels 6, 7, and 8 did not identify significant evidence of soil contamination associated with historical crop growth. Parcel 9 appeared developed for agricultural use circa 1975 and again in 2023. The potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-site soils within Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 9 was identified in Roux’s Phase I ESA as a REC. Typical pesticide uses during this time period included the use of arsenic-based and lead-based pesticides (up until the 1960s) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs, 1940s to 1970s).

Mr. Steven Perales
March 14, 2024

Page 2 ends

ROUX │ Phase II Environmental Investigation Letter Report 2217.0031L102/LR Pre-Field Activities
Prior to the start of field activities, Roux prepared a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to ensure worker safety. In addition to containing information regarding Roux’s standard safety practices, the HASP contained information about potential hazards related to Site activities and provided the locations and contact information of nearby emergency services. Field workers acknowledged their familiarity with all safety procedures and indicated their intent to follow the HASP by signing the HASP after the tailgate safety meeting, which took place at the beginning of each field day. All personnel working in the exclusion zone were Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trained, consistent with federal regulation 29 CFR 1910.120. At least 48 hours prior to fieldwork, the Site boundary was marked in white paint and Underground Service Alert (USA) of Southern California was notified of the intended work (USA Ticket Numbers A240431099-00A and A240431109-00A). USA notified companies and agencies that may have underground utilities in the vicinity to mark their respective utilities on the ground with spray paint so that they were avoided during drilling.

Shallow Soil Sampling
Between February 15 and February 16, 2024, a total of 54 soil samples were collected from eleven quadrants (Figures 2 and 3). Four samples were collected with a trowel from each quadrant and composited in the field into a laboratory-provided glass jar, for a total of thirteen (13) composite samples (P9-Q1 through P3-Q11), including two duplicate composite samples (P9-Q2-DUP and P4-Q6-DUP). In addition, one randomly selected discrete soil sample was collected from each quadrant in parcels 3, 4, and 5 (eight total) (P5-P5-1 through P3-Q11-1), including one duplicate sample (P4-Q7-1-DUP).

All soil samples were collected across the Site at a depth of 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs), as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Sampling equipment was cleaned in a solution of laboratory-grade detergent and rinsed with distilled water prior to sample collection at each quadrant location.

Composite and discrete soil samples were labeled with unique sample identifiers, placed on ice, and transported under proper chain-of-custody procedures to Enthalpy Analytical (Enthalpy) of Orange, California, a California-certified laboratory, for analysis. A total of 13 composite soil samples (11 primary and 2 duplicate) were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) by USEPA Method 8081A. A total of 8 discrete soil samples (7 primary and 1 duplicate) were analyzed for lead and arsenic by USEPA Method 6010B.

RESULTS
Analytical results were compared to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and/or Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3 DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC SLs) for commercial/industrial soil. In addition, total lead and arsenic concentrations were compared with regional background levels, as presented in Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils1 and Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil2. Summaries of analytical results are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The analytical laboratory report is provided in Appendix A. 1 Bradford, G. R., Change, A. C., Page, A. L., Bakhtar, D., Frampton, J. A., and Wright, H. Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. March 1996.
2 Chernoff, G., Bosan, W., and Oudiz, D. and DTSC, Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil. March 2008.

Mr. Steven Perales
March 14, 2024

Page 3 ends

ROUX │ Phase II Environmental Investigation Letter Report 2217.0031L102/LR Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil
No OCP constituents were reported at concentrations above their respective laboratory method reporting limits (MRLs), as presented in Table 1. All MRLs were below applicable USEPA RSLs and DTSC SLs.

Arsenic in Soil
Arsenic was detected above the laboratory reporting limit in all eight samples at concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 1.4 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Arsenic was detected above the DTSC SL of 0.36 mg/kg for commercial/industrial soil; however, detections of arsenic did not exceed the regional background concentration of 12 mg/kg in any sample (Table 2). Detections of arsenic did not exceed the USEPA RSL of 3.0 mg/kg for commercial/industrial soil.

Lead in Soil
Lead was detected above the laboratory reporting limit in all eight samples at concentrations ranging from 1.8 to 2.4 mg/kg, well below the DTSC SL for commercial/industrial soil of 500 mg/kg and USEPA RSL for commercial/industrial soil of 800 mg/kg (Table 2).

CLOSING
Should you have any questions or require any further information regarding the contents of this Report, please do not hesitate to contact Mauricio Escobar by telephone at 310-480-2561 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mauricio H. Escobar, P.G. - CA
Principal Geologist
Enclosures:

Table 1 Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil
Table 2 Arsenic and Lead in Soil
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Soil Sampling Locations – Parcel 9
Figure 3 Soil Sampling Locations – Parcels 3, 4, and 5
Attachment A Laboratory Analytical Reports
Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California 2217.0031L102/CVRS ROUX
TABLES

1. Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil

2. Arsenic and Lead in Soil
Table 1
Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil
Line E (Proposed Irrigation Channel), North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California
Sample ID
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet bgs) Date Sampled
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
4,4'-DDD
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
4,4'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Chlordane (Technical)
360 1300 2500 NS 630 180 330 NS 140 9300 250000 NS 4900000 9600 NS NS 8500 4100000 2100 7700240 820 2000 NS 630 180 330 NS 93 9300 160000 NS 3200000 6200 NS NS 7100 2600000 1200 6100 P9-Q1 0.5 2/16/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 <99 <50P9-Q2 0.5 2/16/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 <99 <50 P9-Q2-DUP 0.5 2/16/2024 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 P9-Q3 0.5 2/16/2024 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51P9-Q4 0.5 2/16/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 <99 <50P5-Q5 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51P4-Q6 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <100 <50 P4-Q6-DUP 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51 P4-Q7 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <100 <50P4-Q8 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <100 <50P4-Q9 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <9.9 <99 <50 P4-Q10 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <5.1 <10 <100 <51P3-Q11 0.5 2/15/2024 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <10 <100 <50 Notes:OCPs = organochlorine pesticidesUSEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agencyµg/Kg = microgram per kilogrambgs = below ground surfaceNS = No standard establishedUSEPA RSL = USEPA Regional Screening Levels for Soil, Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 1.0, November 2023.

Analytical Method
Units
USEPA Industrial Soil RSLs
DTSC Commercial/Industrial Soil SL
USEPA 8081
ug/Kg
Italics indicates duplicate sample<X = analyte not detected above laboratory RDLDTSC SL = Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3, Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) for Soil, revised May 2022.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Table 2
Arsenic and Lead in Soil
Line E (Proposed Irrigation Channel), North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California
Sample ID
Approximate Sample
Depth (feet bgs) Date Sampled
ArsenicLead
12a 12.4-97.1

3.0 800

0.36 500*
P5-Q5-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.4 2.2
P4-Q6-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.2 2.2
P4-Q7-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.4 2.1
P4-Q7-1-DUP 0.5 2/15/2024 1.0 1.8
P4-Q8-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.3 2.1
P4-Q9-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.4 2.1
P4-Q10-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.2 2.4
P3-Q11-1 0.5 2/15/2024 1.4 2.2
Notes:

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
* SL is for "Lead and Compounds"
mg/Kg = milligram per kilogram
bgs = below ground surface
NS = No standard established
Bold indicates that sample exceeds laboratory reporting detection limit (RDL) Highlight indicates detection exceeds at least one SL
USEPA RSL - Industrial Soil
DTSC Commercial/Industrial Soil SL
USEPA RSL = USEPA Regional Screening Level for industrial soil, dated November 2023 Italics indicates duplicate sample
1 Bradford, G.R., Chang, A.C., Page, A.L., Bakhtar, D., Frampton, J.A., and Wright, H., 1996, Background of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils, Kearney Foundation of Soil Sciences Special Report, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California a
Upper-bound background concentrations from Chernoff, G., Bosan, W., and Outiz, D., DTSC. Determination of a Southern California Regional Background Arsenic Concentration in Soil.

DTSC SL = Department of Toxic Substances Control Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3 Screening Level for industrial/commercial soil, revised May 2022 Analytical Method USEPA 6010B
Units mg/Kg
Typical range for California Soil1

Page 1 of 1 ends

Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California 2217.0031L102/CVRS ROUX

FIGURES

1. Site Location Map

2. Soil Sampling Locations – Parcel 9

3. Soil Sampling Locations – Parcels 3, 4, and 5

RECORD ROAD
NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE 2 ORANGE PROPOSED IRRIGATION CHANNEL (SUBJECT PROPERTY) APPROXIMATE PARENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY BUFFER AND SUPPORT AREAS APPROXIMATE WATER WELL LOCATION RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION (REC) OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE (OEF) LEGEND Prepared for: Title: Compiled by: Prepared by: Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: ROUX 1 SITE PLAN PROPOSED IRRIGATION CHANNEL NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE AND RECORD AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES J.V. A.W. R.Q. 01/23/2024 AS SHOWN 2217.0025L 002_2217.0031L000_SITE PLAN.DWG \\SRVLACAFP1\LA SHARED\CLIENTS\2217.0031L SHEA SJ IRRIGATION CHANNELS MHE\10CAD\002_2217.0031L000_SITE PLAN.DWG Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 1 0' 1,200' 2,400' NOTES HISTORICAL AGRICULTURAL USE (PARCELS 3, 4, 5 AND 9) ADJOINING DAIRY PONDS PARCEL 9 APN: 430-100-018 PARCEL 8 APN: 432-030-006 PARCEL 6 APN: 432-030-012 PARCEL 5 APN: 436-010-003 PARCEL 7 APN: 432-030-010 PARCEL 4 APN: 436-030-004 PARCEL 2 APN: 436-170-016 PARCEL 1 APN: 436-170-008 PARCEL 3 APN: 436-170-0011 FIGURE 1 122 PARCEL 9 APN: 430-100-018 RECORD AVENUE P9-Q1 P9-Q2 P9-Q3 P9-Q4 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY ORANGE PROPOSED IRRIGATION CHANNEL BUFFER AND SUPPORT AREAS APPROXIMATE WATER WELL LOCATION INDIVIDUAL BORING LOCATION QUADRANT DESIGNATION ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER LEGEND Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 ROUX0' 250' 500' Prepared for: Title: Compiled by: Prepared by: Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: FIGURE 2 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS PARCEL 9 NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE AND RECORD AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES J.V. A.W. R.Q. 03/06/2024 AS SHOWN 2217.0031L 006_2217.0031L000_SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS.DWG P9-Q1 APN S:\CLIENTS\2217.0031L SHEA SJ IRRIGATION CHANNELS MHE\10CAD\006_2217.0031L000_SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS.DWG PARCEL 6 APN: 432-030-012 PARCEL 5 APN: 436-010-003 PARCEL 7 APN: 432-030-010 PARCEL 3 APN: 436-170-001 PARCEL 4 APN: 436-030-004 PARCEL 2 APN: 436-170-016 P5-Q5 P4-Q6 P4-Q7 P4-Q6 P4-Q9 P4-Q10 P3-Q11 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY ORANGE PROPOSED IRRIGATION CHANNEL BUFFER AND SUPPORT AREAS APPROXIMATE WATER WELL LOCATION INDIVIDUAL BORING LOCATION QUADRANT DESIGNATION ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER LEGEND INFO INFO Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 ROUX0' 500' 1000' Prepared for: Title: Compiled by: Prepared by: Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: FIGURE 3 SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS PARCELS 3, 4, AND 5 NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE AND RECORD AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES J.V. A.W. R.Q. 03/06/2024 AS SHOWN 2217.0031L 006_2217.0031L000_SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS.DWG S:\CLIENTS\2217.0031L SHEA SJ IRRIGATION CHANNELS MHE\10CAD\006_2217.0031L000_SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS.DWG P4-Q6 APN Phase II Subsurface Investigation Letter Report
North Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California 2217.0031L102/CVRS ROUX

ATTACHMENT A
Laboratory Analytical Reports
Enthalpy Analytical
931 West Barkley Ave
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 771-6900
enthalpy.com
Lab Job
Number:
502621
Report Level: II
Report Date: 02/28/2024
Analytical Report prepared for:

Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Location: Shea Irrigation Channel, 2217.0025L
Diane Galvan, Project Manager
714-771-9928
[email protected]
This data package has been reviewed for technical correctness and completeness. Release of this data has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or the Manager's designee, as verified by the above signature which applies to this PDF file as well as any associated electronic data deliverable files. The results contained in this report meet all requirements of NELAP and pertain only to those samples which were submitted for analysis. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety.

CA ELAP# 1338, NELAP# 4038, SCAQMD LAP# 18LA0518, LACSD ID# 10105 Authorized for release by:
1 of 24
Sample Summary
Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast
Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Lab Job #: 502621
Location: Shea Irrigation Channel, 2217.0025L
Date Received: 02/16/24
Sample ID Lab ID Collected Matrix
P9-Q1 502621-001 02/16/24 11:11 Soil
P9-Q2 502621-002 02/16/24 11:00 Soil
P9-Q2-DUP 502621-003 02/16/24 11:00 Soil
P9-Q3 502621-004 02/16/24 10:45 Soil
P9-Q4 502621-005 02/16/24 10:20 Soil
P5-Q5 502621-006 02/15/24 15:34 Soil
P5-Q5-1 502621-007 02/15/24 15:35 Soil
P4-Q6 502621-008 02/15/24 15:18 Soil
P4-Q6-DUP 502621-009 02/15/24 15:18 Soil
P4-Q6-1 502621-010 02/15/24 15:17 Soil
P4-Q7 502621-011 02/15/24 14:53 Soil
P4-Q7-1 502621-012 02/15/24 14:52 Soil
P4-Q7-1-DUP 502621-013 02/15/24 14:52 Soil
P4-Q8 502621-014 02/15/24 12:36 Soil
P4-Q8-1 502621-015 02/15/24 12:38 Soil
P4-Q9 502621-016 02/15/24 12:20 Soil
P4-Q9-1 502621-017 02/15/24 12:22 Soil
P4-Q10 502621-018 02/15/24 12:04 Soil
P4-Q10-1 502621-019 02/15/24 12:06 Soil
P3-Q11 502621-020 02/15/24 11:43 Soil
P3-Q11-1 502621-021 02/15/24 11:40 Soil
2 of 24
3 of 24
4 of 24
5 of 24
6 of 24
Rocio Quinones
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Hwy.

Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
Lab Job #: 502621
Location: Shea Irrigation Channel, 2217.0025L
Date Received: 02/16/24
Sample ID: P9-Q1 Lab ID: 502621-001 Collected: 02/16/24 11:11 Matrix: Soil
502621-001 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 9.9 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 99 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 44% %REC 23-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 42% %REC 24-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 1 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 7 of 24
Sample ID: P9-Q2 Lab ID: 502621-002 Collected: 02/16/24 11:00 Matrix: Soil
502621-002 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 9.9 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 99 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 45% %REC 23-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 40% %REC 24-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 2 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 8 of 24
Sample ID: P9-Q2-DUP Lab ID: 502621-003 Collected: 02/16/24 11:00 Matrix: Soil
502621-003 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 44% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 40% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 3 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 9 of 24
Sample ID: P9-Q3 Lab ID: 502621-004 Collected: 02/16/24 10:45 Matrix: Soil
502621-004 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 47% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 43% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 10 of 24
Sample ID: P9-Q4 Lab ID: 502621-005 Collected: 02/16/24 10:20 Matrix: Soil
502621-005 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 9.9 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 99 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 38% %REC 23-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 36% %REC 24-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 5 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 11 of 24
Sample ID: P5-Q5 Lab ID: 502621-006 Collected: 02/15/24 15:34 Matrix: Soil
502621-006 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 48% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 47% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P5-Q5-1 Lab ID: 502621-007 Collected: 02/15/24 15:35 Matrix: Soil
502621-007 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.4 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.2 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
6 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 12 of 24
Sample ID: P4-Q6 Lab ID: 502621-008 Collected: 02/15/24 15:18 Matrix: Soil
502621-008 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 44% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 40% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 7 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 13 of 24
Sample ID: P4-Q6-DUP Lab ID: 502621-009 Collected: 02/15/24 15:18 Matrix: Soil
502621-009 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 47% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 45% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P4-Q6-1 Lab ID: 502621-010 Collected: 02/15/24 15:17 Matrix: Soil
502621-010 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.2 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.2 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
8 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 14 of 24
Sample ID: P4-Q7 Lab ID: 502621-011 Collected: 02/15/24 14:53 Matrix: Soil
502621-011 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 47% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 45% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P4-Q7-1 Lab ID: 502621-012 Collected: 02/15/24 14:52 Matrix: Soil
502621-012 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.4 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.1 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
Sample ID: P4-Q7-1-DUP Lab ID: 502621-013 Collected: 02/15/24 14:52 Matrix: Soil
502621-013 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.0 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 1.8 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
9 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 15 of 24
Sample ID: P4-Q8 Lab ID: 502621-014 Collected: 02/15/24 12:36 Matrix: Soil
502621-014 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 44% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 41% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P4-Q8-1 Lab ID: 502621-015 Collected: 02/15/24 12:38 Matrix: Soil
502621-015 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.3 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.1 mg/Kg 0.95 0.95 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
10 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 16 of 24
Sample ID: P4-Q9 Lab ID: 502621-016 Collected: 02/15/24 12:20 Matrix: Soil
502621-016 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 9.9 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 99 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 39% %REC 23-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 38% %REC 24-120 0.99 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P4-Q9-1 Lab ID: 502621-017 Collected: 02/15/24 12:22 Matrix: Soil
502621-017 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.4 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.1 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
11 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 17 of 24
Sample ID: P4-Q10 Lab ID: 502621-018 Collected: 02/15/24 12:04 Matrix: Soil
502621-018 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 45% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 46% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P4-Q10-1 Lab ID: 502621-019 Collected: 02/15/24 12:06 Matrix: Soil
502621-019 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.2 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.4 mg/Kg 0.98 0.98 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
12 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 18 of 24
Sample ID: P3-Q11 Lab ID: 502621-020 Collected: 02/15/24 11:43 Matrix: Soil
502621-020 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 8081A
Prep Method: EPA 3546
alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES 4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.0 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 50 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Surrogates Limits
TCMX 45% %REC 23-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES
Decachlorobiphenyl 43% %REC 24-120 1 334002 02/26/24 02/27/24 MES Sample ID: P3-Q11-1 Lab ID: 502621-021 Collected: 02/15/24 11:40 Matrix: Soil
502621-021 Analyte Result Qual Units RL DF Batch Prepared Analyzed Chemist Method: EPA 6010B
Prep Method: EPA 3050B
Arsenic 1.4 mg/Kg 0.96 0.96 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW Lead 2.2 mg/Kg 0.96 0.96 333454 02/20/24 02/20/24 SBW
ND Not Detected
13 of 13
Analysis Results for 502621
Results for any subcontracted analyses are not included in this section. 19 of 24
Type: Blank Lab ID: QC1129586 Batch: 333454
Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B
QC1129586 Analyte Result Qual Units RL Prepared Analyzed Arsenic ND mg/Kg 1.0 02/20/24 02/20/24
Lead ND mg/Kg 1.0 02/20/24 02/20/24
Type: Lab Control Sample Lab ID: QC1129587 Batch: 333454 Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B
QC1129587 Analyte Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits Arsenic 96.17 100.0 mg/Kg 96% 80-120
Lead 104.6 100.0 mg/Kg 105% 80-120
Type: Matrix Spike Lab ID: QC1129590 Batch: 333454
Matrix (Source ID): Soil (502621-021) Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B QC1129590 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits DF
Arsenic 101.7 1.352 98.04 mg/Kg 102% 75-125 0.98
Lead 106.0 2.221 98.04 mg/Kg 106% 75-125 0.98
Type: Matrix Spike Duplicate Lab ID: QC1129591 Batch: 333454 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (502621-021) Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B QC1129591 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits RPD
RPD
Lim DF
Arsenic 97.23 1.352 99.01 mg/Kg 97% 75-125 6 35 0.99
Lead 102.1 2.221 99.01 mg/Kg 101% 75-125 5 20 0.99
Type: Post Digest Spike Lab ID: QC1129592 Batch: 333454 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (502621-021) Method: EPA 6010B Prep Method: EPA 3050B QC1129592 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits DF
Arsenic 99.22 1.352 96.15 mg/Kg 102% 75-125 0.96
Lead 103.1 2.221 96.15 mg/Kg 105% 75-125 0.96
1 of 5
Batch QC
20 of 24
Type: Blank Lab ID: QC1131820 Batch: 334002
Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546
QC1131820 Analyte Result Qual Units RL Prepared Analyzed alpha-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
beta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
gamma-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
delta-BHC ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Heptachlor ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Aldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Heptachlor epoxide ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Endosulfan I ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Dieldrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
4,4'-DDE ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Endrin ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Endosulfan II ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Endosulfan sulfate ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
4,4'-DDD ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Endrin aldehyde ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Endrin ketone ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
4,4'-DDT ND ug/Kg 5.1 02/26/24 02/27/24
Methoxychlor ND ug/Kg 10 02/26/24 02/27/24
Toxaphene ND ug/Kg 100 02/26/24 02/27/24
Chlordane (Technical) ND ug/Kg 51 02/26/24 02/27/24
Surrogates Limits
TCMX 56% %REC 23-120 02/26/24 02/27/24
Decachlorobiphenyl 78% %REC 24-120 02/26/24 02/27/24
2 of 5
Batch QC
21 of 24
Type: Lab Control Sample Lab ID: QC1131821 Batch: 334002 Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546
QC1131821 Analyte Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits alpha-BHC 29.52 49.50 ug/Kg 60% 22-129
beta-BHC 32.56 49.50 ug/Kg 66% 28-125
gamma-BHC 30.65 49.50 ug/Kg 62% 22-128
delta-BHC 31.63 49.50 ug/Kg 64% 24-131
Heptachlor 34.38 49.50 ug/Kg 69% 18-124
Aldrin 29.43 49.50 ug/Kg 59% 23-120
Heptachlor epoxide 31.53 49.50 ug/Kg 64% 26-120
Endosulfan I 32.48 49.50 ug/Kg 66% 25-126
Dieldrin 32.04 49.50 ug/Kg 65% 23-124
4,4'-DDE 33.62 49.50 ug/Kg 68% 28-121
Endrin 37.26 49.50 ug/Kg 75% 25-127
Endosulfan II 33.67 49.50 ug/Kg 68% 29-121
Endosulfan sulfate 33.84 49.50 ug/Kg 68% 30-121
4,4'-DDD 32.84 49.50 ug/Kg 66% 26-120
Endrin aldehyde 21.40 49.50 ug/Kg 43% 10-120
Endrin ketone 33.54 49.50 ug/Kg 68% 28-125
4,4'-DDT 43.06 49.50 ug/Kg 87% # 22-125
Methoxychlor 46.15 49.50 ug/Kg 93% # 28-130
Surrogates
TCMX 29.02 49.50 ug/Kg 59% 23-120
Decachlorobiphenyl 38.59 49.50 ug/Kg 78% 24-120
3 of 5
Batch QC
22 of 24
Type: Matrix Spike Lab ID: QC1131866 Batch: 334002
Matrix (Source ID): Soil (502602-002) Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546 QC1131866 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits DF
alpha-BHC 31.74 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 63% 46-120 2
beta-BHC 35.11 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 70% 41-120 2
gamma-BHC 33.48 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 67% 41-120 2
delta-BHC 32.98 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 66% 38-123 2
Heptachlor 37.28 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 75% 39-120 2
Aldrin 33.84 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 68% 34-120 2
Heptachlor epoxide 35.33 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 71% 43-120 2
Endosulfan I 36.20 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 72% 45-120 2
Dieldrin 34.89 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 70% 45-120 2
4,4'-DDE 37.49 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 75% 34-120 2
Endrin 40.45 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 81% 40-120 2
Endosulfan II 34.85 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 70% 41-120 2
Endosulfan sulfate 33.79 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 68% 42-120 2
4,4'-DDD 35.08 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 70% 41-120 2
Endrin aldehyde 28.76 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 58% 30-120 2
Endrin ketone 34.79 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 70% 45-120 2
4,4'-DDT 45.25 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 90% # 35-127 2
Methoxychlor 48.08 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 96% # 42-136 2
Surrogates
TCMX 31.46 50.00 ug/Kg 63% 23-120 2
Decachlorobiphenyl 39.38 50.00 ug/Kg 79% 24-120 2
4 of 5
Batch QC
23 of 24
Type: Matrix Spike Duplicate Lab ID: QC1131867 Batch: 334002 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (502602-002) Method: EPA 8081A Prep Method: EPA 3546 QC1131867 Analyte Result
Source
Sample
Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits RPD
RPD
Lim DF
alpha-BHC 32.56 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 65% 46-120 3 30 2
beta-BHC 38.98 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 78% 41-120 10 30 2
gamma-BHC 34.59 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 69% 41-120 3 30 2
delta-BHC 37.22 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 74% 38-123 12 30 2
Heptachlor 38.52 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 77% 39-120 3 30 2
Aldrin 36.51 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 73% 34-120 8 30 2
Heptachlor epoxide 38.92 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 78% 43-120 10 30 2 Endosulfan I 40.39 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 81% 45-120 11 30 2
Dieldrin 39.31 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 79% 45-120 12 30 2
4,4'-DDE 43.09 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 86% 34-120 14 30 2
Endrin 46.71 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 93% 40-120 14 30 2
Endosulfan II 42.09 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 84% 41-120 19 30 2
Endosulfan sulfate 42.45 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 85% 42-120 23 30 2 4,4'-DDD 42.10 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 84% 41-120 18 30 2
Endrin aldehyde 35.61 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 71% 30-120 21 30 2 Endrin ketone 41.69 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 83% 45-120 18 30 2
4,4'-DDT 54.29 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 109% # 35-127 18 30 2
Methoxychlor 55.63 ND 50.00 ug/Kg 111% # 42-136 15 30 2 Surrogates
TCMX 31.89 50.00 ug/Kg 64% 23-120 2
Decachlorobiphenyl 48.50 50.00 ug/Kg 97% 24-120 2
#
CCV drift outside limits; average CCV drift within limits per method requirements
ND Not Detected
5 of 5
Batch QC
24 of 24
Preliminary Design Report for Line E
San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District May 15, 2025

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E
Table of Contents
Section 1 Background ............................................................................... 1

1.1 Scope of Work _______________________________________________________________ 3

1.2 Stakeholder Involvement_______________________________________________________ 4 Section 2 Proposed Project ...................................................................... 5

2.1 Location _____________________________________________________________________ 5

2.2 Design Rationale _____________________________________________________________ 7

2.3 Access and Easements ________________________________________________________ 8

2.4 FEMA Flood Plain Zone _______________________________________________________ 10

2.5 Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 12

2.5.1 Hydrology _____________________________________________________________ 12

2.5.2 Hydraulics _____________________________________________________________ 12

2.5.3 Geotechnical Considerations ____________________________________________ 12

2.5.4 MWD Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing ___________________________________ 13 Section 3 Hydrology ................................................................................. 15

3.1 Existing MDP Hydrology ______________________________________________________ 15

3.2 Proposed MDP Hydrology ____________________________________________________ 17

3.2.1 Design Flow Rates _____________________________________________________ 19

3.2.2 Local Hydrology Analysis at Sanderson Avenue ____________________________ 19

3.2.3 Local Flow Pattern at Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 _____________________________ 21 Section 4 Hydraulics ................................................................................ 23

4.1 Model Parameters ___________________________________________________________ 23

4.1.1 Boundary Conditions ___________________________________________________ 23

4.1.2 Model Domain and 2D Grid ______________________________________________ 26

4.1.3 Topology ______________________________________________________________ 26

4.1.4 Manning’s “n” Value ____________________________________________________ 26

4.1.5 Model Time Step _______________________________________________________ 27

4.1.6 Model Error ___________________________________________________________ 27

4.2 Modeled Project Design Features ______________________________________________ 27

4.2.1 Freeboard _____________________________________________________________ 27

4.2.2 Drop Structures ________________________________________________________ 28 Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

4.2.3 Training Berms ________________________________________________________ 28

4.2.4 Scour Potential ________________________________________________________ 30

4.2.5 Onsite Basin, Confluence Basin, and Pump Station _________________________ 30

4.3 Hydraulic Model Results ______________________________________________________ 36 Section 5 Right of Way & Maintenance .................................................. 38 Section 6 Recommendations .................................................................. 41 Section 7 Next Steps ............................................................................... 42 Section 8 References ............................................................................... 43 Appendices ............................................................................................... 44 Appendix A Long Axis Plan
Appendix B MWD Approval Email - Geotechnical Report & Structural Report Appendix C Hydrology
Appendix D Hydraulics
Appendix E Hydroseed Mix
Appendix F Reference
Figures
Figure 1 – Boundary of San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan 1 Figure 2 – MDP Facilities Included in the 2013 EIR 2
Figure 3– Tributary Area of Proposed Line E Project 3
Figure 4 – Project Components 6
Figure 5 – Parcel Ownership Map 9
Figure 6 – FEMA Flood Zone 11
Figure 7 - Preferred structural design of Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 crossing. 14 Figure 8 – Original MDP Hydrology 16
Figure 9 – Proposed MDP Hydrology 18
Figure 10 – Local Hydrology 20
Figure 11 – Local Drainage & Facilities 22
Figure 12– Boundary Conditions 24
Figure 13 – Profile Along the Centerline of STRDS 28
Figure 14 – Training Berm 29
Figure 15 – Pre- and Post-Project Water Surface Elevations 31 Figure 16 – Basins and Conceptual Pump Station 35
Figure 17 – MDP Line E Maintenance Delineation Lower Reach 39 Figure 18 – MDP Line E Maintenance Delineation Upper Reach 40 Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E
Tables
Table 1 – Existing MDP Hydrology ................................................................................................. 15 Table 2 – Proposed MDP Flow Rates ............................................................................................. 19 Table 3– Model Domains ................................................................................................................. 26 Table 4 – Roughness Coefficients Used in this Study .................................................................. 26 Table 5 – Model Time Steps ............................................................................................................ 27 Table 6– 2D HEC-RAS Model Error ................................................................................................ 27 Table 7 -Basin’s & Pump Station Details ....................................................................................... 33

•
•
o
•
o

•
o
o
•
o
•
•
•
•

FIGURE 5 - PARCEL OWNERSHIP MAP Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.
430100018
430100013
430100012
ONSITE
SJCCSP
430100002
430100011
436030001 436080002
436170016
436170001
436010003
LEGEND
PARCEL

MDP LINE E
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 5 OWNERSHIP 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,000 1,500
I
Feet

APN OWNER
436010003 CHEN GUANG FEI
430100018 SENIOR INFO CARE LLC
430100012 MWD
430100011 MWD
430100002 RAMONA LAND DEVELOPMENT
436170001 GOLDEN OCEAN REALTY LLC
430100013 5 POINTS INC
436170016 CALIFORNIA EQUINE RETIREMENT FOUNDATION INC
436030001 RENNSPORT PROPERY LLC
436080002 JAB MILL CREEK

FIGURE 8 - EXISTING MDP HYDROLOGY Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

EMWD
Line 2
LINE G
LINE Y

EXISTING LOW

FLOW CHANNEL
LINE Z
EMWD

RECHARGE PONDS

SAN JACINTO
LINE E-2

RESERVOIR
LINE W
EX. 60" CULVERT
LINE V
4,179 cfs
5,825 cfs
3,939 cfs
2,861 cfs
2,729 cfs
2,598 cfs
2,148 cfs

R A M O N A E X P Y

W A R R E N R D

S A N D E R S O N A V E

D E A N Z A D R

F U T U R E

D E A N Z A S T

F U T U R E R E C O R D R D
D4
D-North
W8
W9
City
E-North
G-Downstream
Confluence
W7
SJ-RES
W10
G-South
E-2
W5-Cove
G-3
LEGEND

CONCRETE CHANNEL

EARTHEN CHANNEL

INLET-SPILLWAY

TRM CHANNEL

SJCCSP BOUNDARY

ROAD CL

FLOW PATH

FUTURE MDP FACILITES
GOLDEN_OCEAN_SP
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 8 ORGINAL MDP HYD 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,0001,500
I
Feet
100
Q = XX cfs
•••••••
FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED HYDROLOGY Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

W10
Confluence
W9
W8
W7
W5-Cove
D4
E-2 SJ-RES
E-North G-South
G-Downstream
D-North-A
EMWD
D-North-B

R A M O N A E X P Y

W A R R E N R D

S A N D E R S O N A V E

D E A N Z A D R

F U T U R E

D E A N Z A S T

F U T U R E R E C O R D R D LINE G
LINE Y
LINE Z
EMWD

FACILITY

SAN JACINTO

RESERVOIR
LINE E-2
LINE W
Line 2

EXISTING LOW

FLOW CHANNEL
3,550 cfs
5,440 cfs
3,550 cfs
3,800 cfs
3,035 cfs
2,970 cfs
2,970 cfs
LEGEND

CONCRETE CHANNEL

EARTHEN CHANNEL

FLOW PATH

SJCCSP BOUNDARY

ROAD CL

FUTURE MDP FACILITES
GOLDEN_OCEAN_SP
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 9 PROP HYD 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,0001,500
I
Feet
100
Q = XX cfs

FIGURE 10 - LOCAL FLOW ANALYSIS Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

KIRBY ST

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 10 LOCAL HYDROLOGY 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E - SANDERSON DITCH INLET
0 500
I
1,000 1,500
Feet
NODE 100
ELEV = 1501 HP
A=9.5 AC
L= 660 FT
!(
!(
NODE 400
ELEV = 1468
Tc=15.9 min
Q100= 94.2 cfs
A=18.5 AC
L= 1260 FT
A= 21 AC
L= 1430 FT
NODE 200
ELEV = 1489 HP !(
!(
NODE 300
ELEV = 1477 HP
Legend

FLOW PATH

LOCAL HYD BOUNDARY

ROAD CL

MDP LINE E

FIGURE 11 - EXISTING LOCAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

SPILLWAY
EXISTING (2) 24" CULVERTS
54" CULVERT
60" CULVERT

CULVERT SIZE UNKNOWN

STREET HIGHPOINT

CONCRETE DITCH

RAMONA EXPY

WARREN RD

LYON AVE

RAMONA BLVD

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

KIRBY ST

RECORD RD

BYRD ST

ECHO RD

SAVORY LN

ROJO LN

SKY VIEW LN

RANCH VIEW LN

BABBLING PL

AVENA WAY

AIRLIFT ST

STATUE ROW

VIBRANT GLEN

BEAM HOLLOW

YUKON DR

CHARDONNAY PL

LECHUGA WAY

OLD POTTER RD

PRAIRIE GLEN PL

GLISTEN TRAILS

WHEATFIELD WAY

STREAM POINTE

MISTY MEADOW LN

COUNTRY FAIR CT

CARAWAY CT
LEGEND

DE ANZA DR

EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES

EXISTING FLOW PATTERNS
EXISTING 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

MDP LINE E
RIVERSIDE CO. ROADS
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 11 LOCAL DRAINAGE & FACILITIES 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,000 1,500
I
Feet
•
oo
•
ooo
▪
•
ooo
1510
1450
1480
1460
1490
1500
1470
1500
1460
1500
1460
1490
1460
1450
1470
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1500
1500
1460
1490
1460
1500
1500
1480
1460
1490
1460
1470
1500
1480
1450
1480
1490
1510
1490
1480
1460
1470
1500
1500
1470
1450
1460
1460
1480
1470
1460
1490
1460
1450
1490
1460
1450
1500
1490
1500
1460
1500
1470
1480
1450
1490
1490
1450
1460
1460
1500
1480
1450
1450
1470
1490
1470
1470
1450
1470
1500
1500
1500
1460
1460
1470
1460
1460
1460
1500
1460
1480
1490
1500
1450
1450
1450
1460
1490
1490
1460
1450
1490
1450
1500
1450
1500
1480
1450
RAMONA
LYON
WARREN

SANDERSON

DE ANZA
RECORD
KIRBY
SCOTT
BYRD
ECHO
CHASE
JULIAN
SERENA
ROJO
PALM

SUNSWEPT
SAVORY

AMHERST
BAILEY
YOUNG

UPPERLINE
AVENA

CYPRESS

SKY VIEW

BLODGETT
REEDS
AMOR

WINDSONG
CANVAS
NICE

AIRLIFT

RANCH VIEW

SUNNYSIDE

BABBLING

SAGECREST
YUKON

STRATUS

LECHUGA

COTTONWOOD
LILA
BELLO

ENCANTO
BLAZE

RAINTREE

WHEATFIELD

CHARDONNAY

OLD POTTER

STATUE ROW

BORDEAUX

WHEELBARROW

PRAIRIE GLEN
HAYLOF

WINDRIDER

AUTUMN MIST

CLARITA
AUSTIN

MISTY MEADOW

BRILLIANCE

CORTINA

FLOURISH HILL

GLISTEN TRAILS
GLIDER

TRINKET

FLICKERING

WEST LINN

RADIANT
GRAVO
CIRRUS

SPRING MIST
SOMBRA

WAGON CREEK

HILLSBORO

COUNTRY FAIR

CARAWAY

DAYBREAK
MIRAGE

COOL BREEZE

SANTOLINA

DE ANZA
RAMONA
FIGURE 12 - BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

LEGEND

MDL LINE E
100-YEAR PROJECT FLOODPLAIN
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

MAJOR CONTOURS

MINOR CONTOURS
Riverside Co. roads
1D EXTENT

LOW FLOW MESH BOUNDARY

INLET MESH BOUNDARY
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 12 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
LINE E
1D HEC-RAS MODEL
0 500 1,0001,500
I
Feet

FOR MORE DETAILS ON BOUNDARY CONDITIONS PLEASE SEE HEC-RAS EXHIBITS LINE E
2D HEC-RAS MODEL
LINE E
2D HEC-RAS MODEL
•
o

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 30 ends

2D HEC-RAS modeling is used to demonstrate that pre- and post-project velocities will be essentially equal over the EMWD and MWD easements and the existing cover over the EMWD and MWD pipes will not be scoured. The pre-project (existing condition) water surface elevations and velocities are shown in Appendix D 2D HEC-RAS Inlet Existing Model and proposed postproject water surface elevations and velocities are shown in Appendix D 2D HEC-RAS Inlet Proposed Model. Modeling results indicate slow velocities and shallow depths in the 100-Year event scenario. However, where velocities exceed 6 fps, the slope of the training berm will be armored with riprap or a cutoff wall to protect against scour – the specifics of which will be determined in the final design. Modeling results of the 2D HEC-RAS analysis are in Appendix D.

The 100-Year floodplain limits within the Line E footprint are shown in Figure 15.

The placement of the training berms was chosen to avoid disturbing the riparian habitat that is in the area below the spillway. Indeed, the training berms are placed an additional 50 to 100 feet from the riparian habitat to account for temporary construction impacts that might occur from building the berms.

4.2.4 Scour Potential
HEC-RAS was used to model flows in the following three scenarios:
• To assess the highest scour potential conditions, such as in a freshly excavated bare earth unvegetated channel, an “n” value of 0.02 was used. All of the proposed scour mitigation measures will be designed using n = 0.02.
• To assess the post-project condition with a vegetated channel of minimal vegetation density, an “n” value of 0.03 was used, and n = 0.04 was used to represent flows in a vegetated channel with maximum vegetation density. It should be noted that a “n” value of 0.03 was used to plot the HGL on the long plot in Appendix A.

4.2.5 Onsite Basin, Confluence Basin, and Pump Station
The SJCCSP proposes an “Onsite Basin” to capture onsite stormwater and nuisance flows, which works with the proposed MDP Confluence Basin and both basins will be pumped out by a proposed pump station to be located on the SJCCSP property, which will discharge flows into a downstream segment of Line E (Figure 16).

FIGURE 15 - EXISTING FLOODPLAIN & PRELIMINARY POST PROJECT FLOODPLAIN Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

WARREN RD

LYON AVE

RAMONA BLVD

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

RAMONA EXPY

KIRBY ST

BYRD ST

RECORD RD
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 15 PRE - POST FLOODPLAIN 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 500 1,000 1,500
I
Feet

MDP LINE E BACKWATER LIMIT
Legend

INLET & CHANNEL WSE LIMIT

SJCCSP BOUNDARY

ROAD CL
100-YR PRELIMINARY POST PROJECT FLOODPLAIN
100-YR FLOODPLAIN SJR ONLY
100-YEAR EXISTING FLOODPLAIN SJR & SJ RES

MDP LINE E

FIGURE 16 - BASIN & CONCEPTUAL PUMP STATION
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 16 PUMP STATION 3-2025.aprx; Map created 19 Mar 2025

MDP LINE E
0 100200300
I
Feet

PROPOSED PUMP STATION
(WET WELL AND

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT) ONSITE BASIN INLET
WEIR

CONFLUENCE BASIN INLET

PUMP STATION
CONNECTION TO LINE E (2) 24" CML/CMC
24" RCP
36" RCP FAULT
(4)14" CML/CMC

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 37 ends

On the other hand, where the concrete-lined portion of Line E outlets to the existing downstream/offsite low flow channel to the north of the Project, as shown in Figure 11, the velocity increases to more than existing. In addition, if the San Jacinto Reservoir overflows, but the San Jacinto River is not overflowing and flooding the area, the functionality of the 60-inch diameter RCP culvert under Ramona Expressway that drains the low flow channel to which the Project drains, is absolutely critical to successful drainage of the study area. However, that capacity is limited and by the time the peak flow from Line E arrives to the culvert at Ramona Expressway, the area will already be inundated. Detailed analysis of offsite downstream properties is not included in this study.

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 38 ends

Section 5 Right of Way & Maintenance
Maintenance obligations are currently expected to be assigned as follows, overall maintenance and easement areas are defined in Figure 17 MDP Line E Lower Reach (outlet) and Figure 18 MDP Line E Upper Reach (Inlet):
• Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Project Components
RCFC&WCD would maintain Training Berms & inlet line and grade via a drainage easement and slope easement, Line E channel (with 20-foot access roads) and owned right of way (includes Line E downstream of confluence basin to MWD right of way and starting from station 80+95 per the Long Plot in Appendix A (from station 80+95 to 82+25 access road transitions from a 15’ to 20’), RCBs, and drop structures within Right of Way, Line E and over the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 & MWD right-of-way via a maintenance easement, geotechnical and structural measures to protect Casa Loma Barrel No 1. • City of San Jacinto
Project Components
City of San Jacinto would maintain the Line E channel segment (with 15-foot access roads) within the SJCCSP boundary via a drainage easement, onsite water quality basin, Confluence Basin, and Pump Station. The city-maintained segment of Line E ends at the downstream end of the first drop structure, which is station 80+95 per the Long Plot in Appendix A.

It should be noted that MWD will not maintain structural (structural protection of Casa Loma No. 1) or geotechnical (lightweight fill) design components of this project.

FIGURE 17 - MDP LINE E MAINTENANCE DELINEATION Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

RAMONA BLVD

FUTURE RECORD RD

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

KIRBY ST
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 17 MAINTENANCE 3-2025.aprx; Map created 13 May 2025 0 500
I
1,000 1,500
Feet

LOWER REACH
SEE EXHIBIT 18 FOR INLET
Legend

CITY OF SAN JACINTO EASEMENT

RCFC&WCD MWD EASEMENT

RCTC FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY

RCFC&WCD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

SJCCSP BOUNDARY
SR79
MWD
CASA LOMA BARREL NO. 1

MWD RIGHT OF WAY

MDP LINE E
100-YR PRELIMINARY POST PROJECT FLOODPLAIN
FIGURE 18 - MDP LINE E MAINTENANCE DELINEATION Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020; USDA NAIP, 2016.

KIRBY ST

SANDERSON AVE

EMWD FACILITY

SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR
H:\2023\23-0008\GIS\Drainage\PDF Figures\2025 PDR - ARC PRO CONVERSIONS\FIGURE 18 MAINTENANCE 3-2025.aprx; Map created 13 May 2025 0 250
I
500 750
Feet
A

TRAINING BERM EXTENTS
LEGEND

RCTC FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY

RCFC&WCD MAINTENANCE EASEMENT

RCFC&WCD SLOPE EASEMENT

MWD & EMWD EASEMENTS

RCFC&WCD PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

GOLDEN OCEAN PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

SJCCSP BOUNDARY

ROAD CL
100-YR PRELIMINARY POST PROJECT FLOODPLAIN

MDP LINE E

UPPER REACH
A
SEE EXHIBIT 16 FOR OUTLET
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 41 ends

Section 6 Recommendations
Based on the analysis presented herein, it is recommended that the City and RCFC&WCD approve the proposed modifications to the MDP Line E alignment. It is also recommended that Line V be removed because this drainage area will now be accommodated by an onsite system on the SJCCSP site. MDP Line E-2 will have to cross MWD Casa Loma Barrel No. 2 to connect to MDP Line E. Feasibility of MDP Line E-2 is not within the scope of this project.

Final design of the Line E system will take place in conjunction with the development of the SJCCSP, Section 7 outlines the final design items. Other future projects will design downstream MDP facilities, Line G and Line E-2 as well as other backbone facilities throughout the City. It should also be noted that the connection of MDP Line E to the San Jacinto Spillway while crossing Casa Loma Barrel No. 2 and the San Diego Pipeline, is planned as a future project. It is recommended that the flow rates established in this report be utilized for the Final Design of Line E and Line G.

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 42 ends

Section 7 Next Steps
Following the approval of the PDR the following items will need to be developed, coordinated, or designed in the final design stage of MDP Line E development. The following list includes long lead items but is not exhaustive of all design elements. • MWD
o Finalize structural design for Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 for final design o Finalize geotechnical analysis for final design
o Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 blowoff manhole structural design to proposed grade o Lightweight fill extents and protection extents
o Obtain final MWD approval on structural and geotechnical construction plans and reports
o Easement for construction and RCFC&WCD to maintain Line E from MWD’s Real Estate Group
• City of San Jacinto
o Onsite & Confluence Basin
 Size, freeboard, weir design, and scour protection
o Pump Station
 Final pump selection, mechanical selection, electrical plan, Structural design of wet well
o Easement for the City of San Jacinto to maintain Line E • RCFC&WCD
o Obtain RCFC&WCD approval of freeboard for MDP Line E for areas outside of SJCCSP boundary and within adjacent developments to verify offsite drainage o 20’ access roads within the SJCCSP boundary
o Non-standard RCB structural design, transition structures structural design o Low flow channel per RCFC&WCD CH324, extents and design to be determined o Right of Way Acquisition and Easements for Line E Maintenance (including MWD) o Additional groundwater investigations near inlet
o Construction phasing
• Environmental
o Complete the CEQA process with the City of San Jacinto and obtain regulatory permits for the construction and maintenance of Line E. o City of San Jacinto, as CEQA lead agency adopts Addendum o RCFC&WCD as a CEQA-responsible agency makes Responsible Agency Findings
o Implement mitigation measures identified in the Addendum’s Clarified Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Clarified MMRP)
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 43 ends

Section 8 References
CivilDesign CivilDesign® Corporation and Joseph E. Bonadiman Associates Inc. -
U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS V6.3)
Kleinfelder
Kleinfelder, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Report San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain, San Jacinto California February 2024.

Kleinfelder, Inc. Structures Report San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain, San Jacinto California. February 2024.

LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Hydraulic Design Manual. March 1982.

Lan Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnan, Inc. MS 212 San Jacinto MDP Line E Plan Check No. 2 Account No. 137-0-3-75369. December 18, 2023.Plan Check 1 Lan Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnan, Inc. MS 212 San Jacinto MDP Line E Plan Check No. 1 Account No. 137-0-3-75369. October 20, 2023. Plan Check 2 Lan Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnan, Inc. MS 212 San Jacinto MDP Line E Plan Check No. 1 Account No. 137-0-3-75369. February 9, 2024.

Lan Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnan, Inc. MS 212 San Jacinto MDP Line E Plan Check No. 1 Account No. 137-0-3-75369. October 3, 2024.

MDP Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Master Drainage Plan for the San Jacinto Valley, Zone 4. October 2015.

RCFC(a) Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. Hydrology Manual. April 1978.

RCFC(b) Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. Hydraulic Design Manual. (draft available for comment March 2024).

USDT
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 14, Third Edition, Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels. Publication no. FHWA-NHI-06-086, July 2006.

WEBB(a)
Albert A. Webb Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan and the San Jacinto Regional Area Drainage Plan Amendment (SJV-MDP), SCH 2009041077 for City of San Jacinto. May 2010.

Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan and the San Jacinto Regional Area Drainage Plan Amendment (SJV-MDP), SCH 2009041077, City of San Jacinto, October 2012. (Certified by the San Jacinto City Council on January 14, 2013. Responsible Agency Findings made by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors, October 6, 2015.)
WEBB(b) Albert A. Webb Associates. San Jacinto Valley MDP Line E Alternative Analysis Memorandum. September 7, 2023.

Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 44 ends

Appendices
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Preliminary Design Report for Line E

Page 45 ends

Appendix A Long-Axis Plan

BASIN GATE
A
-
RAMONA BLVD 23-0008 MDP LI SANDERSON AVE CAWSTON AVE

DE ANZA RD
BRIDGE ST 1,001,120 SF BUILDING 6 1,001,120 SF BUILDING 7 70 DOCK HI DOORS 70 DOCK HI DOORS 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 94 DOCK HI DOORS 94 DOCK HI DOORS 70 DOCK HI DOORS 374,610 SF BUILDING 5 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. BASIN CAWSTON AVE 39 DOCK HI DOORS 1,271,600 SF BUILDING 3 BUILDING 11 397,700 SF BUILDING 9 360,685 SF 468,150 SF BUILDING 8 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. BUILDING 10 409,890 SF

EVA ACCESS ONLY EVA ACCESS ONLY

EVA GATE

EVA GATE
EVA GATE EVA GATE EVA GATE EVA GATE 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 1,305,200 SF BUILDING 4 108 DOCK HI DOORS 108 DOCK HI DOORS 35 DOCK HI DOORS 33 DOCK HI DOORS 29 DOCK HI DOORS 49 DOCK HI DOORS 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. DRAINAGE- OPTION 1 & 2 DRAINAGE- OPTION 2 DRAINAGE- OPTION 2 DRAINAGE- OPTION 2 DRAINAGE- OPTION 2 1,022,960 SF BUILDING 2 DE ANZA RD 73 DOCK HI DOORS 967,158 SF BUILDING 1 70 DOCK HI DOORS 73 DOCK HI DOORS 73 DOCK HI DOORS GATE

GATE GATE
GATE

GATE GATE

GATE GATEGATE
GATE
GATE
GATE GATE 70 DOCK HI DOORS
GATE
GATE

GATE GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
GATE
3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ. 3,000 SF OFFICE 3,000 SF MEZZ.

OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #1
(50,000 S.F.) 144 SPACES
110 ROOMS HOTEL #1 (4-STORY) 100 ROOMS HOTEL #2 (4-STORY) QSR # A
(4,150 SF)
QSR # B
(4,150 SF)

PARKING

NO PARKING NO

PARKING NO

PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO
RETAIL
(19,000 SF) FOOD
(10,000 SF) PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

NO PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING NOPARKING NOPARKING

NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO RETAIL
(19,000 SF) FOOD
(10,000 SF)
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #2
(100,000 S.F.) 165 SPACES
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #3
(100,000 S.F.) 163 SPACES
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE #4
(50,000 S.F.) 144 SPACES
BLD'G 'A' (12,000) BLD'G 'C' (12,000)
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1410
1420
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
8+50 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 28+501490 STA: 18+50 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1450
1460
1470
9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+001480
N WEBB
W
E
S

INDEX MAP
SEE SHEET 2
BC
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
150026+50 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 WEBB N W E S MATCH LINE STA. 47+50 MATCH LINE STA. 47+50 SEE SHEET 1
D
E
48+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00 64+00 65+00 66+00 67+00 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 WEBB
N
W E
S MATCH LINE STA. 47+50 MATCH LINE STA. 47+50 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 AGE- OPTION 2 ROWED VEGETATION ROWED VEGETATION ROWED VEGETATION ASPH ASPHASPH ASPH
3,000 SF
DRAINAGE- OPTION 1 & 2 GATE
F
23-0008 MDP LINE E CHANNEL PROFILE
72+00 73+00 74+00 75+00 76+00 77+00 78+00 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 85+00 86+00 87+00 88+00 89+00 90+00 91+00 92+00 93+00 94+00 95+00 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 MATCH LINE STA. 72+00 MATCH LINE STA. 95+00 MATCH LINE STA. 95+00 WEBB
N
W E
S
N WEBB
W
E

S MATCH LINE SEE LEFT

SEE RIGHT MATCH LINE
PIPE

ROWED VEGETATION

ROWED VEGETATION ASPH POST POST G H ROWED VEGETATION ROWED VEGETATION PARKING NO BLD'G 'C' I JK 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 99+00 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 MATCH LINE STA. 95+00 STA. 95+00 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE SEE LEFT
SEE RIGHT MATCH LINE MATCH LINE STA. 124+25
WEBB N W E S N WEBB WE SMATCH LINE STA. 124+50
110 ROOMS
HOTEL #1 (4-STORY) 100 ROOMS HOTEL #2 (4-STORY)
QSR # A
(4,150 SF)
RETAIL
(19,000 SF)
FOOD
(10,000 SF) PARKING NO PARKING NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO L M N PARKING NO FOOD (10,000 SF) RETAIL (19,000 SF) BLD'G 'C' (12,000) L 23-0008 MDP LINE E INLET 2024 PROFILE
131+00 132+00 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00 141+00 142+00 143+00 144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00 151+00 1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00 130+00 131+00 131+501500 MATCH LINE STA. 124+25 N WEBB WE S MATCH LINE STA. 124+25 WEBB N W E S MATCH LINE STA. 130+89.43 MATCH LINE STA. 130+89.34 MATCH LINE STA. 130+89.43 STA. 130+89.43 MATCH LINE
LINE E STA: 84+00 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+751480
LINE E STA: 70+00 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501480
LINE E STA: 60+00 PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1440
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501480
LINE E STA: 46+00 PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1480
1440
1450
1460
1470
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501480
LINE E STA: 37+00 PROFILE
1440
1450
1460
1470
1440
1450
1460
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501470
LINE E STA: 84+00 PROFILE
LINE E STA: 112+00 PROFILE
1460
1470
1480
1490
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001490
LINE E STA: 104+50 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501490
LINE E STA: 95+00 PROFILE
1450
1460
1470
1480
1490
1450
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 13+501490
LINE E STA: 136+00 PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 15+501490
LINE E STA: 130+00 PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
1500
1470
1480
1490
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001500
LINE E STA: 120+00 PROFILE
1460
1470
1480
1490
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001490
LINE E STA: 116+00 PROFILE
1460
1470
1480
1490
1460
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+001490
LINE E STA: 112+00 PROFILE
CASA LOMA BARREL 1 CL PROFILE
1430
1440
1450
1460
1470
1430
1440
1450
1460
9+50 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 16+501470 LINE E STA: 142+00 PROFILE
1470
1480
1490
1470
1480
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 17+501490

1 Haley Franco
From: Chung,Ken <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2025 2:17 PM
To: Haley Franco
Cc: Stuart McKibbin; 'Landon Browning ([email protected])'; Brian Knoll; Eric Hays; Joshua O'Rourke; 'Keith Gazaway - Kleinfelder ([email protected])'; 'Troy Covill ([email protected])'; 'Jake Montgomery - Kleinfelder ([email protected])'; Yavas, Cenk; 'Ruddy Argueta ([email protected])'; Albert Martinez; Stephanie Standerfer; Cheryl DeGano Subject: RE: Line E - MWD Settlement & Structural Review (MS212, 2023-0008) Haley,
There were no comments from our Engineering disciplines at this me. I am hopeful this email will suffice.

Ken
From: Haley Franco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Chung,Ken <[email protected]>
Cc: Stuart McKibbin <[email protected]>; 'Landon Browning ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; Brian Knoll <[email protected]>; Eric Hays <[email protected]>; Joshua O'Rourke <[email protected]>; 'Keith Gazaway - Kleinfelder ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'Troy Covill ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'Jake Montgomery - Kleinfelder ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; Yavas, Cenk <[email protected]>; 'Ruddy Argueta ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; Albert Martinez <[email protected]>; Stephanie Standerfer <[email protected]>; Cheryl DeGano <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Line E - MWD Settlement & Structural Review (MS212, 2023-0008)

Thank you Ken, we appreciate your quick review.

Flood Control is looking for confirmation that MWD finds the preliminary/geotechnical package acceptable, and that we have approval to proceed with the final engineering plans and right-of-way. Are you able to provide us with a letter to provide to Flood Control with our submittal package? If not, I will include your email with our submittal.

Our preliminary design report will not include the final design items you’ve mentioned below, however we will begin working on those items once we receive approval from Flood Control on the PDR.

Haley Franco
Senior Project Coordinator
T (951)248-4244 | C (951)529-7552
E [email protected]
3788 McCray St | Riverside, CA | 92506
2 From: Chung,Ken <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2025 11:49 AM
To: Haley Franco <[email protected]>
Cc: Stuart McKibbin <[email protected]>; 'Landon Browning ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; Brian Knoll <[email protected]>; Eric Hays <[email protected]>; Joshua O'Rourke <[email protected]>; 'Keith Gazaway - Kleinfelder ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'Troy Covill ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; 'Jake Montgomery - Kleinfelder ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Ruddy Argueta ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; Albert Martinez <[email protected]>; Stephanie Standerfer <[email protected]>; Cheryl DeGano <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Line E - MWD Settlement & Structural Review (MS212, 2023-0008)

Haley,
The PDR should include all applicable to the final design submittals including hydraulic, equipment, and MWD manhole related mitigations.

Ken
From: Chung,Ken
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 5:12 AM
To: Haley Franco <[email protected]>
Cc: Stuart McKibbin <[email protected]>; Landon Browning ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brian Knoll <[email protected]>; Eric Hays <[email protected]>; Joshua O'Rourke <[email protected]>; Keith Gazaway - Kleinfelder ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Troy Covill ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jake Montgomery - Kleinfelder ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ruddy Argueta ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Albert Martinez <[email protected]>; Stephanie Standerfer <[email protected]>; Cheryl DeGano <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Line E - MWD Settlement & Structural Review (MS212, 2023-0008)

Haley,
We have no comments on the seClement analysis and structural reports. We look forward to the PDR package for our review and wriCen approval.

Ken Chung
Substructures Team
Engineering Services Group
[email protected]
3 213-217-7670
From: Haley Franco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 8:43 PM
To: Chung,Ken <[email protected]>
Cc: Stuart McKibbin <[email protected]>; Landon Browning ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brian Knoll <[email protected]>; Eric Hays <[email protected]>; Joshua O'Rourke <[email protected]>; Keith Gazaway - Kleinfelder ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Troy Covill ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Jake Montgomery - Kleinfelder ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ruddy Argueta ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Albert Martinez <[email protected]>; Stephanie Standerfer <[email protected]>; Cheryl DeGano <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Line E - MWD Settlement & Structural Review (MS212, 2023-0008)

Hi Ken,

Please find the enclosed revised structural and geotechnical report for the Line E project for your review: MWD PC3. The package includes the following:

- Responses to comments on the Geotechnical and Structural reports received on 12/5/2024. - Updated Geotechnical report with settlement analysis. - Updated Structural Report.

We anticipate this will satisfy your prior comments, and once approved we will proceed with resubmitting the PDR to the District. Please let us know if you have any questions, and what your turnaround timeframe for review looks like.

Thank you, and have a nice weekend.

Haley Franco
Senior Project Coordinator
T (951)248-4244 | C (951)529-7552
E [email protected]
3788 McCray St | Riverside, CA | 92506
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 1 of 1 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
2280 Market Street, Suite 300, Riverside, CA 92501 p | 951.801.3681 f | 951.682.0192 March 4, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No.: 24002328.001A
Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Report
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
Dear Mr. Hays:

Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this Geotechnical Investigation Report for the San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain project in San Jacinto, California. This report summarizes the findings of our investigation and presents geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, comments, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER, INC.

Hector Marquez, PE Eric W. Noel, PE, GE
Project Engineer Sr. Principal Geotechnical Engineer
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page i of iv March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 24002328.001A
MARCH 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page ii of iv March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
A Report Prepared for:

Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:

Hector Marquez, PE
Project Engineer
Reviewed by:

Eric W. Noel, PE, GE
Sr. Principal Geotechnical Engineer

KLEINFELDER
2280 Market Street, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951.801.3681
Fax: 951.682.0192
March 4, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No. 24002328.001A
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page iii of iv March 4, 2025 Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................1

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .....................................................................................2 2 BACKGROUND STUDIES..............................................................................................3

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................3

2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ................................................................................3 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................4

3.1 UTILITY CLEARANCES ......................................................................................4

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................4

3.3 SOIL BORINGS...................................................................................................4

3.4 SAMPLING METHODS FOR SOIL BORINGS.....................................................5

3.5 CONE PENETRATION TESTING........................................................................6

3.6 SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENT TESTING ...................................................6 4 LABORATORY TESTING...............................................................................................7

4.1 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING ................................................................................7 5 SITE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................8

5.1 TOPOGRAPGHY AND DRAINAGE.....................................................................8

5.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING .........................................................................................8

5.3 STATIGRAPHY ...................................................................................................9

5.3.1 Artificial Fill ...............................................................................................9

5.3.2 Young Alluvium (axial valley floor deposits [Qya]) ....................................9

5.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY............................................................................10

5.4.1 Faulting ..................................................................................................10

5.4.2 Seismicity...............................................................................................10

5.5 GROUNDWATER..............................................................................................11

5.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS......................................................................................12

5.6.1 Fault Rupture .........................................................................................12

5.6.2 Flood Hazard..........................................................................................13

5.6.3 Erosion...................................................................................................13 6 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................14

6.1 GENERAL..........................................................................................................14

6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................14

6.2.1 Seismic Design Parameters ...................................................................14

6.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT ......................15

6.4 MWD PIPELINE CROSSING.............................................................................17

6.4.1 Foundations ...........................................................................................17

6.4.2 MWD Pipeline Settlement.......................................................................18

6.4.3 Additional Constructability Considerations..............................................20

6.5 EXPANSIVE SOILS...........................................................................................20

6.6 CORROSIVITY..................................................................................................21

6.7 TEMPORARY SHORING...................................................................................21

6.7.1 General ..................................................................................................21 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page iv of iv March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.7.2 Lateral Pressures ...................................................................................22

6.7.3 Design of Soldier Piles ...........................................................................22

6.7.4 Lagging ..................................................................................................23

6.7.5 Deflection ...............................................................................................23

6.7.6 Monitoring ..............................................................................................23

6.8 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX DESIGN .......................................................24

6.8.1 Design Parameters.................................................................................24

6.8.2 Estimated RCB Settlement.....................................................................25

6.9 EARTHWORK AND GRADING..........................................................................25

6.9.1 Site Preparation......................................................................................25

6.9.2 Stripping and Grubbing...........................................................................25

6.9.3 Earthwork...............................................................................................26

6.9.4 Temporary Excavations..........................................................................26

6.9.5 Unstable Subgrade Conditions ...............................................................27

6.10 PERMANENT SLOPES .....................................................................................28

6.10.1 Fill Slopes...............................................................................................28

6.10.2 Cut Slopes..............................................................................................29

6.11 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................30

6.12 SCOUR CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................30

6.13 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................31

6.13.1 Asphalt Concrete....................................................................................31

6.13.2 Portland Cement Concrete .....................................................................32 7 LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................34 8 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................36

FIGURES
1 Site Vicinity Map
2 Exploration Location Map
3 Fault Location Map
4 Typical Engineered Fill Slope Detail

APPENDICES
A Field Exploration
B Laboratory Testing
C Surface Wave Measurements Report
D Liquefaction Analysis
E Numerical Analysis of Proposed Crossing
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 1 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain project in San Jacinto, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate surface and subsurface conditions in the area of planned improvements and to provide geotechnical recommendations for earthwork, design and construction considerations.

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on subsurface conditions encountered at the locations of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and our evaluation of the data. The provisions and requirements outlined in the Limitations section of this report are also an integral part of the development of our conclusions and recommendations.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand that the project involves design of an approximate 3-mile storm drain channel to be constructed in the City of San Jacinto. The new storm drain channel will be constructed near the existing ground surface and the majority of the alignment will consist of an earthen channel with a 65-foot base width, heights up to 10 feet, side slopes inclined at 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), and several sloped rip-rap drops along the alignment. In addition, several 6 to 8-cell reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts with cell widths up to 14 feet and cell heights up to 9 feet are planned at existing or proposed roadways along the alignment. Storm water flow is generally south to north and a training berm is proposed on the south end of the alignment. At the northern portion of the alignment the proposed earthen channel terminates at a proposed confluence basin and the remainder of the alignment converts to a concrete channel with a 145-foot base width, height up to 10 feet, and side slopes inclined at 1.5:1 (H:V).

At the northern end of the proposed concrete channel portion, the proposed alignment crosses an existing Metropolitan Water District (MWD) pipeline (Casa Loma Siphon No. 1). We understand this pipeline is an approximately 14.5-foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe. It is proposed to cross the MWD pipeline with a relieving slab (approximately 14-inch thick concrete slab overlying a 6-inch low density polystyrene foam) supported on shallow footings to minimize adding loads to the existing pipeline. Per MWD requirements, we understand the crossing structure is required when cover over their pipe is less than 4 feet. We understand the crossing structure slab will be approximately 203 feet long and 31 feet wide. Footings will be continuous, approximately 10 feet wide, and approximately 7 to 9 feet deep. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 2 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study was to investigate and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions along the proposed project alignment. Field explorations were performed along the alignment to identify potential geologic hazards and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project.

The services performed as part of this investigation were provided in general accordance with our proposal dated June 28, 2023. Specifically, our scope of work includes the following:
• A description of the proposed project including a site vicinity map and a site plan showing the locations of the subsurface explorations;
• A discussion of historical and geologic research pertinent to the proposed project; • A summary of the surficial and subsurface site conditions encountered during our field investigation;
• A discussion of geologic hazards;
• Analysis for liquefaction potential;
• Recommendations for seismic design parameters;
• Analysis for MWD pipeline settlement;
• Recommendations for design and construction of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing; • Recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, temporary slope inclinations, fill placement, and compaction specifications;
• Recommendations for temporary shoring;
• Recommendations for subgrade preparation and support of storm drain channel; • Recommendations for pavement structural sections;
• Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils; and • Appendices including logs of borings and CPTs, laboratory test results, and surface wave measurement results.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 3 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
2 BACKGROUND STUDIES

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Geologic and geotechnical literature was reviewed including reports, maps, and other documents prepared by the California Geological Survey (CGS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other agencies. We also reviewed maps and preliminary documents pertaining to previous investigations at the site prepared by Leighton and Associates, Schaefer Dixon Associates, and SoCalGeo.

These reports, maps and other documents are listed in Section 8, References. Pertinent findings and information contained within these maps and reports are discussed within the body of this report.

2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
A field reconnaissance of the site was performed prior to initiation of our subsurface investigation program and following our literature review. The purposes of the field reconnaissance were as follows:
• Visit and observe site conditions at proposed exploration locations; • Evaluate equipment accessibility for field investigations; • Document earth materials and geologic conditions present along the alignment and surrounding area; and
• Evaluate features identified during the literature review. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 4 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation activities for this project commenced with utility clearance for proposed boring and Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT) explorations. Following utility clearance, the field investigation included drilling and sampling of 19 hollow-stem auger borings and performing 2 CPTs. Discussions of the field investigation program including utility clearances, exploration methods and sampling methods are provided below.

3.1 UTILITY CLEARANCES
Prior to beginning the field exploration program, Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted to identify potential conflicts between the planned exploration locations and existing, documented, underground utilities. Ground penetrating radar was also performed for utility clearances at the exploration locations. Furthermore, the boring and CPT locations were hand augured generally to 5 feet below the existing ground surface before commencing work.

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION
The subsurface exploration program included drilling 19 hollow-stem auger borings, performing 2 CPTs, and performing 2 seismic surface wave measurement arrays along the project alignment for geotechnical characterization purposes. The borings were drilled between September 26, 2023 and September 28, 2023. The CPTs were performed on October 11, 2023.

The seismic surface wave measurement arrays were performed on September 23, 2024 and September 24, 2024.

In general, the borings were located along the storm drain alignment, with adjustments made in the field as needed to avoid access or utility conflicts. The CPT locations and seismic surface wave measurement arrays were performed in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing. The approximate locations of the exploration locations are shown on Figure 2, Exploration Location Map.

3.3 SOIL BORINGS
For this project, 19 soil borings were drilled using truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rigs supplied by 2R Drilling of Chino, California. Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA) drill rigs were equipped with 8-inch outside diameter (O.D.) continuous flight, hollow-stem augers. The auger method was used following the general ASTM guidelines D1452 “Standard Practice for Soil 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 5 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Investigation and Sampling by Hollow-Stem Augers.” The drilling equipment was selected based on anticipated subsurface conditions and vehicle access. The borings were drilled to a depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface (bgs), with exception to the borings in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing (B-1 and B-2) and at the southern end of the concrete channel portion of the alignment (B-4), which were drilled to approximately 50 feet bgs. Four (4) of the 19 borings were converted to piezometers (Borings B-6, B-9, B-14, and B-15). The remainder of the borings were backfilled with excess soil cuttings upon completion.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the soil borings were logged by an experienced engineer or geologist, under the review and direction of a licensed Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer, who also performed the sampling described below. Soils were logged in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

3.4 SAMPLING METHODS FOR SOIL BORINGS
Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration test (SPT) samplers and California-type (CAL) samplers, respectively. The SPT sampler has a 1.375-inch inside diameter and a 2.0-inch outside diameter. The CAL sampler has a 2.42-inch inside diameter and a 3.0-inch outside diameter. Samples were collected in accordance with the general guidelines of ASTM D1586 “Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.” Samples were driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. SPT and CAL samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals alternating between the SPT and the CAL until reaching the boring target depth. Large bulk samples were also obtained within the upper 5 feet from each boring.

The number of blows required to drive the samplers were recorded for each 6-inch penetration interval. The number of blows required to drive the samplers for the last 12 inches, or the interval achieved where higher resistance was encountered, is referred to as the blow count and is noted on the boring logs. The blow counts recorded on the boring logs are recorded in 6-inch intervals. Where the sample was driven less than 12 inches, the number of blows to drive the sample for each 6-inch segment, or portion thereof, is shown on the logs. For example, 50/4” indicates 50 blows to drive the sampler 4 inches to refusal. After the samplers were withdrawn from the test borings, select samples were carefully removed, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and transported to our laboratory for testing.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 6 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

3.5 CONE PENETRATION TESTING
Two CPTs were performed in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing because potentially liquefiable soils were anticipated. The CPTs were performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering, Inc. of Huntington Beach, California using a 30-ton truck rig. The CPTs were advanced to a maximum depth of 100 ft bgs. Upon completion, the CPTs were backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips. The CPT visual plots and data are presented in Appendix A, Field Exploration.

3.6 SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENT TESTING
Two seismic surface wave measurement arrays were performed in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing to determine shear (S) wave velocity profiles in support of the MWD pipeline settlement analysis. The surface wave measurements were performed by GEOVision of Corona, California. The approximate array locations are shown on Figure 2. A detailed report of the surface wave measurements is presented in Appendix C, Surface Wave Measurements Report.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 7 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
4 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained from the borings following field exploration. Laboratory tests were performed on drive and bulk soil samples to estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Selected samples from the borings were tested to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties.

The laboratory testing program was formulated with the emphasis on evaluating the density, plasticity, shear strength, and gradation of the soils encountered. Classifications made in the field were modified as appropriate, based on the laboratory test results. The description of the subsurface conditions and classifications presented in the boring logs reflect the changes made as a result of the laboratory tests.

The laboratory index tests, and engineering property tests performed included determination of in-situ moisture content and dry density, wash sieve, sieve & hydrometer analysis, Atterberg limits, direct shear, consolidation testing, expansion index, compaction curve testing, R-Value, and preliminary corrosivity testing including pH, minimum resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 8 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
5 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 TOPOGRAPGHY AND DRAINAGE
The project is in the San Jacinto Valley in west Riverside County, about 4 miles northwest of the city of San Jacinto, California. The project site is in an area of farmland on the floodplain on the southwest side of the San Jacinto River, which is channelized in the northern San Jacinto Valley and which drains northwest before turning southwest toward Lake Elsinore. The site is on the west side of the valley below the granitic highlands of the Lakeview Mountains to the west and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east.

5.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING
California is divided into eleven natural geomorphic provinces that are recognized based on geology, landscape or landform, topographic relief, and climate. The project is in the Peninsular Ranges province which extends from the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains north of the site southward into lower California, and from the coast eastward to the Colorado Desert (Norris and Webb, 1990).

The Peninsular Ranges are a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys subparallel to major faults branching from the San Andreas fault system. The Peninsular Ranges are divided into three fault-bounded structural blocks comprised of mostly granitic rocks intruding sedimentary rocks and older metamorphic rocks (Norris and Webb, 1990). The project area is near the north end of the middle (Perris) block.

The north end of the Perris block is bounded by active faults: the Sierra Madre fault on the north, the Elsinore fault on the west, and the San Jacinto fault on the east. The site is in the San Jacinto fault zone (SJFZ) at the east edge of the Perris block.

The northwest-striking SJFZ is a major right-lateral strike-slip fault zone in southern California (Onderdonk et al., 2013). The San Jacinto Valley is a pull-apart basin bounded on the northeast by the Claremont strand of the SJFZ and on the southwestern margin of the valley by the Casa Loma fault strand, two of the many fault strands that make up the SJFZ. Northwest of the site, the Casa Loma fault bounds a 1.5-mile-wide extensional step-over at Mystic Lake (a sag pond), and to the southeast the Casa Loma fault is co-linear with the Clark fault, the primary strand of the central SJFZ (Rockwell et al., 2015). The Casa Loma fault intersects the proposed onsite 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 9 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
and confluence basins at the north end of the alignment and the proposed Line E inlet at the south end (USGS, 2006).

The proposed alignment lies east of the Casa Loma fault (USGS, 2006), with the exception of the onsite basin, and is within the structural basin part of the San Jacinto Valley between the Casa Loma and Claremont faults. The thickness of valley sediments within the structural basin between the Casa Loma and Claremont faults may exceed 5000 feet, but valley sediments are much thinner west of the Casa Loma fault, reaching maximum depths of about 900 feet (DWR, 2013).

5.3 STATIGRAPHY
The proposed alignment occupies the floodplain of the San Jacinto River and is underlain by alluvium comprised of sandy fluvial deposits and silty to clayey overbank (flood) deposits.

Geologic mapping by Morton et al. (2001) shows young alluvial deposits east of the Casa Loma fault scarp and slightly older deposits west of the scarp, which was a barrier to flood deposition.

Radiocarbon dates from detrital charcoal samples collected near the alignment for studies of the Casa Loma fault (Schaefer Dixon, 1993; Givler et al., 2022) indicate the fault juxtaposes late Holocene deposits on the east against latest Pleistocene to early Holocene deposits on the west.

Following are brief descriptions of the soil units encountered in our borings. Detailed logs are presented in Appendix A.

5.3.1 Artificial Fill
Artificial fill is present locally along portions of the study area, generally beneath existing roads.

The fill overlies native materials and generally consists of a thin veneer of locally-derived sandy silt and silty sand. The fill soils are considered undocumented and are not shown.

5.3.2 Young Alluvium (axial valley floor deposits [Qya]) Holocene-age sandy fluvial deposits and silty to clayey overbank (flood) deposits associated with the San Jacinto River (Morton et al., 2001). Alluvial soils were encountered in borings B-1 through B-19 and primarily consisted of fine silty sand and sandy silt, with lesser amounts of silt, sand, and clayey sand. Boreholes drilled farther from the river channel encountered slightly finer soils, consistent with floodplain deposition. Relative density ranges from predominantly loose to medium dense and stiff to very stiff.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 10 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

5.4 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

5.4.1 Faulting
The project is in seismically active southern California. The project is within the zone of influence for several faults which are considered active or potentially active. An active fault is a fault that has experienced seismic activity during historic time (since roughly 1800) or exhibits evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (Bryant and Hart, 2007; CGS, 2018).

The definition of “potentially active” varies. A generally accepted definition of “potentially active” is a fault showing evidence of displacement that is older than 11,700 years (Holocene age) and younger than 2.6 million years (Pleistocene age). However, “potentially active” is no longer used as criteria for zoning by the California Geologic Survey (CGS). The terms “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” are now used by the CGS as criteria for zoning faults under the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Act. A “sufficiently active fault” is a fault that shows evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments and branches, while a “well-defined fault” is a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The definition “inactive” generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 2.6 million years old).

The project site is east of and adjacent to the Casa Loma fault strand of the SJFZ, and the Casa Loma fault intersects the proposed onsite and confluence basins at the north end of the alignment and the proposed Line E inlet at the south end (USGS, 2006). The SJFZ has a geologic slip rate of 12-18 mm/year (Blisniuk et al. 2013; Rockwell et al. 2015). Paleoseismic data along the SJFZ indicate an average recurrence interval of surface-rupturing earthquakes of 185–254 years with moment magnitudes (Mw) ranging from 6.75 to 7.7 and per-event displacements of approximate 1.0 to 4.0 meters (Salisbury et al. 2012; Onderdonk et al. 2013; 2015; Rockwell et al. 2015).

5.4.2 Seismicity
The project is within the zone of influence for several faults which are considered active or potentially active and which are capable of producing seismic shaking at the site that could potentially be damaging to buildings and appurtenant structures. It is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes on faults outside the project area.

A number of earthquakes have occurred within the region of the site (approximately a 50-kilometer, or 31-mile, radius) during historic time (since 1800), including two earthquakes on 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 11 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
the SJFZ (Table 1). The largest of these historic earthquakes was a Mw 6.8 event on the SJFZ centered only 8 miles from the project area which resulted in ground rupture near the proposed Line E inlet at the south end of the project alignment.

Table 1
Historic Earthquakes within 50 km of Site (>Mw 4.9)
Earthquake Name Distance
(miles)
Magnitude
(Mw) Date Latitude Longitude
San Jacinto 8 6.8 4/21/1918 33.750014 -116.883430
North San Jacinto Fault 18 6.3 7/22/1923 33.999690 -117.238216 Elsinore 25 6 5/15/1910 33.749453 -117.450194
Big Bear 26 6.4 6/28/1992 34.175257 -116.867476
North Palm Springs 27 5.6 7/8/1986 33.998575 -116.608877

5.5 GROUNDWATER
Information on groundwater presented in this report is based on information derived from our geotechnical investigation, review of recent data from temporary groundwater observation wells installed in the vicinity of the project (SoCalGeo, 2022), and review of observation well water levels in the database of the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR, 2021).

Groundwater was encountered in several borings drilled during this investigation in the floodplain of the San Jacinto River (Appendix A). Groundwater was measured in the borings when first encountered and then measured again at the completion of the borehole.

Groundwater was encountered in 12 of the 19 borings drilled at depths ranging from approximately 6 feet to 33 feet bgs, with shallow water (6 to 12 feet bgs) encountered near the San Jacinto Reservoir adjacent to the south end of the alignment. There are several ponds or retention basins in the site vicinity, including the San Jacinto Reservoir, which may contribute to shallow water conditions, together with agriculture irrigation. Kleinfelder borings B-6, B-9, B-14, and B-15 were converted to piezometers and groundwater readings were taken following the field exploration, as summarized in the table below.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 12 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Table 2
Summary of Piezometer Groundwater Measurements
Date
Groundwater Depth (ft bgs)
B-6 B-9 B-14 B-15
Initial Drill Date 18.5 (9/27/2023) 17.5 (9/27/2023) 17.5 (9/26/2023) 18.5 (9/26/2023) 12/20/2023 7.5 14.8 15.8 16.0
We reviewed data from 16 temporary groundwater observation wells that were installed in the vicinity of the project as part of a proposed commercial/industrial development (SoCalGeo, 2022). The wells were installed at various depths, depending on the depth groundwater was encountered, and water level measurements were taken three times between January and March 2022. Groundwater levels in the wells were generally similar to the various depths groundwater was encountered during borehole drilling for the subject project, with the exception of four wells installed in and adjacent to the Casa Loma fault which did not encounter groundwater despite well depths of 61.5 to 66.5 feet bgs. The absence of groundwater along the Casa Loma fault may reflect the presence of recent, Holocene-age alluvium on the east side of the fault scarp but not on the west side (Morton et al., 2001).

There are several groundwater observation wells in the State database (DWR, 2021) showing data for 2021-2023 that are within or adjacent to the project footprint. Nearby wells on both sides of the Casa Loma fault were found to have similar groundwater depths of approximately 200 feet bgs. This observation suggests there is a lower aquifer with similar groundwater levels on both sides of the fault, and an upper (possibly perched) aquifer that is limited to the recent, Holocene-age alluvium that was deposited east of the Casa Loma fault scarp. The proposed project is located east of the fault where shallow groundwater is present.

5.6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.6.1 Fault Rupture
As discussed in Section 5.4.1, the Casa Loma strand of the SJFZ is adjacent to the north and south ends of the proposed drainage alignment, and the mapped trace of the fault (USGS, 2006) intersects the Line E inlet and basin facilities. The AP Fault Zone setback associated with the mapped fault traces (CGS, 2021) impinges on the proposed channel alignment at the south end near Bridge Street and Sanderson Avenue, and at the north end where the alignment crosses Record Road.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 13 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The AP Fault Zone setback does not appear conservative. Fault trench exploration and mapping performed about one-half mile northwest of the Line E inlet for a proposed residential development (Leighton, 2004) indicates that sections of the Casa Loma fault have numerous splays and that these fault splays effectively widen the fault zone by 250 feet or more.

Consequently, it is our opinion that the risk of surface fault rupture within the project alignment is high. A map presenting the location of the project alignment relative to the nearest faults is provided in Figure 3, Fault Location Map.

5.6.2 Flood Hazard
Based on Flood Hazard Maps available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) online service (FEMA, 2021), most of the project alignment lies within or adjacent to special flood hazard areas. Flood risk areas subject to inundation by a 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood) are presented (FEMA zone A or AE). Overall, the risk of flooding along the alignment is considered high. However, we anticipate construction of the proposed storm drain will warrant modifications to the referenced Flood Hazard Map. We anticipate the proposed storm drain improvements will decrease flood risk caused by potential flooding of the San Jacinto Reservoir south of the proposed alignment, however the proposed storm drain improvements would not change the flood risk caused by potential flooding of the San Jacinto River north of the proposed alignment.

5.6.3 Erosion
Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes that occur on slopes, hillsides, and natural drainages. The proposed storm drain alignment site is farmland on the distal margin of floodplain of the San Jacinto River and the risk of erosion is considered low to moderate, whereas the risk of sedimentation is considered moderate because the proposed open drainage channel will act as a sediment sink in the event of a flood. Scour and sedimentation analysis is beyond the scope of this study.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 14 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
6 ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of the field explorations, laboratory testing, and our engineering analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The following opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the properties of the materials encountered in the field explorations, the results of the laboratory testing program, and our engineering analyses performed. Our recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in the following sections.

6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6.2.1 Seismic Design Parameters
According to ACSE/SEI 7-16 (2016), which is incorporated into the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) by reference, sites subject to liquefaction, as discussed below, should be classified as Site Class F, which requires a site response analysis. However, ACSE/SEI 7-16 states that for a short period (less than ½ second) structure on liquefiable soils, Site Class D or E may be used instead of Site Class F to estimate design seismic loading on the structure. The selection of Site Class D or E is based on the assessment of the site soil profile assuming no liquefaction.

We have assumed that the period of the structures will be less than ½ second. The assumption that the structures have a period of less than ½ second should be verified by the project structural engineer.

Based on data obtained from our field explorations, published geologic literature and maps, and on our interpretation of the 2022 CBC criteria, it is our opinion that the project site may be classified as Site Class D, Stiff Soil, according to Section 1613 of 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2016). Approximate coordinates for the site are noted below. • Latitude: 33.8208° N
• Longitude: 117.0247° W
In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis is required for Site Class D sites with an S1 greater than 0.2 g. However, a site-specific ground 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 15 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
motion hazard analysis is not required if the exceptions in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 are taken. In accordance with the 2022 CBC, which adopts Supplement 3 of the ASCE 7-16, the exception would be if the values of the parameters SM1 and SD1 are increased by 50 percent.

The assumption that the exception will be used should be verified by the project structural engineer during final design based on the governing code. Based on the assumption that the exception will be taken in accordance with the governing code, the 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters (non site-specific) for the project site are provided in Table 3.

Table 3
2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters

DESIGN PARAMETER RECOMMENDED VALUE
Site Class D
Ss (g) 2.138
S1 (g) 0.866
Fa 1.0
Fv N/A*
SMS (g) 2.138
SM1 (g) N/A
SDS (g) 1.425
SD1 (g) N/A
PGAM (g) 1.062
*Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 requires a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis be performed for Site Class D sites with S1 values greater than or equal to 0.2g unless exceptions are taken. If exceptions are taken, then a Fv value of 1.7 could be used only to calculate the Ts value.

6.3 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils lose their strength due to the build-up of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading such as that induced by earthquakes. The primary factors affecting the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit are:
1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking, 2) soil type and relative density, 3) overburden pressures, and 4) depth to groundwater. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands, and non-plastic silts that are saturated. Silty sands and silts, under certain site conditions, may also be susceptible to liquefaction.

Generalized liquefaction potential zones have been mapped for areas of Riverside County (Riverside County, 2021). The zones are based on generalized criteria for sediment types, 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 16 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
groundwater levels, and ground shaking potential. Based on the screening criteria used to develop the generalized maps, the project alignment is identified as having a moderate potential for liquefaction.

The potential for liquefaction settlement in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing was evaluated using data from the CPTs performed for the project and CPT liquefaction assessment software (Cliq v.3.0.3.4). Although hollow stem auger borings were performed at the locations of potentially liquefiable soils, the blow count data is generally not as reliable as CPT data for liquefaction calculations. Samples collected from the borings and associated laboratory tests were used in verifying the CPT results.

The proposed MWD pipeline crossing area is underlain primarily by sandy silt and silty sand.

The apparent density of the granular soil layers ranged from loose to medium dense. When encountered, groundwater levels in the borings ranged from approximately 6 to 33 feet below the ground surface. A design groundwater level of 5 feet bgs was used in the liquefaction calculations, which corresponds to the anticipated highest groundwater level at the site.

Two important input parameters for the liquefaction analysis are PGA and the earthquake magnitude. According to Chapter 18 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) the PGA used for liquefaction analysis should be consistent with the maximum considered earthquake ground motions. The 2022 CBC states that the peak ground acceleration shall be determined in accordance with Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-16. We determined the peak ground acceleration for each vault and transition structure location where liquefiable soils were present. The design PGAM used in the liquefaction analysis was 1.06g. In order to estimate the controlling magnitude at the site, the 2014 USGS interactive deaggregation tool was used from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and a dominant earthquake modal magnitude of 8.1 was calculated, utilizing a 2% exceedance probability in 50 years (return period of about 2,475 years) according to the 2022 CBC and ASCE/SEI 7-16.

Our analyses indicated that liquefaction could occur within interbedded sand layers throughout the upper 60 feet bgs. We have used procedures outlined in Moss et al. (2006) for CPT-based liquefaction triggering and estimation of volumetric compaction or settlement. Estimated total liquefaction-induced settlements in the vicinity of the proposed MWD pipeline crossing result in approximately 2 inches based on the CPT results. Based on the results of our field investigations, the subsurface soil conditions in the MWD pipeline crossing area is generally uniform. The CPTs were performed at locations approximately 300 feet from each other and the difference in liquefaction settlement results is less than ¼-inch. Based on these conditions, 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 17 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
differential liquefaction-induced settlement is considered generally negligible in the MWD pipeline crossing area. We have ignored any liquefaction and associated settlements below a depth of 60 feet, as their effects on the surface should be minimal. The results of our liquefaction calculations are included in Appendix C, Liquefaction Analysis.

It should be noted the calculated liquefaction settlement is a free-field settlement independent of existing or proposed improvements. Based on liquefaction analysis results by SoCalGeo (2021), other portions of the site in the vicinity of the proposed storm drain alignment may experience approximately 2 to 6 inches of liquefaction settlement during a design level earthquake event.

6.4 MWD PIPELINE CROSSING

6.4.1 Foundations
Based on the results of our field explorations, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, the proposed MWD pipeline crossing may be supported on shallow footing foundations.

Recommendations for the design and construction of shallow foundations are presented below.

Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure
Footings embedded at least 5 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus sustained live loads. The footing dimension and reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer; however, continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressure can be used for transient wind or seismic loads.

Estimated Settlements
Based on design initial dead and service loads provided by the structural engineer, we estimate total static settlement of foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented above to be on the order of ½ inch for initial dead loads and grading and 1½ inches when including service and flood loads. Based on the generally granular nature of the subsurface soils, the initial dead load settlement is anticipated to be generally “immediate” (on the order of days to weeks). We understand the construction will be staged such that the initial dead load settlement will have occurred prior to allowing service loads to be imposed. Provided this construction staging is performed, total settlement of footings is 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 18 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
estimated to be up to 1 inch and differential static settlement between similarly loaded footings is estimated to be less than 1 inch over 50 feet.

In addition to the estimated static settlement, as previously discussed, it is estimated that liquefaction-induced settlement of saturated sandy soils due to strong ground shaking during an MCE-level seismic event could be on the order of 2 inches of total settlement, however, based on the generally uniform soil conditions in the MWD crossing area, differential liquefactioninduced settlement is considered generally negligible. We anticipate the liquefaction induced settlement impacts will be relatively similar between the crossing structure and the MWD pipe.

Lateral Resistance
Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides of the footings, friction acting at the base of the footing, or a combination of the two. An allowable passive resistance of 250 psf per foot of depth may be used for design. Allowable passive resistance values should not exceed 2,500 psf. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.3 between the base of the footings and the on-site soils can be used for sliding resistance using the dead load normal stresses. Friction and passive resistance may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil cover be neglected in the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface is not protected from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement, or in a similar manner.

6.4.2 MWD Pipeline Settlement
Construction of the proposed storm drain would involve cuts and fills over the existing MWD pipeline. Grade changes, construction sequencing, flooding, and crossing structure footings could subject the MWD pipeline to change in loads that could cause settlement due to an increase in overburden stress or heave due to a decrease in overburden stress. We understand MWD requires proposed improvements in the vicinity of their pipe to not induce displacements on their pipe of more than ¼-inch per 100 feet. We have performed numerical modeling of the subsurface conditions and proposed structures using the 3-D finite element program PLAXIS 3D. The details and results of these analyses are included in Appendix E. The results of the analysis indicate the proposed improvements will meet MWD’s tolerance provided the key recommendations and assumptions presented below are implemented in the design and construction of the crossing and storm drain.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 19 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix E, Numerical Analysis of Proposed Crossing. The key recommendations and assumptions utilized in the modeling that must be implemented in the design and construction of the crossing and storm drain channel are:
• Excavations will not be completed at a time when MWD has emptied the pipeline (i.e. it is not in-service).
• The crossing structure footings are constructed following the 1/3 sequence of excavation and footing placement.
o Excavation of the subsequent 1/3 shall not progress until the footing for the previous 1/3 is in-place.
o Excavation slopes and benches shall not be flatter than 1.5H:1V. • Excavation and footing construction sequence shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean:
o Elevations in excavations on either side shall not be more than 1 ft different. o The concrete footings shall be poured on both sides at the same time. • Excavations shall not be backfilled until the full footing construction sequence is completed.
o Backfill will consist of a medium weight flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) with a unit weight of approximately 85 pcf which does not require high vibration compactor equipment during placement. The medium weight flowable fill should have a friction angle of at least 30 degrees and cohesion of at least 50 psf. o Backfill shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean elevations of the backfill on each side shall not be more than 1 ft different.
• Lightweight flowable fill shall be used for embankments within 50 ft from the edge of the MWD pipe. Embankment fill shall consist of lightweight flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) not to exceed a unit weight of 30 pcf and does not require compaction to limit vibration impacts.
• Embankment fill shall be placed such that the elevation difference across (upstream to downstream sides) the MWD pipe is not greater than 1 ft at any time until final grades are established.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 20 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• The channel section shall limit the 100-yr flood event to a peak water elevation of 1453.47 ft.

6.4.3 Additional Constructability Considerations
Construction of the proposed MWD pipe crossing and storm drain in the vicinity of the existing MWD pipe while meeting MWD’s requirements is considered feasible provided the key recommendations and assumptions utilized in the modeling provided above are implemented during design and construction. In addition, the following constructability considerations should also be considered based on MWD requirements.
• Vibrations on the MWD pipe should be less than 0.5 inches/second for “continuous” sources based on guidance provided by MWD. Based on Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020), vibratory rollers or similar equipment should not be used within 20 feet of the MWD pipe to meet MWD’s limit. • Any excavation within 2 feet of the MWD pipe should be performed by “hand” equipment as approved by MWD.
• Areas to receive fill that are not specified to require flowable fill as described above may utilize the on-site soil or import soil as structural fill in accordance with Section 6.9. • Appropriate observations and inspections should be completed to ensure that the recommendations and assumptions made during our evaluation are followed during construction. Construction within the MWD right-of-way should conform to the relevant MWD construction standards, observations and inspections.

6.5 EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs supported-on-grade, or pavements supported over these materials. Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, expansive soils can have a detrimental effect on structures.

In general, the soils encountered at the majority of the borings were silty or granular in nature.

Laboratory testing resulted in Expansion Index values of 34 and 44, indicating a “low” expansion 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 21 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
potential. If import soil materials are used during construction, testing of the final subgrade soils should be performed to further evaluate the expansion potential.

6.6 CORROSIVITY
Selected near-surface soil samples from borings throughout the alignment were tested for potential corrosion to concrete and reinforcing steel. The samples were tested in general accordance with California Standard Test Methods to evaluate pH, minimum electrical resistivity, soluble sulfates, and chlorides content. These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature.

Resistivity values ranged from 299 to 1,763 ohm-cm. Resistivity values less than 1,000 ohm-cm are considered extremely corrosive to buried ferrous metals. Resistivity values between 1,000 to 3,000 to ohm-cm are considered highly corrosive to buried ferrous metals (Roberge, 2006).

The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-19 Table

19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2019). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-19, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required.

The values obtained from corrosion potential testing are shown in Appendix B, Laboratory Testing. Kleinfelder’s scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included. We recommend the review of these results and consultation of a corrosion expert for further evaluation, if necessary.

6.7 TEMPORARY SHORING

6.7.1 General
Temporary shoring may be required where space or other restrictions do not allow a sloped excavation. Design and installation are the responsibility of the contractor. Temporary shoring may consist of a turn-key shoring system, soldier piles and lagging, or other system.

Recommendations for design of temporary shoring are presented below.

The contractor’s shoring design should be provided by a civil engineer registered in the State of California and experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions.

Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and design should be 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 22 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
reviewed by Kleinfelder for conformance with the design intent and geotechnical recommendations provided herein.

6.7.2 Lateral Pressures
For the design of cantilevered shoring, an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for drained conditions or 82 pcf for undrained conditions may be used for level backfill.

Where the surface of the retained earth slopes up away from the shoring, a greater pressure should be used. Design data can be developed for additional cases when the design conditions are established.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1H:1V plane drawn upward from the base of the shored excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the wall may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.36 for the level backfill condition. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf) is recommended to account for traffic or nominal construction loads. Stockpiled material should not be placed closer to the edge of an excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, and never closer than 4 feet from the edge of the excavation.

6.7.3 Design of Soldier Piles
All soldier piles should extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to provide the required lateral resistance. We recommend the required embedment depths be calculated based on the principles of force and moment equilibrium. For this method, the ultimate passive pressure against soldier piles that extend below the level of excavation may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 250 pcf, with a maximum resistance value of 2,500 psf. To account for arching, the passive resistance may be assumed to act over a width 2.0 times the width of the embedded portion of the pile, provided adjacent piles are spaced at least 3.0 pile diameters, center-to-center.

Drilling of the soldier pile shafts could be accomplished using heavy-duty drilling equipment.

Groundwater may be encountered. The piles may be constructed partly below groundwater and, therefore, caving of the pile shafts should be anticipated and will need to be prevented.

Temporary steel casing may be required to stabilize the sides of the pile shaft. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after the drilling of the hole is complete. The concrete should 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 23 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie. Once concrete pumping is initiated, a minimum head of 5 feet of concrete above the bottom of the tremie should be established and maintained throughout the concrete placement to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed.

To develop full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile that is below the planned excavated level should provide sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding materials.

6.7.4 Lagging
Continuous treated timber lagging and/or steel plates should be used between the soldier piles.

The lagging/steel plates should be installed as the excavation proceeds. If treated timber is used, the lagging may remain in place after backfilling. The lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 psf.

Some caving and running of the upper soils should be anticipated. To reduce the potential for loss of ground and settlement of the soil behind the wall, the contractor should backfill any space between the lagging and the cut slope with clean sand or sand-cement slurry after installation.

6.7.5 Deflection
Shoring adjacent to existing structures or improvements should be designed and constructed to reduce potential movement. The shoring system designer should evaluate potential deflections in their design. If the deflection analysis indicates excessive deflections, positive reinforcements such as tie backs may be needed.

6.7.6 Monitoring
Some deflection of the shored excavation should be anticipated during the planned excavation.

We recommend the project civil engineer perform a survey of all existing utilities and structures adjacent to the shored excavation. The purpose of this survey would be to evaluate the ability of existing utility lines or improvements to withstand horizontal movements associated with a shored excavation and to establish the baseline condition in case of unfounded claims of 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 24 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
damage. If existing improvements are not capable of withstanding anticipated lateral movements, alternative shoring systems may be required.

Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monitored by a licensed surveyor. The construction monitoring and performance of the shoring system are ultimately the contractor’s responsibility. However, at a minimum, we recommend that the top of shoring be surveyed prior to excavation and that the top and bottom of the soldier beams be surveyed on a weekly basis until the shoring is not needed. Surveying should consist of measuring movements in vertical and two perpendicular horizontal directions.

6.8 REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX DESIGN

6.8.1 Design Parameters
The following geotechnical design recommendations are provided for the design of standard reinforced concrete box (RCB) for use along the entire storm drain project alignment.

Table 4
Standardized RCB Parameters
Soil Description Sandy Silt to Silty Sand
Soil Density 110 pcf
Active Earth Pressure
(Equivalent Fluid Pressure)
40 pcf (Drained)
20 pcf (Undrained***)
35 pcf (Seismic Increment*)
At-Rest Earth Pressure**
(Equivalent Fluid Pressure)
60 pcf (Drained)
30 pcf (Undrained***)
Soil Cohesion 50 psf
Ultimate Passive Resistance 250 pcf
Coefficient of Friction 0.3
Allowable Net Bearing Pressure 2,000 psf
*Retaining structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed to support an incremental seismic lateral pressure, which is applied as a triangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure at the bottom of the retaining structure, similar to the active lateral earth pressure. **For restrained retaining structures (at-rest condition), use the static active earth pressure and seismic increment to check the seismic condition; use at-rest earth pressure only to check the static condition; the larger loading of both cases should be used for the design of restrained retaining structure. ***Retaining structures should be designed with adequate drainage to reduce the potential for a buildup of hydrostatic pressures. For retaining structures where drainage outlets are not feasible, the undrained earth pressures listed above should be used. In addition to the above lateral pressures, walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Hydrostatic pressures should assume a unit weight of 62.4 pcf and extend the full height of the wall.

Hydrostatic pressure is applied as a triangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure at the bottom of the wall, similar to the active lateral earth pressure. The resultant force may be assumed to at a height of 0.33H above the wall footing, where H is the retaining wall height. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 25 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.8.2 Estimated RCB Settlement
The static settlement of individual RCB’s will vary, depending on the depth of embedment, the plan dimensions of the vaults and the actual loading. We estimate the maximum total static settlement of vaults designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations in this report to be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement is expected to be less than ½ inch, provided vaults are founded on similar materials. The estimated settlements discussed above do not include potential seismically-induced settlement discussed in Section 6.3.

6.9 EARTHWORK AND GRADING
Grading plans were not available for the project at the time this report was prepared. We anticipate earthwork and grading will be relatively minor. The final grading plans should be reviewed and, if needed, additional recommendations should be provided.

6.9.1 Site Preparation
All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations, and other local, state, or federal specifications. All references to maximum unit weight should be established in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Test Method D1557 and may supersede references cited herein. The earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of Kleinfelder.

6.9.2 Stripping and Grubbing
Prior to general site grading, existing pavement, vegetation, organic topsoil, existing fill soils, and debris shall be stripped and disposed of outside the construction limits. Deeper stripping or grubbing may be required where concentrations of fill debris, organic soils, existing trees, or thick root mats are encountered during site grading. Stripped topsoil (less any debris) may be stockpiled and reused for landscape purposes elsewhere on the project; however, this material should not be incorporated into any engineered fill.

In areas where existing trees will be removed, care should be taken to remove the root-ball, roots exceeding 1 inch in diameter, remaining organics, and to backfill the excavations with compacted engineered fill. We strongly recommend having a representative of Kleinfelder present during tree removal, in areas to receive fill or beneath foundations to observe removal of large roots and subsequent scarification and recompaction. Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided below. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 26 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.9.3 Earthwork
At the RCB subgrade and storm drain bottoms, the exposed surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Any areas of loose or yielding soils should be over-excavated and re-compacted.

Any soils that cannot be compacted, or are otherwise unsuitable for the planned use, should be excavated and disposed of from the project site and replaced with suitable engineered fill.

All materials to be placed as fill should be free of vegetation, organics, debris, and other deleterious materials. During fill placement, “oversize” material should be placed accordingly.

Oversize material is any material with maximum dimension greater than 3 inches. All oversize material should be exported to an appropriate disposal facility. The larger rock, if any, will require special handling to reduce its size or place as windrows in a rock disposal fill.

All fill placed should be placed in horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. Engineered fill placed within the upper 12 inches of unpaved access roads or 12 inches below pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction of the maximum dry density obtained by ASTM D1557.

Import materials, if required, should have an Expansion Index (EI) of less than 20 with no more than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The maximum EI for imported soils may be modified by the project geotechnical engineer depending on its proposed use. Imported fill should be documented to be free of hazardous materials, including petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals and harmful minerals. Kleinfelder should evaluate the proposed imported materials prior to their transportation and use on site.

6.9.4 Temporary Excavations
All excavations must comply with applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities. Such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 27 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Temporary cut slopes up to 15 feet high may be sloped back at an inclination of no steeper than

1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in the existing site soils. Minor sloughing and/or raveling of sandy slopes should be anticipated as they dry out. If signs of slope instability are observed, the inclination recommended above should be decreased until stability of the slope is obtained.

Kleinfelder should be onsite full time to observe the temporary backcuts. Where space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring will be necessary. All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met.

Where sloped excavations are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that vehicles and storage loads do not encroach the tops of excavated slopes within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation. Greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Kleinfelder should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established. If temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes to reduce runoff that may enter the excavation and erode the slope faces. Stockpiled material should not be placed closer to the edge of an excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, and never closer than 4 feet from the edge of the excavation.

Temporary, shallow excavations with vertical side slopes less than 4 feet high should generally be stable, although sloughing may be encountered in the granular deposits. Vertical excavations greater than 4 feet high should not be attempted without appropriate shoring to prevent local instability. All trench excavations should be braced and shored in accordance with good construction practice and all applicable safety ordinances and codes. The contractor should be responsible for the structural design and safety of the temporary shoring system, and we recommend that this design be submitted to Kleinfelder for review to check that our recommendations have been incorporated. For planning purposes, the on-site soils may be considered as a Type C soil, as defined using the current OSHA soil classification.

6.9.5 Unstable Subgrade Conditions
Groundwater may be encountered during site grading. We recommend that a dewatering plan be prepared such that the groundwater is maintained below the storm drain subgrade elevation during construction. Following dewatering, we anticipate pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized. An unstable subgrade could be overexcavated 12 to 24 inches below the subgrade elevation and replaced with an equal amount of ¾- or 1-inch compacted crushed rock wrapped by geotextile fabric. The geotextile fabric should 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 28 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
consist of a woven geotextile, such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent. The final depth of removal will depend upon the conditions observed in the field once over-excavation begins. The geotextile fabric should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Alternate stabilization methods approved by Kleinfelder may also be performed.

6.10 PERMANENT SLOPES
Permanent slopes may be constructed for the proposed project. The following sections provide general recommendations for both fill and cut slopes. Revised recommendations may be needed based on our review of the final project plans.

6.10.1 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes may be inclined up to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. Where the toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope, a keyway is required at the toe of the fill slope. The fill slope keyway should be a minimum width of 15 feet, with a minimum depth of 3 feet into competent natural material and should extend a distance equal to the depth of the keyway beyond the toe of the fill. Benching should be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the slope. Benches should be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than four feet in height and established in competent material. Figure 4, Typical Engineered Fill Slope Detail shows a typical section for a fill slope including keyway and benching. For slopes 10 feet high or less, the keyway depth and width may be reduced as presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5
Minimum Keyway Recommendations
Keyway Recommendations for Fill Slopes
Slope Height 5 feet or less > 5 feet to 10 feet > 10 feet Minimum Keyway Depth
1 foot into competent
material
2 feet into competent
material
3 feet into competent
material
Minimum Keyway Width 8 feet * 8 feet 15 feet
* For fill slopes 5 feet or less in height, further evaluation of the keyway width can be made by the Engineer of Record based on field conditions and construction methods employed.

Compressible or other unsuitable soils should be removed from the slope prior to benching.

Competent material is defined as being essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing or erosion prone material and is established by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Following 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 29 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
completion of the excavation for the keyway, the project Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the keyway prior to backfilling with certified engineered fill.

Depending on fill slope construction and actual site conditions encountered in the field to be verified by the Geotechnical Engineer or their representative, back drains may be required within the compacted fill to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the fill slope.

Field conditions, such as observed seepage, or the presence of water within the slope may require the use of subdrains to adequately prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the fill slope. In general, fill slopes with design heights less than 10 feet will likely not require subdrains.

When constructing fill slopes, the contractor shall avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slope during dumping and rolling conditions. Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed into place. As a preferred method, the slope should be over-built and then trimmed back to expose a compacted core. As an alternative method, after each 4 feet of vertical height has been obtained, the contractor shall compact the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the slope and thoroughly covering the entire slope surface with overlapping passes of the roller and accepted by geotechnical engineer of record. The foregoing should be repeated after the placement of each 4-foot thickness of fill.

As discussed previously, fill slopes should conform to the requirements of the “Earthwork” section of this report and should contain no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The fill slope surface should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557, or as specified in the project plans and specifications. Surface drainage control, such as berms at the tops of slopes, should be included in the design of fill slopes to direct sheet flow away from the tops of slopes and reduce the potential for slope erosion.

6.10.2 Cut Slopes
In general, cut slopes should be a maximum inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Due to the potential for adverse geologic conditions, cut slopes proposed in formational material should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We recommend that a qualified geologist be on site during grading of the cut slopes to map the exposed geology for consistency with the conditions presented in this report. Revised recommendations may be needed based on the in-grading mapping.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 30 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.11 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
In general, the drilling equipment used for our geotechnical investigation was able to reach the target depths at all of the borings, suggesting that the subsurface soils can be excavated with conventional excavation equipment.

6.12 SCOUR CONSIDERATIONS
We understand scour analysis will be performed by others. The near-surface soil generally consisted of sandy silt and silty sand. The sieve analysis results presented in Appendix B can be used to support scour analyses. The grain size representing percent passing 50% (D50) obtained from the sieve analyses of the near-surface soil are summarized in Table 6 below.

Table 6
D50 Results
Boring Number Depth (ft) D50
(mm)
B-1 5 0.072
B-2 5 0.045
B-3 0 – 5 >0.1
B-4 0 – 5 0.14
B-5 5 0.025
B-6 0 – 5 0.040
B-7 0 – 5 0.094
B-8 5 0.052
B-9 5 0.13
B-10 0 – 5 0.067
B-11 0 – 5 0.071
B-12 0 - 5 0.059
B-13 0 – 5 0.10
B-14 0 – 5 0.76
B-15 0 – 5 0.31
B-16 5 0.096
B-17 5 0.097
B-18 0 – 5 0.28
B-19 0 – 5 0.26
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 31 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

6.13 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.13.1 Asphalt Concrete
If proposed access roads will be paved, the required pavement structural sections will depend on the expected wheel loads, volume of traffic, and subgrade soils. The Traffic Indexes (TI’s) assumed should be reviewed by the project Owner, Architect, and/or Civil Engineer to evaluate their suitability for this project. Changes in the TI's will affect the corresponding pavement section. The pavement subgrade should be prepared just prior to placement of the base course.

Positive drainage of the paved areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of pavements. A preliminary asphalt concrete pavement section is provided in Table 7, below.

Table 7
Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
(Design R-value = 50)
Assumed
Traffic Index
(TI)
Minimum Asphalt
Concrete (inches)
Minimum Aggregate
Base
(inches)
5 3.0 4.0
Based on laboratory testing results, a design R-Value of 50 was selected for pavement design.

Since the characteristics of the near-surface soils can change as a result of grading, we recommend that representative subgrade samples be obtained during grading and additional R value tests performed. Should the results of these tests indicate a significant difference, the design pavement section(s) provided above may need to be revised. Pavement sections provided above are contingent on the following recommendations being implemented during construction.
• The upper 12 inches of subgrade below pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
• Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time aggregate base materials are placed and compacted.
• Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
• Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 32 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
• Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class II aggregate base rock or crushed miscellaneous base as specified in the "Standard Specifications for Public Work Construction" ("Greenbook"). • The asphalt pavement should be placed in accordance with “Green Book” specifications or the City of San Jacinto requirements, as appropriate. We recommend that the asphalt pavement be placed in a single layer of ½-inch aggregate mix for pavements 4 inches thick or less. If the pavement section is over 4 inches thick, then the asphalt should be placed in at least two layers of mix. The first layer should consist of a base or coarse layer (¾-inch mix). The second layer (i.e., top layer) should consist of a medium or fine layer of ½-inch mix.

6.13.2 Portland Cement Concrete
Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,000 psi. Control joints should be spaced approximately every 10 feet. The concrete pavement section should be placed on at least 18 inches of engineered fill compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density with the upper 12 inches below pavements compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. The following table presents our recommendations of Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.

Table 8
Preliminary PCC Pavement Sections
Assumed
Traffic Index
(TI)
Minimum Concrete Thickness
(inches; using a 28-day
compressive strength of 3,000
psi)
Minimum Concrete Thickness
(inches; using a 28-day
compressive strength of 4,000
psi)
5 6.5 6.0
As an alternative to placing PCC pavements directly over 18 inches of engineered fill, 6 inches of aggregate base material may be added between the PCC and engineered fill to provide additional load distribution, drainage, and an option to reduce the thickness of the recommended PCC. If 6 inches of aggregate base material (compacted to 95% relative compaction) is used between the recommended 18 inches of engineered fill and PCC pavement, the recommended PCC thickness may be reduced by ½ inch. Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base or crushed 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 33 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
miscellaneous base as specified in the "Standard Specifications for Public Work Construction" ("Greenbook").
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 34 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
7 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed project. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered during construction, which differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed project, including the proposed foundation systems or vault locations, change from that described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed and a response issued. References to elevations and locations provided within this report were based upon general information provided for our use. Kleinfelder did not provide surveying services.

Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the authors of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or "included by reference," as the latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law.

We have strived to prepare the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report in a manner consistent with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of this profession practicing under similar conditions in the geographic vicinity and at the time the services were performed. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. Information and recommendations presented in this report should not be extrapolated to other areas or be used for other projects without our prior review and response.

This report may be used only by Albert A. Webb Associates and their subcontractors and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Albert A. Webb Associates and their subcontractors who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use.

Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 35 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Kleinfelder will assume no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any claim, damage, or injury which results from pre-existing hazardous materials being encountered or present on the project site, or from the discovery of such hazardous materials. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 36 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
8 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19).

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16) and Supplements 1, 2, and 3.

Blisniuk, K.M., OSKIN, A.S., Riaux, M.E., Rockwell, T.K., Finkel, R.C., and Ryerson, F.J., 2013, Stable, rapid rate of slip since inception of the San Jacinto fault, California, Geophys.

Res. Lett., 40, 4209–4213. doi:10.1002/grl.50819.

Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 42p.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for governments agencies, property owners/developers, and geosciences practitioners for assessing fault rupture hazards in California, Special Publication 42, revised 2018.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2021, EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, accessed 11-29-2023 at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ geohazards /eq-zapp.

Dept. of the Navy, 1986. NAVFAC DM 7.01: Soil Mechanics, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

Dept. of the Navy, 1986. NAVFAC DM 7.02: Foundations and Earth Structures, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003, Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Update 2003, South Coast Hydrologic Region, San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, Basin No. 8-05, Riverside Co., California.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2021, California State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) online data viewer accessed 11-29-2023,
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#currentconditions. 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 37 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2021, National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) online geospatial database accessed 11-29-2023 at https://www.fema.gov/floodmaps/national-flood-hazard-layer.

GeoLogismiki, 2006, CLiq v.3.0.3.4.

Givler, R., Hartleb, R., Lindvall, S., Thompson, S., Zandieh, A., Kemp, C., Rockwell, T.K., Baune, D., Davidson, J., Taylor, T., Hachem, M., Parra, R., Chau, C., Bell, R., 2022, Geologic Hazard Characterization for Metropolitan Water District’s Replacement of Casa Loma Siphon Barrel No. 1, San Jacinto, California. 39-51. 10.1061/9780784484449.004.

International Code Council, Inc., 2022, California Building Code.

Leighton and Associates, 2004, Fault Investigation, The Villages, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. Unpublished consultant report prepared for: Western Pacific Housing, Inc. by LAA, 41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590, dated 3-31- 2004.

Morton, D.M., Matti, J.C., Alvarez, Rachel, and Cossette, P.M., 2001, Geologic map of the Lakeview 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, OpenFile Report OF-2001-174, 1:24,000.

Norris, R.M., and Webb R.W., 1990, California Geology, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Onderdonk, N. W., Rockwell, T. K., McGill, S. F., and Marliyani, G. I. (2013). “Evidence for seven surface ruptures in the past 1,600 years on the Claremont fault at Mystic Lake, northern San Jacinto fault zone, California.” Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 103(1), 519–541.

Riverside County (RCIT), 2021, Riverside County, Map My County website https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public Roberge, P., 2006, Corrosion Basics, 2nd ed.

Rockwell, T.K., T.E. Dawson, J. Young-Ben Horton, and G. Seitz, 2015, A 21 event, 4,000-year history of surface ruptures in the Anza Seismic Gap, San Jacinto Fault and implications for long-term earthquake production on a major plate boundary fault. Pure and Applied Geophysics, v. 172, no.5, p.1143-1165. First published online, November 2014. doi:10.1007/s00024-014-0955 z
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page 38 of 38 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
Schaefer Dixon Associates, 1993, Geotechnical Investigation, Faulting and Seismicity, Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility, Riverside County, California.

Unpublished consultant report prepared for: Eastern Municipal Water District by SDA, 22 Mauchly, Irvine, CA 92618, dated 11-29-1993.

Salisbury, J. B., Rockwell, T. K.T., Middleton, J., and Hudnut, K.W., 2012, LiDAR and field observations of slip distribution for the most recent surface ruptures along the central San Jacinto fault, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 102, 598–619.

SoCalGeo, 2021, Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Southwest of Intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California, dated November 1, 2021.

SoCalGeo, 2022, Results of Piezometer Readings, Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development, Southwest of Intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Record Road, San Jacinto, California. Unpublished consultant report for: Shea Properties Management Company, Inc. by Southern California Geotechnical, 22885 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite E, Yorba Linda, CA 92887, dated 3-23-2022.

U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey (2006). Quaternary fault and fold database for United States, accessed 11-29-2023,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

FIGURES
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

CAD FILE: C:\Users\DFahrney\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\CADD\24002328\24002328_Line-E_San-Jacinto.dwg N
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT:

CHECKED BY:

REVISED:

DATE:

FIGURE SITE VICINITY MAP 24002328
DMF
HM
10/2023
- 1

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic series, Lakeview and
San Jacinto, California quadrangles dated 2018.

PLOTTED: 10/25/2024 11:49 AM BY: dean fahrney
LINE E

ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED

ON-SITE
BASIN

PROPOSED

CONFLUENCE
BASIN
ARRAY 1
ARRAY 2 CAD FILE: C:\Users\DFahrney\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\CADD\24002328\24002328_Line-E_San-Jacinto.dwg LAYOUT: 2 PLOTTED: 10/25/2024 12:05 PM BY: dean fahrney The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. N 1,000 500 0 1,000
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
FIGURE

DRAWN BY
DATE:

PROJECT:

CHECKED BY
REVISED:

EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
24002328
DMF
HM
10/2023- 2

EXPLANATION
B-19 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
CPT-2 APPROXIMATE CPT LOCATION
REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY ALBERT A. WEBB
ASSOCIATES, DATED 08/23/2023

ALTERNATIVE BERM
LOCATION (APPROX.)
CPT-2
CPT-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6 B-7 B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16 B-17 B-18
B-19

APPROXIMATE SEISMIC SURFACE

WAVE ARRAY LOCATION
ARRAY 2
Casa Loma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
Casa Loma Fault
%

PROPOSED

CONFLUENCE
BASIN
%

PROPOSED

ON-SITE
BASIN
The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

Service Layer Credits:
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Basemap: USGS The National Map
Inset: National Geographic World Map
£
LEGEND
Line E Alignment
Recency of Displacement
in years (USGS)
< 150
<15,000
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Trace (CGS)
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone (CGS)
PLOTTED: 10/28/2024 3:31:49 PM, RAlvarez
FIGURE
3 FILE: G:\Client\CityofSanJacinto\24002328\24002328_F3.mxd

FAULT LOCATION MAP
PROJECT:

FILE NAME:

DRAWN:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:
24002328_F3.mxd
RA
HM

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
24002328
10/2024
U.S. Geological Survey, Quaternary fault
and fold database for the United States.

California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo
fault traces and zones, Seismic Hazards Program.

FILE NAME: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DRAWN: PROJECT NO.
www.kleinfelder.com
FIGURE:

TYPICAL ENGINEERED FILL

SLOPE DETAIL

SAN JACINTO LINE E STORM DRAIN

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
24002823 11/2023 HMEN
4 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page A-1 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
Field explorations included a site reconnaissance and subsurface explorations. During the site reconnaissance phase, each proposed boring site was visited to evaluate exploration equipment, accessibility, and general site conditions. The subsurface exploration program included drilling 19 hollow-stem auger borings and performing 2 CPTs.

The borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 50 feet bgs. Truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rigs supplied by 2R Drilling of Chino, California were used for the soil borings. Hollow-Stem Auger (HSA) drill rigs were equipped with 8-inch outside diameter (O.D.) continuous flight, hollow-stem augers.

The CPTs were advanced to a maximum depth of 100 ft bgs. The CPTs were performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering, Inc. of Huntington Beach, California using a 30-ton truck rig.

Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration test (SPT) samplers and California-type (CAL) samplers, respectively. The SPT sampler has a 1.375-inch inside diameter and a 2.0-inch outside diameter. The CAL sampler has a 2.42-inch inside diameter and a 3.0-inch outside diameter. Samples were driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. SPT and CAL samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals alternating between the SPT and the CAL until reaching the boring target depth. Large bulk samples were also obtained within the upper 5 feet from each boring. The number of blows required to drive the samplers were recorded for each 6-inch penetration interval. The number of blows required to drive the samplers for the last 12 inches, or the interval achieved where higher resistance was encountered, is referred to as the blow count and is noted on the boring logs. Where the sample was driven less than 12 inches, the number of blows to drive the sample for each 6-inch segment, or portion thereof, is shown on the logs. For example, 50/4" indicates 50 blows to drive the sampler 4 inches to refusal. After the samplers were withdrawn from the test borings, select samples were carefully removed, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and transported to AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. for testing.

A legend to the logs is presented as Figure A-1 and A-2. The boring logs are presented as Figure A-3 through A-24. The logs describe the earth materials encountered, indicate the locations of the samples obtained, and show field and laboratory tests performed. The excavations were logged by an engineer from Kleinfelder using methods outlined in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and general procedures established in ASTM D2488. The 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page A-2 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. The CPT visual plots and data are also attached in Appendix A following the logs.

GRAPHICS KEY
A-1
FIGURE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report.

Solid lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only, dashed lines are inferred or extrapolated boundaries.

Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those represented.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.

In general, Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488/D2487) designations presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing.

Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., CL-ML, GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM.

If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a pound hammer falling inches.

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM), 2011, ASTM D2487: Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND

WELL-GRADED SAND,

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED SAND,

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY,

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL
(OR SILTY CLAY AND GRAVEL)

SILTY SAND,

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL
GP-GC
GC-GM

FINE GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more passes
the No. #200 sieve)

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL,

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL,

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH CLAY (OR SILTY CLAY),

WELL-GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL
(OR SILTY CLAY AND GRAVEL)

CLAYEY SAND,

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% retained on No. 200 Sieve)

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND,

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL

LEAN CLAY, LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, LEAN CLAY WITH GRAVEL

SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
50 or greater)
NOTE: USE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ON THE LOG TO DEFINE A GRAPHIC THAT MAY NOT BE PROVIDED ON THIS LEGEND.

MH
CH
OH

BULK SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
(3 in. (76.2 mm.) outer diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
(2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner diameter)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM1
SP-SM
SP-SC
SM
SC
SANDS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES

GRAVELS
WITH >
12%
FINES

SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
less than 50)

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT,

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY (OR SILTY

CLAY), POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND
(OR SILTY CLAY AND SAND)

SILTY GRAVEL,

SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND

CLAYEY GRAVEL,

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT,

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
SP
CLEAN
SANDS
WITH
<5%
FINES

ML SILT, SILT WITH SAND, SILT WITH GRAVEL CL

ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND, ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL, ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND, ORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL

ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC CLAY WITH SAND, ORGANIC CLAY WITH GRAVEL, ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND, ORGANIC SILT WITH GRAVEL CL-ML

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY (OR SILTY

CLAY), WELL-GRADED GRAVEL WITH CLAY AND

SAND (OR SILT CLAY AND SAND)

SILTY CLAY, SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, SILTY CLAY WITH GRAVEL ELASTIC SILT. ELASTIC SILT WITH SAND, ELASTIC SILT WITH GRAVEL

FAT CLAY, FAT CLAY WITH SAND, FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL
OL
SANDS
WITH >
12%
FINES
CLEAN
GRAVEL
WITH
<5%
FINES

GRAVELS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES
SW
SW-SC
SW-SM
SC-SM
GP-GM
GM
GC
GW
GP
GW-GM
GW-GC
SANDS (50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 Sieve) GRAVELS (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve)

DRILLING METHOD/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS
NOTES

GROUND WATER GRAPHICS

OBSERVED SEEPAGE
WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)
WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)
WATER LEVEL (level after stabilizing period)
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_GEO_LEG1_GRAPHICS_KEY_W_USCS] PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:55 PM BY: DEdrees DATE:

CHECKED BY: HM
DRAWN BY: DE
24002328.001A
PROJECT NO.:

SPT-N
(# blows / ft)
FIGURE
A-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY
(For additional tables, see ASTM D2488)
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California

APPARENT

DENSITY
30 - 50
10 - 30
4 - 10
Secondary
Constituent is
Coarse Grained
Term
of
Use
<5%
With
Modifier
5 to <15%
Secondary
Constituent is
Fine Grained
15%
Trace <15%
15 to <30%
30%
AMOUNT

CRITERIA
<500

0.5 PP <1
1 PP <2
2 PP <4
4 PP
Pocket Pen
(tsf)
PP < 0.25
Medium Stiff

0.25 PP <0.5

SPT - N
(# blows / ft)
medium

SIEVE SIZE

DESCRIPTION
Damp but no
visible water
#40 - #10

0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.)
Passing #200 <0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.)

DESCRIPTION
3 - 12 in.
3/4 -3 in.
#4 - 3/4 in.
1,000 - 2,000
2,000 - 4,000
4,000 - 8,000
>8,000
<4
Very Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
>50
Loose
Very Loose
Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layers less than 1/4-in. (6 mm) thick, note thickness. Laminated Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness. Lensed Boulders
Cobbles
coarse
fine
Gravel
Same color and appearance throughout
Breaks along definite planes of fracture with
little resistance to fracturing.

Homogeneous

DESCRIPTION
Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-in. (6mm) thick, note thickness.

Fissured
Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

DESCRIPTION
Non-Plastic
Low
Dry
Wet
Visible free water,
usually soil is below
water table

FIELD TEST
Absence of
moisture, dusty,
dry to the touch
Sand
Fines

GRAIN SIZE
>12 in. (304.8 mm.)
3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)
3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)

0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.)
#10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.)

0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)
#200 - #40
Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown. Blocky

CRITERIA
Medium
High

CRITERIA
A 1/8 in. (3 mm) thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.
coarse
fine
Moist
Rounded
Subrounded Particles have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges.

Angular Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces.

Subangular
Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges.

Particles are similar to angular description but have rounded edges.

DESCRIPTION
None
Weak
Crumbles or breaks
with considerable finger
pressure
Moderately
Weakly
Will not crumble or
break with finger
pressure

DESCRIPTION
Strongly

FIELD TEST
Crumbles or breaks
with handling or little
finger pressure
Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only
with great effort
Easily penetrated several inches by fist
Easily penetrated several inches by thumb
Can be penetrated several inches by thumb with
moderate effort
Readily indented by thumbnail
Indented by thumbnail with difficulty

CONSISTENCY VISUAL / MANUAL CRITERIA
<2
>30
Very Soft
Strong
No visible reaction
Some reaction,
with bubbles
forming slowly
Violent reaction,
with bubbles
forming
immediately

DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
Soft
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (Qu)(psf)
>12 in.

Stratified
500 - 1,000
CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL2, 3
CEMENTATION1

APPARENT DENSITY -
COARSE-GRAINED SOIL2
PLASTICITY1
STRUCTURE1 ANGULARITY1
GRAIN SIZE1
MOISTURE CONTENT1

REACTION WITH
HYDROCHLORIC ACID1
SECONDARY CONSTITUENT1

REFERENCES

1. American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM), 2017, ASTM D2488: Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedures).

2. Terzaghi, K and Peck, R., 1948, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

3. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1998, Earth Manual, Part I.
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [_KLF_GEO_LEG2_SOIL_DESC_KEY] PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:56 PM BY: DEdrees DATE:

CHECKED BY: HM
DRAWN BY: DE
24002328.001A
PROJECT NO.:
101.7

90.2 81.4

83.7 84.2
100 53
76 Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
stiff, increase in sand content
very stiff
brown, stiff
SILT (ML): low plasticity, olive, moist,
medium stiff
increase in sand content
SILT with Sand (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist, stiff
olive, moist to wet, medium stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, wet, loose
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

10.2 26.4

40.6 36.7

36.8 BC=3
5 8
BC=5
7 8
BC=3
3 5
BC=1
2 3
BC=3
1 3
BC=4
4 6
BC=1
2 2
38 NP
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Corrosion Test
Direct Shear Test
Consolidation Test
Direct Shear Test
12 NP
1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-3

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-1
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-1
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.82065°
Longitude: -117.02476°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,450.00
Surface Condition: Sparse Vegetation
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
1420
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
71 Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, wet, loose
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, olive, wet,
stiff
olive gray, medium stiff
Clayey SAND (SC): fine sand, medium
plasticity, olive, wet, loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
BC=4
5 8
BC=3
5 6
BC=1
3 4
BC=2
3 4
44 18
Groundwater was observed at approximately 29.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 16.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-4

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-1
PAGE:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1410
1405
1400
1395
1390
1385
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
9 10
11 12
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

83.0 93.2

92.7 85.1
100 59
80 57
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, light
brown, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, light
brown, moist, medium stiff, trace mica
stiff
SILT with Sand (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
light brown, moist, medium stiff, trace mica
olive, hard
Sandy Elastic SILT (MH): low plasticity, olive,
moist, medium stiff
medium stiff, fine sand
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist to wet, loose
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

32.3 25.8

27.4 35.3
BC=2
3 3
BC=4
7 7
BC=2
3 8
BC=2
2 3
BC=6
13 17
BC=2
2 3
BC=3
4 3
65 Hand Auger 5' bgs
Expansion Index Test
Direct Shear Test
Direct Shear Test
30 1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-5

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-2
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-2
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.82004°
Longitude: -117.02428°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,450.00
Surface Condition: Sparse Vegetation
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

81.3 47
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist to wet, loose
wet, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"

39.3 BC=2
3 6
BC=4
4 11
BC=4
5 6
BC=4
8 10
NP
NP
Consolidation Test
NP
NP
Groundwater was observed at approximately 34.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 33 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-6

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-2
PAGE:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

97.4 95.9

99.8 90.1
100 59
90 Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, dry to moist, trace clay
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, dry to moist, trace clay
light gray, hard
fine to medium sand
SILT (ML): trace fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist, hard
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, moist,
medium dense, trace mica
loose, decrease in sand content
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

3.3 0.8

6.2 29.1
BC=11
20 21
BC=9
13 20
BC=11
28 28
BC=3
7 9
BC=2
2 7
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-7

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-3
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-3
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81791°
Longitude: -117.02451°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,455.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
108.0
114.3

93.9 100 22
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, light brown,
moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, light brown,
moist
olive gray, medium dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, low plasticity,
olive, moist, medium stiff
Clayey SAND (SC): fine sand, low plasticity,
olive, moist, medium dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, low to medium
plasticity, olive, moist, medium dense
olive gray
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

8.3 5.5

7.1 BC=10
11 11
BC=9
13 15
BC=4
8 12
BC=1
3 4
BC=4
5 10
BC=2
6 9
BC=6
8 10
NP
45 NP
Hand Auger 5' bgs (very loose)
R-Value Test
Corrosion Test
NP Consolidation Test
15 NP
1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-8

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-4
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-4
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81654°
Longitude: -117.02420°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,459.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, low to medium
plasticity, olive, moist, medium dense
dark olive gray
increase in fines content
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
BC=3
4 6
BC=4
8 12
BC=4
5 9
BC=7
13 14
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-9

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-4
PAGE:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1420
1415
1410
1405
1400
1395
1390
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
9 10
11 12
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
113.3
111.0
120.4
100 67
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist, trace clay
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist, trace clay
olive yellow, moist, very stiff, increase in sand
content
fine sand, olive, moist, trace medium sand
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, light gray, moist,
dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist, stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

14.6 12.4

4.8 BC=7
11 18
BC=7
12 16
BC=11
20 23
BC=4
7 5
BC=14
22 22
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-10

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-5
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-5
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81486°
Longitude: -117.02388°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,463.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:57 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

91.8 90.0

83.8 95.9
100 69
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
stiff, increase in sand
fine sand, olive, moist to wet, medium stiff
wet, stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, wet, loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
6"

27.5 27.8

34.7 26.6
BC=4
6 8
BC=6
8 9
BC=4
3 3
BC=9
10 10
BC=3
3 3
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 10.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 18.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-11

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-6
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-6
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81644°
Longitude: -117.02061°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,452.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
1420
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
101.2

99.8 100.5
100 46
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
trace clay
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
trace clay
light gray, medium dense
increase in sand content
olive gray, moist
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist to wet,
dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

7.4 3.6

15.2 BC=5
9 13
BC=7
12 14
BC=3
7 13
BC=5
8 12
BC=8
19 28
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Expansion Index Test
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-12

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-7
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-7
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81645°
Longitude: -117.01632°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,457.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

90.0 98.1

99.0 100 66
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
brown, moist, trace medium sand
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
brown, moist, trace medium sand
stiff, increase in sand content
very stiff
light gray
olive, moist to wet, stiff
olive gray, wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

27.8 8.7

3.8 BC=4
5 6
BC=5
9 13
BC=8
11 16
BC=2
4 9
BC=3
5 9
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was observed at approximately 15 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 19 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-13

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-8
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-8
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81640°
Longitude: -117.01184°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,459.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
1425
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
110.2
107.9
111.2
112.3
100 39
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, light
brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, light
brown, moist
fine sand, olive, loose, increase in fines
fine to medium sand, medium dense
fine sand, trace medium sand
olive, moist to wet
fine to medium sand, wet, increase in sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

14.1 12.1

14.9 12.1
BC=3
7 6
BC=4
6 6
BC=4
9 10
BC=3
9 12
BC=6
5 5
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Groundwater was observed at approximately 15 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-14

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-9
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-9
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81617°
Longitude: -117.00761°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,463.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
1430
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
103.6

91.6 103.1
100 54

2.3 Artificial fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to coarse
sand, light gray, moist, loose
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive, moist,
loose
Sandy SILT (ML): fine to medium sand,
non-plastic, moist, medium stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
27, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

2.1 23.7

20.9 BC=5
3 4
BC=2
3 4
BC=3
4 10
BC=1
2 3
BC=7
8 13
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-15

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-10
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-10
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81403°
Longitude: -117.00741°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,467.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/27/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

80.0 95.4
110.4
102.2
100 52
Artificial Fill
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
brown, moist
olive gray, stiff, increase in sand content
medium stiff
very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist, medium
dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist,
medium dense
decrease in silt, trace medium sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

10.7 23.0

8.1 13.4
BC=3
3 5
BC=2
3 4
BC=2
8 15
BC=8
8 16
BC=7
11 13
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Corrosion Test
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-16

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-11
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-11
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.81185°
Longitude: -117.00735°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,469.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
1435
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
104.8

98.5 94.5
100 59
Artificial Fil
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist
Alluvium
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, olive
gray, moist
very stiff, increase in sand
olive
light gray, trace medium sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, olive gray, moist, medium
dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, light
gray, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
28, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

16.8 16.1

19.2 BC=3
5 10
BC=3
6 9
BC=5
10 16
BC=3
5 7
BC=6
20 30
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-17

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-12
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-12
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80946°
Longitude: -117.00736°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,471.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/28/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
1440
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
104.1

84.4 100.9
100 38
34 Artificial Fil
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist
trace medium sand
loose
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine sand, olive,
moist, loose
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic,
olive, moist, very stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, olive,
moist, loose, trace coarse sand
fine sand, dark gray, moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

17.8 35.3

22.2 BC=2
3 4
BC=2
2 7
BC=3
5 10
BC=2
2 6
BC=5
5 10
Hand Auger 5' bgs
R-Value Test
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-18

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-13
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-13
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80917°
Longitude: -117.00521°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,475.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

81.3 108.7
100.6

93.3 99 6.0
71 Artificial Fill
Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist
Alluvium
Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM): fine
to medium sand, light gray, moist
SILT with Sand (ML): fine sand, light gray,
moist, medium stiff
olive gray, loose
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
sand, olive gray, moist, medium dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
gray, moist, very stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, dark grey, moist,
loose
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, dark grey, moist, medium
dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

37.8 8.6

13.5 26.7
BC=1
2 3
BC=3
3 7
BC=2
4 12
BC=4
5 7
BC=5
6 4
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-19

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-14
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-14
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80735°
Longitude: -117.00326°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,477.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
1445
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

86.1 104.2

93.4 99 25
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, olive
brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, olive
brown, moist
fine sand, olive
loose
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine sand, light
gray, moist, medium dense, trace mica
Clayey SAND (SC): fine sand, low to medium
plasticity, light gray, moist, loose
Silty SAND (SM): light gray, moist, medium
dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. Monitoring
Well installed to a depth of 21.5
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

29.1 9.4

25.5 BC=2
3 3
BC=4
7 9
BC=6
10 10
BC=1
2 4
BC=5
7 9
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Corrosion Test
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 18.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-20

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-15
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-15
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80475°
Longitude: -117.00315°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,479.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
108.3

97.5 87.3

99.9 100 39
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, grayish brown,
moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, grayish brown,
moist, loose
olive gray, loose, increase in sand content
olive, moist to wet, decrease in sand content
fine to medium sand, wet
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to coarse sand, light gray, wet, loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

3.8 21.1

33.9 25.7
BC=5
5 5
BC=4
4 8
BC=2
2 3
BC=3
4 4
BC=1
2 6
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Groundwater was observed at approximately 10.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 8 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-21

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-16
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-16
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80256°
Longitude: -117.00315°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,483.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1480
1475
1470
1465
1460
1455
1450
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:58 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

97.5 80.9

91.9 100 38
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, dark brown,
moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, dark brown,
moist
loose
moist to wet, increase in sand
very loose
wet, medium dense
fine to medium sand, medium dense, trace
coarse sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

27.3 43.1

23.0 BC=1
2 3
BC=5
7 7
BC=2
2 2
BC=3
7 7
BC=3
4 15
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Corrosion Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 8 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 12.5 ft. below ground surface after drilling completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-22

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-17
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-17
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80223°
Longitude: -117.00116°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,483.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
104.6

83.0 85.3
112.5
100 22
Artificial Fill
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand,
brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand,
brown, moist
medium dense
fine sand, olive gray, moist to wet
Sandy SILT (ML): fine sand, non-plastic, dark
gray, wet, soft
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium sand, dark
grey, wet, medium dense
increase in fines
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

16.4 34.8

38.3 20.3
BC=6
7 8
BC=1
2 3
BC=1
1 1
BC=1
7 17
BC=6
10 12
Hand Auger 5' bgs
R-Value Test
Direct Shear Test
Groundwater was observed at approximately 9 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 5.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-23

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-18
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-18
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80212°
Longitude: -116.99922°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,483.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type

93.5 107.7
102.7
Artificial Fill 100 13
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, brown, moist
Alluvium
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, brown, moist
SILT (ML): low plasticity, olive gray, moist,
medium stiff, trace clay
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium sand, moist, medium dense
trace mica
Silty SAND (SM): fine sand, olive gray, moist
to wet, medium dense
wet
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on September
26, 2023.
18"
18"
18"
18"
18"

18.4 3.7

19.2 BC=2
3 3
BC=5
10 20
BC=8
17 17
BC=5
7 9
BC=8
15 23
Hand Auger 5' bgs
Modified Proctor
Groundwater was observed at approximately 21 ft. below ground surface during drilling.

Groundwater was observed at approximately 17.5 ft. below ground surface at the end of drilling.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Google Earth.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-24

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG B-19
PAGE:

BORING LOG B-19
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 33.80100°
Longitude: -117.00472°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 1,491.00
Surface Condition: Unpaved Road
Not Available
Drilling Company: 2R Drilling
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Bore Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

CME-75
8 in. O.D.

D. Edrees
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
Miguel/Justin
9/26/2023
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
1490
1485
1480
1475
1470
1465
1460
Graphical LogBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Recovery(NR=No Recovery)WaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
SampleNumber
1 2
3 4
5 6
PLOTTED: 11/07/2023 08:59 PM BY: DEdrees
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2024 PROJECT NUMBER: 24002328.001A OFFICE FILTER: RIVERSIDEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2024.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE:

CHECKED BY: H.M
DRAWN BY: D.E
PROJECT NO.:
24002328.001ASample Type
Project: Kleinfelder/ Line E San Jacinto
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 100.14 ft, Date: 10/12/2023 CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance

HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 00
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction

HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
543210
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u

HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
1 008 06 04 02 00-2 0
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio

HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type

HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/12/2023, 10:35:15 AM 1 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\Kleinfelder-SanJacinto10-23\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt Project: Kleinfelder/ Line E San Jacinto
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
San Jacinto, CA Total depth: 100.14 ft, Date: 10/12/2023 CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance

HAND AUGER
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 00
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction

HAND AUGER
Friction (tsf)
543210
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u

HAND AUGER
Pressure (psi)
1 008 06 04 02 00-2 0
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio

HAND AUGER
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type

HAND AUGER
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
1 00
9 5
9 0
8 5
8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 10/12/2023, 10:35:16 AM 2 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\Kleinfelder-SanJacinto10-23\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page B-1 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on drive and bulk soil samples to estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was performed by Kleinfelder’s Ontario, California lab and AP Engineering & Testing, Inc. (AP) of Pomona, California. The test results are presented herein. Visual classifications presented on the lab plates were performed by AP during their laboratory testing and may differ from those presented on the boring logs provided in Appendix A.

IN-SITU MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY UNIT WEIGHT
In-situ moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on samples that could be recovered in a relatively undisturbed condition. Moisture content was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D2216. Dry unit weight was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D7263. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

WASH SIEVE
To provide information on the fines content of the soil layers at the site, wash sieves were performed to determine the percentage passing the #200 sieve. The wash sieves were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1140. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Sieve & hydrometer analyses were performed on soil samples to evaluate the gradation of the material and to aid in soil classification. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D6913. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

ATTERBERG LIMITS (PLASTICITY INDEX)
Plasticity limit and liquid limit testing was performed on soil samples to evaluate behavior conditions at varying water contents. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D4318. The results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page B-2 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

DIRECT SHEAR
Direct shear strength tests were performed by AP on drive samples to evaluate the drained shear strength of the onsite soils. Samples were tested in a near-saturated condition in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080 (consolidated, drained). The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

CONSOLIDATION TEST
Consolidation testing was performed by AP on selected relatively undisturbed samples by AP Engineering in accordance with ASTM D 2435. The tests were performed on 1.0-inch-high,

2.41-inch diameter samples. After trimming the ends, the sample was placed in a consolidometer and an initial reading was recorded. The sample was saturated during loading, and thereafter, the sample was incrementally loaded. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index testing was performed on near surface bulk samples to determine the expansion potential of the soil. The testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D4829. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

COMPACTION TESTING (MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY-OPTIMUM MOISTURE) Maximum dry density-optimum moisture tests were performed on select bulk samples of the on-site soils to determine compaction characteristics. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1557. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

R-VALUE TESTING
Resistance value (R-value) tests were performed on bulk soil samples obtained to evaluate pavement support characteristics of the near-surface onsite soils. R-value tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D2844. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 Page B-3 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

CORROSIVITY TESTS
Chemical analyses were performed on samples of the near surface soil by AP to estimate pH, minimum resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride contents. The tests were performed in accordance with Caltrans standards. The results are presented in the attached laboratory data in Appendix B.

SYMBOL
1 GRAVEL

0.0 0.0

0.0 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-1
B-2
B-4
5 5
0-5

PERCENTAGES
2 2

0.0 NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

52.6 59.1

22.4 SAND

47.4 40.9

77.6 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Sandy Silt (ML)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM
NM

NM NM NM
2 NM Sandy Silt (ML)
1 69.3 Sandy Silt (ML)
5 0-5

0.0 33.3 66.7
B-6
B-5 NM

30.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT CLAY

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002823.001A
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com 24002328.001A
NM

NM NM NM
1 NM Sandy Silt (ML)
1 52.2 Sandy Silt (ML)
0-5
0-5

0.0 45.7 54.3
B-11
B-10 NM

47.8 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Silty Sand (SM)
Sandy Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM
0 NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

46.4 66.1

38.7 SAND

53.6 33.9

61.3 SYMBOL
2 GRAVEL

0.0 0.0

0.0 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-7
B-8
B-9
0-5
5 5

PERCENTAGES
1 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT CLAY

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002823.001A
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com 24002328.001A
SYMBOL
2 GRAVEL

0.0 0.0

0.0 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-12
B-16
B-17
0-5
5 5

PERCENTAGES
1 2
NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

58.6 38.9

38.4 SAND

41.4 61.1

61.6 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Sandy Silt (ML)
Silty Sand (SM)
Silty Sand (SM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM
B-19 1 0-5 0.0 87.5 12.5 NM NM NM Silty Sand (SM)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SILT CLAY

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002823.001A
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com NM

NM NM NM
1 NM Silty Sand (SM)
1 22.1 Silty Sand (SM)
0-5
0-5

0.8 74.0 25.2
B-18
B-15 NM

77.4 NM

SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Sandy Silt (ML)
Sity Sand (SM)
Well Graded Sand w/Silt (SWSM)
PI

ATTERBERG LIMITS
LL
NM NM
NM
NM
PL
NM
NM NM

0.5 NM
DEPTH
(ft.) FINES

58.7 38.4

6.0 SAND

40.9 61.6

93.2 SYMBOL
1 GRAVEL

0.4 0.0

0.8 SAMPLE
NO.

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
BORING
NO.

B-3
B-13
B-14
0-5
0-5
0-5

PERCENTAGES
1 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

CUMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
24002328.001A FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Silty Sand (SM)
24002328.001A
11/3/2023
M.Magaña
11/1/2023
M.Magaña
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318 9 7
50 20
30 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
Elastic Silt (MH)
SYMBOL
44 26 18
65 35 30

N/A N/A N/A
25 B-1 12
B-1 6
B-1 8
B-2
B-2

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Silt (ML)
Non Plastic
38 26 12

N/A N/A N/A

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PI BORING
NO.

SAMPLE
NO. DEPTH (ft)
35 Non Plastic
MH or OH
ML or OL
CH or OH
CL-ML
CL or OL
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PROJECT NO.:

TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

FIGURE
0 PROJECT NO.: 24002328.001A
TESTED BY: J.Calderon
DATE: 10/26/2023
CHECKED BY: M.Magaña
DATE: 11/2/2023
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California PLASTICITY TESTING KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Ave, Bldg G | Ontario, CA | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com NP NP NP Silt with Sand (ML) Sandy Elastic Silt (MH) NP NP NP *NP= Non Plastic
Silty Sand (SM) Clayey Sand (SC)
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
Non Plastic
Non Plastic

N/A N/A N/A

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PI BORING
NO.

SAMPLE
NO. DEPTH (ft)
Non Plastic
SYMBOL
45 30 15

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A
30 B-4 5
B-2 11
B-4 2
B-4
15 45
5 Sandy Silt (ML)
8 Non Plastic
MH or OH
ML or OL
CH or OH
CL-ML
CL or OL
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PROJECT NO.:

TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.: 24002328.001A FIGURE
TESTED BY: J.Calderon
DATE: 10/26/2023
CHECKED BY: M.Magaña
DATE: 11/2/2023
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California PLASTICITY TESTING KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Ave, Bldg G | Ontario, CA | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Silty Sand (SM) Silty Sand (SM) Silty Sand (SM) *NP= Non Plastic
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐1 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 3 Depth (ft): 7.5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

Soil Description: Silty Sand
Test Condition: Inundated Shear Type: Regular
Wet
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Dry
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Initial
Moisture
Content (%)
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Degree
Saturation
(%)
Final Degree
Saturation
(%)
Normal
Stress
(ksf)
Peak
Shear
Stress (ksf)
Ultimate
Shear
Stress (ksf)
1 0.804 0.624
2 1.452 1.212
4 2.580 2.272

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
114.0 90.2 26.4 29.8 82 93
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=200 psf; ɸ=30˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=29˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐1 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 7 Depth (ft): 25
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

Soil Description: Sandy Silt
Test Condition: Inundated Shear Type: Regular
Wet
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Dry
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Initial
Moisture
Content (%)
Final
Moisture
Content (%)
Initial Degree
Saturation
(%)
Final Degree
Saturation
(%)
Normal
Stress
(ksf)
Peak
Shear
Stress (ksf)
Ultimate
Shear
Stress (ksf)
1 0.677 0.607
2 1.140 1.020
4 2.157 2.126

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
115.1 84.2 36.8 37.3 99 100
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=200 psf; ɸ=26˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=26˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐2 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 4 Depth (ft): 10
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
118.2 92.7 27.4 30.3
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=29˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=28˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐2 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 8 Depth (ft): 30
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
115.1 85.1 35.3 36.1 97 99
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=100 psf; ɸ=31˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=29˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐6 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
117.0 91.8 27.5 29.5
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=300 psf; ɸ=28˚
Ultimate: C=150 psf; ɸ=28˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: ST Date: 10/27/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐11 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

88.5 80.0 10.7 37.6 26 92

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=31˚
Ultimate: C=150 psf; ɸ=28˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐15 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
111.1 86.1 29.1 33.3 82 94
0 1
2 3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=28˚
Ultimate: C=150 psf; ɸ=27˚
Normal Stress:

Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Tested By: DK Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A Computed By: NR Date: 11/01/23 Boring No.: B‐18 Checked by: AP Date: 11/01/23
Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft): 5
Sample Type: Mod. Cal.

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
121.7 104.6 16.4 22.0 72 97
0 1
2 3
4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Shear Deformation (Inches)
1 ksf 2 ksf 4 ksf
0 1
2 3
4 012345678
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Peak: C=150 psf; ɸ=34˚
Ultimate: C=100 psf; ɸ=29˚
Normal Stress:

Boring No. : B-1 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 83.7
Sample No.: 5 Initial Moisture Content (%): 36.7
Depth (feet): 15 Final Moisture Content (%): 36.6
Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Description: Sandy Silt Initial Void Ratio: 1.01
Remarks: Swell= 0.01% upon inundation
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Project No.: 24002328.001A
Date:

AP No: 23-1050 Sheet No: 1

CONSOLIDATION CURVE
ASTM D 2435 10/26/2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION (Percent of Sample Thickness)
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
At Field Moisture After Saturation
Boring No. : B-2 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 81.3
Sample No.: 10 Initial Moisture Content (%): 39.3
Depth (feet): 40 Final Moisture Content (%): 39.4
Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Description: Sandy Silt Initial Void Ratio: 1.07
Remarks: Swell= 0.06% upon inundation
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Project No.: 24002328.001A
Date:

AP No: 23-1050 Sheet No: 1

CONSOLIDATION CURVE
ASTM D 2435 10/26/2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION (Percent of Sample Thickness)
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
At Field Moisture After Saturation
Boring No. : B-4 Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 108.0
Sample No.: 2 Initial Moisture Content (%): 8.3
Depth (feet): 5 Final Moisture Content (%): 19.4
Sample Type: Mod Cal Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Description: Silty Sand Initial Void Ratio: 0.56
Remarks: Collapse= 0.14% upon inundation
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Project No.: 24002328.001A
Date:

AP No: 23-1050 Sheet No: 1

CONSOLIDATION CURVE
ASTM D 2435 10/26/2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 0.1 1 10 100
CONSOLIDATION (Percent of Sample Thickness)
VERTICAL STRESS (ksf)
At Field Moisture After Saturation
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4829
24002328.001A

13.0% 100.2 30.9% 0.0342 34 Low

INITIAL COMPACTED

MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
(%) (PCF)

EXPANSION
(%) (IN)

INDEX POTENTIAL

FINAL VOLUMETRIC

MOISTURE SWELL

EXPANSION

LOCATION
B-2, #1
DEPTH
(FT)
0-5
B-7, #1 0-5 10.0% 107.9 24.6% 0.0440 44
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
PROJECT NO.
11/2/2023
DATE

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
FIGURE

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS

SAMPLE SAMPLE
Low
Expansion Index 2.7.2022
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
Boring No.: B-3
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Sandy Silt (ML)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na = not applicable
Uncorrected Corrected
109.6 na
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

16.3 Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 S. Magnolia Ave, Building G | Ontario, CA | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.: B-6
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Sandy Silt (ML)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na = not applicable
Uncorrected Corrected
110.2 na
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

12.8 Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.: B-9
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Silty Sand (SM)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

9.1 Uncorrected Corrected
122.3 na
na = not applicable
Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.: B-12
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Sandy Silt (ML)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na = not applicable
Uncorrected Corrected
114.5 na
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

14.1 Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.: B-15
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Silty Sand (SM)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

8.8 Uncorrected Corrected
128 na
na = not applicable
Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

2.65 2.60
Compaction Curve
Compaction Curve, Corrected
KLEINFELDER - 620 South Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.: B-19
Sample No.: 1
Depth: 0-5
Material Description: Silty Sand (SM)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Optimum Water Content (%)
Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%)
Tested in accordance with: ASTM D1557, Method B
na
<5
Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction na

10.4 Uncorrected Corrected
121.7 na
na = not applicable
Compaction Curve
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
M.Magaña
10/24/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:
100
110
120
130
140

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Water Content (%)

2.75 2.70

Sample No.:

Depth:

Material Description:

Test Procedure: ASTM D2844
B-4
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Resistance Value
R - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE
1 13.5
Silty Sand (SM)
C
113.2

14.4 112.1
0-5

90.9 110.0
74 66
Specimen No. B
Moisture at Test (%)
Dry Unit Weight at Test (pcf)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
72 73
155.9
237.2
A

12.6 112.0
207.8
673.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 R-Value
Exudation Pressure (psi)

R-VALUE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
J.Calderon
10/31/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Depth:

Material Description:

Test Procedure: ASTM D2844
B-13
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Resistance Value
R - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE
1 12.4
Silty Sand (SM)
C
112.2

13.3 113.6
0-5

60.6 101.6
73 62
Specimen No. B
Moisture at Test (%)
Dry Unit Weight at Test (pcf)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
71 68
155.9
441.6
A

11.6 113.7
186.2
730.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 R-Value
Exudation Pressure (psi)

R-VALUE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
J.Calderon
10/31/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Depth:

Material Description:

Test Procedure: ASTM D2844
B-18
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Resistance Value
R - VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE
1 11.2
Silty Sand (SM)
C
121.5

11.7 122.7
0-5

60.6 130.4
81 70
Specimen No. B
Moisture at Test (%)
Dry Unit Weight at Test (pcf)
Expansion Pressure (psf)
78 77
155.9
356.8
A

10.8 123.3
186.2
687.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 R-Value
Exudation Pressure (psi)

R-VALUE
San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
San Jacinto, California
11/3/2023
24002328.001A
J.Calderon
10/31/2023
M.Magaña
FIGURE
TESTED BY:

DATE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

KLEINFELDER - 620 Magnolia Avenue, Building G | Ontario, California 91762 | PH: (909) 657-1716 | FAX: (909) 988-0185 | www.kleinfelder.com

CORROSION TEST RESULTS
Client Name: Kleinfelder AP Job No.: 23-1050
Project Name: San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Date: 10/30/23 Project No.: 24002328.001A
Boring Sample Depth Soil pH Sulfate Content Chloride Content No. No. (feet) Description (ppm) (ppm)
B-1 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay

10.3 467 142
B-3 1 0-5 Sandy Silt 8.2 445 243
B-4 1 0-5 Silty Sand w/
trace clay 10.5 85 63
B-7 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay

8.2 563 758
B-11 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay 8.9 553 424
B-13 1 0-5 Sandy Silt 9.0 39 31
B-15 1 0-5 Silty Sand w/
gravel 9.7 79 69
B-17 1 0-5 Sandy Silt w/
trace clay

8.6 672 785

NOTES: Resistivity Test and pH: California Test Method 643 Sulfate Content : California Test Method 417
Chloride Content : California Test Method 422
ND = Not Detectable
NA = Not Sufficient Sample
NR = Not Requested
1,027
3,076
299
333
1,763
336
421
Minimum
(ohm-cm)
521
Resistivity
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX C

SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENTS REPORT
REPORT

SURFACE WAVE MEASUREMENTS
SHEA PROPERTIES – LINE E

MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA
GEOVision Project No. 24356
Prepared for
Kleinfelder
849 West Leroy Drive, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84123-2964
Prepared by
GEOVision, Inc.
1124 Olympic Drive
Corona, California 92881
(951) 549-1234
Report 24356-01
September 30, 2024
Report 24356-01 i September 30, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 2 OVERVIEW OF SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUES ...................................................... 2

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 SURFACE WAVE TECHNIQUES.............................................................................................. 2

2.2.1 MASW Technique........................................................................................................ 2

2.2.2 Array Microtremor Technique.................................................................................... 3

2.3 SURFACE WAVE DISPERSION CURVE MODELING................................................................. 4 3 FIELD PROCEDURES........................................................................................................ 5 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS................................................................................... 6 5 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 7 6 CERTIFICATION................................................................................................................ 8 TABLES......................................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... 17

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 PROJECT TEST LOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 9 TABLE 2 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 120........................................................................... 10 TABLE 3 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 240........................................................................... 10 TABLE 4 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 360........................................................................... 11 TABLE 5 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 480........................................................................... 11 TABLE 6 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 600........................................................................... 12 TABLE 7 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 720........................................................................... 12 TABLE 8 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 1 STATION 840........................................................................... 13 TABLE 9 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 120........................................................................... 13 TABLE 10 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 240......................................................................... 14 TABLE 11 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 360......................................................................... 14 TABLE 12 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 480......................................................................... 15 TABLE 13 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 600......................................................................... 15 TABLE 14 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 720......................................................................... 16 TABLE 15 VS MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 STATION 840......................................................................... 16

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP ...................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 2 SURFACE WAVE MODELS FOR ARRAY 1 ........................................................................ 19 FIGURE 3 SURFACE WAVE MODEL FOR ARRAY 2 .......................................................................... 20 FIGURE 4 SUMMARY VELOCITY MODELS ARRAYS 1 & 2............................................................... 21 Report 24356-01 1 September 30, 2024
1 INTRODUCTION
In-situ seismic measurements using active- and passive-source surface wave techniques were performed along two transects in San Jacinto, California. The purpose of this investigation was to provide a shear (S) wave velocity profile to a depth of 100 feet at 5 (or more) test locations per transect. The active-source surface wave technique utilized during this investigation consisted of the multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) method. The passive-source surface wave technique consisted of the linear array microtremor method. The locations of the active- and passive-source surface wave arrays are shown on Figure 1 and Table 1.

At many sites, active surface wave techniques (MASW) with the utilization of portable energy sources, such as hammers and weight drops, are sufficient to obtain S-wave velocity soundings to 100 ft depths. At sites with high ambient noise levels and/or very soft soils, these energy sources may not be sufficient to image to this depth and a larger energy source, such as a bulldozer, is necessary. Alternatively, passive surface wave techniques, such as the array microtremor technique can be used to extend the depth of investigation at sites that have adequate ambient noise conditions.

This report contains the results of the active and passive surface wave measurements conducted at the site. An overview of the surface wave methods is given in Section 2. Field and data reduction procedures are discussed in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. Data modeling is presented in Section 5 and results are discussed in Section 6. References and our professional certification are provided in Sections 7 and 8, respectively.

Report 24356-01 2 September 30, 2024
2 Overview of Surface Wave Techniques

2.1 Introduction
Active- and passive-source (ambient vibration) surface wave techniques are routinely utilized for site characterization. Active surface wave techniques include the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) and multi-channel array surface wave (MASW) methods. Passive surface wave techniques include the horizontal over vertical spectral ratio (HVSR) technique and the array and refraction microtremor methods.

The basis of surface wave methods is the dispersive characteristic of Rayleigh and Love waves when propagating in a layered medium. Surface waves of different wavelengths () or frequencies (f) sample different depth. As a result of the variance in the shear stiffness of the distinct layers, waves with different wavelengths propagate at different phase velocities; hence, dispersion. A surface wave dispersion curve is the variation of VR or VL with  or f. The Rayleigh wave phase velocity (VR) depends primarily on the material properties (VS, mass density, and Poisson’s ratio or compression wave velocity) over a depth of approximately one wavelength. The Love wave phase velocity (VL) depends primarily on VS and mass density.

Rayleigh and Love wave propagation are also affected by damping or seismic quality factor (Q).

Rayleigh wave techniques are utilized to measure vertically polarized S-waves (SV-wave); whereas Love wave techniques are utilized to measure horizontally polarized S-waves (SHwave).

2.2 Surface Wave Techniques
The MASW and array microtremor techniques were utilized during this investigation and are discussed below.

2.2.1 MASW Technique
A description of the MASW method is given by Park, 1999a and 1999b and Foti, 2000. Ground motions are typically recorded by 24 or more geophones spaced 1 to 3 m apart along a linear array and connected to a seismograph. Energy sources for shallow investigations include various sized hammers and vehicle mounted weight drops. When applying the MASW technique to develop a one-dimensional (1-D) VS model, it is preferable to use multiple-source offsets from both ends of the array. The most commonly applied MASW technique is the Rayleigh-wave based MASW method, which we refer to as MASRW to distinguish from Love-wave based MASW (MASLW). MASRW and MASLW acquisition can easily be combined with P- and Swave seismic refraction acquisition, respectively. MASRW data are generally recorded using a vertical source and vertical geophone but may also be recorded using a horizontal geophone with radial (in-line) orientation. MASLW data are recorded using transversely orientated horizontal source and transverse horizontal geophone.

A wavefield transform is applied to the time-history data to convert the seismic record from time-offset space to frequency-wavenumber (f-k) space in which the fundamental or higher surface-wave modes can be easily identified as energy maxima and picked. Frequency and/or wavenumber can easily be mapped to phase velocity, slowness, or wavelength using the following properties: k = 2π/,  = v/f. Common wave-field transforms include: the f-k transform, slant-stack transform, frequency domain beamformer, and phase-shift transform. The Report 24356-01 3 September 30, 2024
minimum wavelength that can be recovered from MASW data set without spatial aliasing is equal to the minimum receiver spacing. Occasionally, SASW analysis procedures are used to extract surface wave dispersion data, from fixed receiver pairs, at smaller wavelengths than can be recovered by wavefield transformation. Multiple source offsets, and limiting minimum and maximum wavelengths, are required to construct a dispersion curve bandwidth necessary to develop a robust VS model (Yoon and Rix, 2009; Li and Rosenblad, 2011).

Although the clear majority of MASW surveys record Rayleigh waves, it has been shown that Love wave techniques can be more effective in some environments, particularly shallow rock sites and sites with a highly attenuative, low velocity surface layer (Xia, et al., 2012; GEOVision, 2012). Rayleigh wave techniques, however, are generally more effective at sites where velocity gradually increases with depth because larger energy sources are readily available for the generation of Rayleigh waves. Rayleigh wave techniques are also more applicable to sites with high velocity layers and/or velocity inversions because the presence of such structures is more apparent in the Rayleigh wave dispersion curves than in Love wave dispersion curves.

Rayleigh wave techniques are preferable at sites with a high velocity surface layer because Love waves do not theoretically exist in such environments. Joint inversion of Rayleigh and Love wave data may yield more accurate VS models in anisotropic materials.

2.2.2 Array Microtremor Technique
A detailed discussion of the array microtremor method can be found in Okada, 2003. Unlike active source techniques, the array microtremor technique (also referred to as passive surface wave method) records ambient noise and ground motions emanating from ocean wave activity, wind noise, traffic, industrial activity, construction, etc. The technique uses 4 or more receivers aligned in a 2-dimensional array. Triangle, circle, semi-circle, and “L” shaped arrays are commonly used, although any 2-dimensional arrangement of receivers can be used. For investigations of the upper 100 m, receivers typically consist of 1 to 4.5 Hz geophones. For deeper investigations, 5 to 120 s seismometers are generally utilized.

The surface wave dispersion curve is typically estimated from array microtremor data using various f-k methods such as beamforming (Lacoss, et al., 1969), and maximum-likelihood (Capon, 1969), and the spatial-autocorrelation (SPAC) method. The SPAC method was originally based on work by Aki (1957) and has since been extended and modified (Ling and Okada, 1993 and Ohori et al., 2002) to permit the use of noncircular arrays, and is now collectively referred to as extended spatial autocorrelation (ESPAC or ESAC). SPAC methods are expected to perform better when noise sources are azimuthally well-distributed (e.g., in a large urban area). The minimum wavelength surface wave that can be extracted from an array microtremor dataset acquired utilizing a symmetric array is typically set equal to the minimum receiver spacing. The maximum wavelength is often set equal to twice the maximum receiver separation for SPAC analysis.

Report 24356-01 4 September 30, 2024

2.3 Surface Wave Dispersion Curve Modeling
The dispersion curves generated from the active and passive surface wave soundings are generally combined and modeled using iterative forward and inverse modeling routines. The final model profile is assumed to represent actual site conditions. The theoretical model used to interpret the dispersion curve assumes horizontally layered, laterally invariant, homogeneousisotropic material. Although these conditions are seldom strictly met at a site, the results of active and/or passive surface wave testing provide a good “global” estimate of the material properties along the array. The results may be more representative of the site than a borehole “point” estimate.

MASRW and/or passive surface-wave modeling may involve modeling of the fundamental mode, some form of effective mode, or multiple individual modes (multi-mode). The fundamental mode assumption is generally applicable to modeling Rayleigh-wave dispersion data collected at normally dispersive sites, providing there are not abrupt increases in velocity or steep velocity gradients. Effective-mode or multi-mode approaches are often required for irregularly dispersive sites and sites with steep velocity gradients at shallow depth. If active and passive surface wave data are combined or MASRW data are combined from multiple seismic records with different source offsets and receiver gathers, then effective-mode computations are limited to algorithms that assume far-field plane Rayleigh wave propagation. Local search (e.g., linearized matrix inversion methods) or global search methods (neighborhood algorithm; Monte Carlo approaches such as simulated annealing, generic algorithms) are typically used to solve the inverse problem.

The maximum wavelength (max) recovered from a surface wave data set is typically used to estimate depth of investigation although a sensitivity analysis of the VS models would be a more robust means to estimate depth of investigation. For normally dispersive velocity profiles with a gradual increase in VS with depth, the maximum depth of investigation is on the order of max/2 for both Rayleigh and Love wave dispersion data. For velocity profiles with an abrupt increase in VS at depth, the maximum depth of investigation is on the order of max/3 for Rayleigh wave dispersion data but less than max/3 for Love wave dispersion data. The depth of investigation can be highly variable for sites with complex velocity structure (including high velocity layers).

As with all surface geophysical methods, the inversion of surface wave dispersion data does not yield a unique VS model and multiple possible solutions may equally fit the experimental data. Based on experience at other sites, the shear wave velocity models (VS and layer thicknesses) determined by surface wave testing are within 20% of the velocities and layer thicknesses that would be determined by other seismic methods (Brown, 1998). The average velocity of the upper 30 m (VS30), however, is much more accurate, often to better than 5%, because it is not sensitive to the layering in the model. VS30 does not appear to suffer from the non-uniqueness inherent in VS models derived from surface wave dispersion curves (Martin et al., 2006, Comina et al., 2011). Therefore, VS30 is more accurately estimated from the inversion of surface wave dispersion data than the resulting VS models.

Report 24356-01 5 September 30, 2024
3 FIELD PROCEDURES
Surface wave data were collected along two transects, whose locations were provided by Kleinfelder and confirmed by a company representative. The locations of the transects are shown in Figure 1 and coordinates of the array centers (corresponding to the modeled Vs profiles) and endpoints are provided in Table 1. Two types of surface wave data were acquired at each site: an active-source surface wave array to characterize near-surface velocity structure and a passivesource surface wave array to characterize deeper velocity structure.

The surface wave equipment consisted of four Geometrics Geode signal enhancement seismographs, 4.5 Hz vertical geophones, and seismic cables. The geophone array consisted of 96 live geophones with a nominal spacing of 10 feet, for a total array length of 950 feet. Active MASW sources included 4 lb. and 20 lb. sledgehammers, and a 240 lb. accelerated weight drop (AWD).

Shot points were located between 30 and 300 feet from the end geophone locations and at regular intervals in the interior of the array. At least twenty-four active source locations were occupied with the 4-lb hammer and either the AWD or the 20-lb sledgehammer. Data from the active source impacts were averaged in the field to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In total this resulted in 48 source locations, and ~720 hammer blows for the project. Ambient noise measurements were made along the passive array for 60 minutes (Array 1) and 53 minutes (Array 2) with a 2 MS sample rate. The field geometry and associated files names were documented in field notes. All field data were saved to hard disk and backed up daily on a remote server.

Report 24356-01 6 September 30, 2024
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The MASW data were reduced using the software Seismic Pro Surface V10 developed by Geogiga, SeisImager Pick win (Geometrics, Inc.), and multiple in-house utilities for various data extraction and formatting tasks. Because each transect was acquired in a “fully-live” configuration of 96 active receivers, common-midpoint cross-correlation gathers (CMPCC) were generated that organized the common receiver pairs for every shot gather. This allowed for 2-D smooth-model inversion modeling. The surface wave data were modeled using the fundamental mode routine in SeisImager Waves. Data inputs into the modeling software include layer thickness, S-wave velocity, P-wave velocity or Poisson’s ratio, and mass density. P-wave velocity and mass density only have a very small influence (i.e., less than 10%) on the S-wave velocity model generated from a surface wave dispersion curve. However, realistic assumptions for P-wave velocity, which is significantly impacted by the location of the saturated zone, and mass density will slightly improve the accuracy of the S-wave velocity model.

During the modeling process an initial velocity model was generated based on provided preliminary CPT summaries. Kleinfelder provided estimates of water table depth (30 feet for Array 1; 16 feet for Array 2), wet and dry unit weights (85 and 115 lbs. per cubic foot, respectively), and Poisson’s ratio (0.33). These inputs were used in the initial modeling phase. A first-pass inverse modeling routine was performed, and the results were compared to general characteristics of the dispersion curves. Layer thicknesses were adjusted, and the inversion process repeated until a VS model was developed with low RMS error between the observed and calculated dispersion curves. Once an acceptable VS model was developed, layer thicknesses were again adjusted, and the inversion process repeated to compare VS models with similar RMS error to examine non-uniqueness.

Using the 2-D inversion routine in SeisImager WaveEQ, a 1-D shear-wave velocity profile was generated every 120-feet along each of the two transects shown in Figure 1. The modeled VS profiles for each transect are presented as Figures 2-3. The resolution decreases gradually with depth due to the loss of sensitivity of the dispersion curve to changes in VS at greater depth. The VS profile used to match the field data is provided in tabular form in English units as Tables 2-

15. The reported inferred values for P-wave velocity, Poisson’s Ratio, and density were calculated based on the shear-wave velocity model results – not direct measurements or lab tests.

The initial stage of the modeling process included input parameters provided by Kleinfelder, but these tabulated results show some variation, particularly with respect to density values. The “inferred density” values are based on the relationship between shear-wave velocity and density as described by Boore (2015).

Report 24356-01 7 September 30, 2024
5 REFERENCES
Aki K, 1957, Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special reference to microtremors. Bull. Earthq. Inst. Univ. Tokyo, Vol. 35, p 415–457.

Bettig B, Bard PY, Scherbaum F, Riepl J, Cotton F, Cornou C and Hatzfeld D, 2001, Analysis of dense array noise measurements using the modified spatial auto-correlation method (SPAC): application to the Grenoble area, Bollettino di Geofisica Teoricaed Applicata, Vol 42, p 281–304.

Boore D., 2015, Notes on relating density to velocity for use in site amplification calculations, retrieved from https://daveboore.com/daves_notes.html September 27, 2024 Brown L, 1998, Comparison of VS profiles from SASW and borehole measurements at strong motion sites in Southern California, Master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Capon J, 1969, High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis, Proc. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 57, no. 8, p 1408–1418.

Comina C, Foti S, Boiero D, and Socco LV, 2011, Reliability of VS,30 evaluation from surface-wave tests, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., p 579–586.

Dunkin J W, 1965, Computation of modal solutions in layered, elastic media at high frequencies, Foti S, 2000, Multistation Methods for Geotechnical Characterization using Surface Waves, Ph.D.

Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.

GEOVision, Inc (2012): EPRI (2004, 2006) ground-motion model (GMM) review project: Shear wave velocity measurements at seismic recording stations, http://www.epri.com/abstracts/ Pages/ProductAbstract. aspx?ProductId=000000003002000719.

Lacoss R, Kelly E and Toksöz M, 1969, Estimation of seismic noise structure using arrays, Geophysics, v. 34, pp. 21-38.

Li J and Rosenblad B, 2011, Experimental study of near-field effects in multichannel array-based surface wave velocity measurements, Near Surface Geophysics, Vol. 9, 357-366.

Ling S and Okada H, 1993, An extended use of the spatial correlation technique for the estimation of geological structure using microtremors, Proc. the 89th Conference Society of Exploration Geophysicists Japan (SEGJ), pp. 44–48 (in Japanese).

Martin A, Shawver J and Diehl J, 2006, Combined use of Active and Passive Surface Wave Techniques for Cost Effective UBC/IBC Site Classification, Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, Paper No. 1013.

Ohori M, Nobata A, and Wakamatsu K, 2002, A comparison of ESAC and FK methods of estimating phase velocity using arbitrarily shaped microtremor arrays, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., v. 92, no. 6, p. 2323–2332.

Okada H, 2003, The Microtremor Survey Method, Society of Exploration Geophysics Geophysical Monograph Series, Number 12, 135p.

Park C, Miller R and Xia J, 1999a, Multimodal analysis of high frequency surface waves, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems ’99, 115-121.

Park C, Miller R and Xia, J, 1999b, Multichannel analysis of surface waves, Geophysics, Vol 64, No. 3, 800-808.

Xia J, Xu Y, Luo Y, Miller R, Cakir R and Zeng C, 2012, Advantages of using Multichannel analysis of Love waves (MALW) to estimate near-surface shear-wave velocity, Surveys in Geophysics, 841– 860.

Yoon S and Rix G, 2009, Near-field effects on Array-based surface wave methods with active sources, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, no. 3, 399-406.

Report 24356-01 8 September 30, 2024
6 CERTIFICATION
All geophysical data, analysis, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this document have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by a GEOVision California Professional Geophysicist.

Prepared by

9/30/2024
JB Shawver Date
California Professional Geophysicist, P.Gp. 1058
GEOVision Geophysical Services
This geophysical investigation was conducted under the supervision of a California Professional Geophysicist using industry-standard methods and equipment. A high degree of professionalism was maintained during the project from the field investigation and data acquisition, through data processing interpretation and reporting. Original field data files, field notes and observations, and other pertinent information are maintained in the project files and are available for the client to review for a period of at least one year.

A professional geophysicist’s certification of interpreted geophysical conditions comprises a declaration of his/her professional judgment. It does not constitute a warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, nor does it relieve any other party of its responsibility to abide by contract documents, applicable codes, standards, regulations or ordinances.

Report 24356-01 9 September 30, 2024
TABLES
Feature Easting Northing
Manhole 6326353 2242976
Array 1 Start 6326100 2243098
Array 1 End 6327045 2243018
Array 1+120 6326220 2243088
Array 1+240 6326339 2243079
Array 1+360 6326459 2243070
Array 1+480 6326579 2243059
Array 1+600 6326698 2243050
Array 1+720 6326818 2243040
Array 1+840 6326937 2243028
Array 2 Start 6326109 2242956
Array 2 End 6327051 2242867
Array 2+120 6326228 2242946
Array 2+240 6326350 2242936
Array 2+360 6326467 2242927
Array 2+480 6326586 2242918
Array 2+600 6326705 2242907
Array 2+720 6326823 2242893
Array 2+840 6326944 2242879
Coordinates are NAD83, California State
Plane Zone 6, US feet
Table 1 Project Test Locations
Report 24356-01 10 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
Poisson's
Ratio
Inferred
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 434 868 0.33 105

6.5 8.5 458 915 0.33 105

15.0 15.0 544 1089 0.33 110

30.0 6.5 600 4898 0.49 112

36.5 13.5 672 4978 0.49 114

50.0 15.0 771 5088 0.49 116

65.0 35.0 805 5126 0.49 118
100.0 15.0 927 5262 0.48 120
115.0 Half Space 1186 5548 0.48 122
Table 2 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 120
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 7.0 431 862 0.33 105

7.0 8.0 463 926 0.33 105

15.0 13.5 547 1094 0.33 110

28.5 6.5 601 1201 0.33 112

35.0 13.0 671 4977 0.49 114

48.0 15.0 767 5084 0.49 116

63.0 37.0 800 5120 0.49 118
100.0 20.0 923 5257 0.48 120
120.0 Half Space 1181 5543 0.48 122
Table 3 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 240
Report 24356-01 11 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 428 855 0.33 105

6.5 8.0 454 908 0.33 105

14.5 15.0 548 1096 0.33 110

29.5 6.5 608 1216 0.33 112

36.0 13.0 679 4986 0.49 115

49.0 15.0 768 5084 0.49 116

64.0 31.5 797 5117 0.49 118

95.5 44.5 922 5256 0.48 119
140.0 Half Space 1179 5541 0.48 122
Table 4 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 360
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 428 857 0.33 105

6.5 8.5 454 909 0.33 105

15.0 14.0 550 1100 0.33 110

29.0 7.5 616 1232 0.33 112

36.5 10.5 690 4998 0.49 115

47.0 18.0 771 5088 0.49 117

65.0 33.0 796 5116 0.49 118

98.0 42.0 924 5258 0.48 119
140.0 Half Space 1181 5543 0.48 122
Table 5 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 480
Report 24356-01 12 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.0 413 827 0.33 102

6.0 8.5 459 918 0.33 105

14.5 13.0 548 1096 0.33 110

27.5 10.5 628 1255 0.33 114

38.0 13.5 704 5014 0.49 115

51.5 15.5 778 5096 0.49 118

67.0 31.0 797 5117 0.49 118

98.0 42.0 925 5259 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1184 5546 0.48 122
Table 6 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 600
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 413 826 0.33 102

6.5 8.5 460 919 0.33 105

15.0 11.5 546 1092 0.33 110

26.5 13.5 633 1266 0.33 114

40.0 11.0 712 5022 0.49 115

51.0 15.0 784 5103 0.49 118

66.0 34.0 800 5120 0.49 118
100.0 20.0 928 5262 0.48 120
120.0 Half Space 1189 5552 0.48 122
Table 7 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 720
Report 24356-01 13 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 413 827 0.33 102

6.5 8.5 458 916 0.33 105

15.0 11.0 537 1074 0.33 110

26.0 11.0 619 1239 0.33 112

37.0 13.5 706 5016 0.49 115

50.5 15.0 779 5097 0.49 118

68.0 32.5 797 5117 0.49 118
100.5 20.0 927 5262 0.48 120
120.5 Half Space 1190 5554 0.48 122
Table 8 Vs Model for Array 1 Station 840
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 6.5 443 887 0.33 85

6.5 9.5 469 938 0.33 85

16.0 12.0 550 4843 0.49 110

28.0 11.0 599 4897 0.49 112

39.0 12.0 723 5035 0.49 115

51.0 13.5 811 5132 0.49 118

64.0 35.5 832 5156 0.49 119

99.5 26.0 960 5298 0.48 120
125.5 Half Space 1206 5571 0.48 122
Table 9 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 120
Report 24356-01 14 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 417 834 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 469 938 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 536 4828 0.49 110

25.0 13.0 586 4883 0.49 112

38.0 12.0 718 5029 0.49 115

50.0 15.0 806 5127 0.49 118

65.0 34.8 828 5151 0.49 119

99.8 35.2 959 5297 0.48 120
135.0 Half Space 1207 5572 0.48 122
Table 10 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 240
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 415 829 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 471 942 0.33 85

16.0 12.5 538 4829 0.49 110

28.5 8.5 583 4879 0.49 112

37.0 14.0 715 5026 0.49 115

51.0 14.0 802 5123 0.49 116

68.0 32.0 823 5146 0.49 118
100.0 40.0 957 5294 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1209 5574 0.48 122
Table 11 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 360
Report 24356-01 15 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.5 415 831 0.33 85

8.5 7.5 472 943 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 515 4804 0.49 108

25.0 11.5 560 4854 0.49 110

36.5 11.5 702 5012 0.49 115

48.0 17.5 798 5118 0.49 118

68.0 31.0 821 5143 0.49 118

99.0 41.0 958 5296 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1209 5575 0.48 122
Table 12 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 480
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 413 826 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 467 934 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 502 4789 0.49 108

25.0 11.5 565 4859 0.49 110

36.5 13.5 707 5017 0.49 115

50.0 15.0 803 5124 0.49 118

69.0 30.5 820 5143 0.49 118

99.5 40.5 958 5296 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1211 5577 0.48 122
Table 13 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 600
Report 24356-01 16 September 30, 2024
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 7.0 405 811 0.33 85

7.0 9.0 466 931 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 489 4775 0.49 108

25.0 12.0 559 4853 0.49 110

37.0 13.5 701 5010 0.49 115

50.5 15.0 802 5123 0.49 118

69.0 31.5 819 5141 0.49 118
100.5 39.5 960 5298 0.48 120
140.0 Half Space 1210 5575 0.48 122
Table 14 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 720
Depth to
Top of
Layer (ft)
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
S-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Inferred
P-Wave
Velocity
(ft/s)
Assumed
Poisson's
Ratio
Assumed
Density
(lb./ft3)

0.0 8.0 405 810 0.33 85

8.0 8.0 475 951 0.33 85

16.0 9.0 478 4763 0.49 108

25.0 9.5 544 4836 0.49 110

34.5 15.5 686 4994 0.49 115

50.0 16.5 796 5115 0.49 118

68.0 31.0 815 5137 0.49 118

99.0 36.0 960 5298 0.48 120
135.0 Half Space 1211 5576 0.48 122
Table 15 Vs Model for Array 2 Station 840
Report 24356-01 17 September 30, 2024

FIGURES
Notes:

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet Base map source: Nearmap (8-2024)
Seismic Surface Wave Array
MH Manhole
Sounding Location
Approximate Location of Client Borehole
! Approximate Location of Client CPT

PREPARED FOR
KLEINFELDER, INC.

SITE LOCATED NEAR MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 1

SITE MAP
9/30/2024
24356
J Shawver
T Rodriguez
J Shawver
GV 24356
Date:

GV Project:

Developed by:

Drawn by:

Approved by:

File Name:
!
!
MH Array 2
Array 1
1+120 1+240 1+360
1+480
1+600
1+720
1+840
2+120 2+240 2+360
2+480
2+600
2+720
2+840
CPT-1
CPT-2
B-1
B-2
2243500 2243000 2242500
2243500 2243000 2242500
6326000 6326500 6327000
6326000 6326500 6327000
±
0 50 100 200 300
US Survey Feet
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 18 09/30/2024
File Name:

Approved by:

Drawn by:

Developed by:

GV Project:

Date:
24356_f2.srf
JBS
JBS
JBS
24356
09/30/24 SHEA MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA

PREPARED FOR

KLEINFELDER
FIGURE 2
ARRAY 1 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PLOTS
Note: 2x vertical exaggeration on cross-section Array1+120 Array1+240 Array1+360Array1+480Array1+600Array1+720Array1+840
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along Profile (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
Depth (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
400500600700800900100011001200
Shear Wave Velocity (feet per second)
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 19 09/30/2024
File Name:

Approved by:

Drawn by:

Developed by:

GV Project:

Date:
24356_f3.srf
JBS
JBS
JBS
24356
09/30/24 SHEA MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA

PREPARED FOR

KLEINFELDER
FIGURE 3
ARRAY 2 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PLOTS
Note: 2x vertical exaggeration on cross-section Array2+120 Array2+240 Array2+360Array2+480Array2+600Array2+720Array2+840
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance along Profile (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
Depth (feet)
125
100
75 50
25 0
400500600700800900100011001200
Shear Wave Velocity (feet per second)
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 20 09/30/2024
File Name:

Approved by:

Drawn by:

Developed by:

GV Project:

Date:
24356_f4.srf
JBS
JBS
JBS
24356
09/27/24 SHEA MWD CROSSING

SAN JACINTO, CA

PREPARED FOR

KLEINFELDER
FIGURE 4
ARRAYS 1 & 2 SUMMARY VELOCITY
GEOVision Report 24356-01 Page 21 09/30/2024
24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX D

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

L I Q UE F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R EP O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Moss et al. (2006)
Moss et al. (2006)
Based on Ic value

8.10 1.06
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Location : San Jacinto, CA Kleinfelder
CPT file : CPT-1

16.50 ft

5.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
Method based
Mw=7
1/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:16 PM Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq 1 This software is licensed to: Kleinfelder CPT name: CPT-1 L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:16 PM 2Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

Moss et al. (2006)Moss et al. (2006)Based on Ic value8.101.0616.50 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
Yes

L I Q UE F A C T I O N A N A L Y S I S R EP O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Moss et al. (2006)
Moss et al. (2006)
Based on Ic value

8.10 1.06
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain Location : San Jacinto, CA Kleinfelder
CPT file : CPT-2

16.50 ft

5.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
Method based
Mw=7
1/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:17 PM Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq 3 This software is licensed to: Kleinfelder CPT name: CPT-2 L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 11/30/2023, 4:10:17 PM 4Project file: C:\Users\HMarquez\OneDrive - Kleinfelder\Documents\Projects\San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain\Analysis\Liquefaction\San Jacinto Line E_CPT-1 and CPT-2_HM.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):

Moss et al. (2006)Moss et al. (2006)Based on Ic value8.101.0616.50 ft Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:

5.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:

N/A
YesYes
Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme
Almost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High riskLow risk
Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, NCEER (1998) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. The procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart1:
1 "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 5 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance (all soils), Robertson (2010) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. This procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart1:
1 P.K. Robertson, 2009. “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT”, Keynote Lecture, International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering – from case history to practice, IS-Tokyo, June 2009 CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 6 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, Idriss & Boulanger (2008) CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 7 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance (sandy soils), Moss et al. (2006) CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 8 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, Boulanger & Idriss(2014) CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 9 Procedure for the evaluation of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements 1 Flow chart illustrating major steps in estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements using the proposed approach 1 Figure 1
1 Equation [3]
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 10 1 "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman Procedure for the estimation of seismic induced settlements in dry sands Robertson, P.K. and Lisheng, S., 2010, “Estimation of seismic compression in dry soils using the CPT” FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT ADVANCES IN GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, Symposium in honor of professor I. M. Idriss, San Diego, CA
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 11 Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) calculation procedure Graphical presentation of the LPI calculation procedure Calculation of the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) is used to interpret the liquefaction assessment calculations in terms of severity over depth. The calculation procedure is based on the methology developed by Iwasaki (1982) and is adopted by AFPS.

To estimate the severity of liquefaction extent at a given site, LPI is calculated based on the following equation:

LPI =
where:

FL = 1 - F.S. when F.S. less than 1
FL = 0 when F.S. greater than 1
z depth of measurment in meters
Values of LPI range between zero (0) when no test point is characterized as liquefiable and 100 when all points are characterized as susceptible to liquefaction. Iwasaki proposed four (4) discrete categories based on the numeric value of LPI:
⦁ LPI = 0 : Liquefaction risk is very low
⦁ 0 < LPI <= 5 : Liquefaction risk is low
⦁ 5 < LPI <= 15 : Liquefaction risk is high
⦁ LPI > 15 : Liquefaction risk is very high
CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 12 Shear-Induced Building Settlement (Ds) calculation procedure The shear-induced building settlement (Ds) due to liquefaction below the building can be estimated using the relationship developed by Bray and Macedo (2017):
where Ds is in the units of mm, c1= -8.35 and c2= 0.072 for LBS ≤ 16, and c1= -7.48 and c2= 0.014 otherwise. Q is the building contact pressure in units of kPa, HL is the cumulative thickness of the liquefiable layers in the units of m, B is the building width in the units of m, CAVdp is a standardized version of the cumulative absolute velocity in the units of g-s, Sa1 is 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration response spectral value at a period of 1 s in the units of g, and ε is a normal random variable with zero mean and 0.50 standard deviation in Ln units. The liquefaction-induced building settlement index (LBS) is:
than Df, which is the embedment depth of the foundation, and W = 1.0 otherwise. The shear strain parameter (ε_shear) is the liquefaction-induced free-field shear strain (in %) estimated using Zhang et al. (2004). It is calculated based on the estimated Dr of the liquefied soil layer and the calculated safety factor against liquefaction triggering (FSL).

CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 13 References
⦁ Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, E & FN Spon Routledge, 352 p, ISBN 0-7514-0393-8.
⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2007. Evaluation of Cyclic Softening in Silts and Clays. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering June, Vol. 133, No. 6 pp 641-652 ⦁ Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS ⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geologismiki.gr/
⦁ Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27 (1), 151-8. ⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998. Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on the CPT Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, Vol. 35, August.
⦁ Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180
⦁ Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871 ⦁ Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368
⦁ Iwasaki, T., 1986, Soil liquefaction studies in Japan: state-of-the-art, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2-70
⦁ Papathanassiou G., 2008, LPI-based approach for calibrating the severity of liquefaction-induced failures and for assessing the probability of liquefaction surface evidence, Eng. Geol. 96:94–104 ⦁ P.K. Robertson, 2009, Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - a unified approach., Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp 1337-1355
⦁ P.K. Robertson, 2009. “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT”, Keynote Lecture, International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - from case history to practice, IS-Tokyo, June 2009 ⦁ Robertson, P.K. and Lisheng, S., 2010, “Estimation of seismic compression in dry soils using the CPT” FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT ADVANCES IN GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, Symposium in honor of professor I. M. Idriss, SAN diego, CA
⦁ R. E. S. Moss, R. B. Seed, R. E. Kayen, J. P. Stewart, A. Der Kiureghian, K. O. Cetin, CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 1, 2006
⦁ I. M. Idriss and R. W. Boulanger, 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute MNO-12
⦁ Jonathan D. Bray & Jorge Macedo, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 201 CLiq v.3.3.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 14 24002328.001A/RIV23R161471 March 4, 2025
Copyright 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX E

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CROSSING
24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 1 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 A P P E N D I X E :

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M
March 3, 2025
Kleinfelder Project No.: 24002328.001A
Mr. Eric Hays
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, California 92506
Subject: Technical Memorandum: Numerical Analysis of Proposed Crossing San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain
Metropolitan Water District Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 Crossing San Jacinto, California
Dear Mr. Hays:

Kleinfelder is pleased to present this Technical Memorandum detailing the 3D Numerical Analysis for the proposed crossing of the San Jacinto Line E Storm Drain over the Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) Casa Loma Barrel No. 1. This memorandum is presented as an appendix to this geotechnical report for the subject project. The geotechnical report discusses Kleinfelder’s field investigation, laboratory testing, geologic setting and hazards (including faulting and seismicity), ground water discussion, and engineering conclusions and recommendations for various aspects of the project.

We understand that MWD requirements for induced displacement of the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 are very stringent at ¼-inch per 100 ft tolerances. Given the importance of the Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 and MWD requirements, Kleinfelder has completed numerical modeling of the subsurface conditions and structures using the 3-D finite element program PLAXIS 3D Version 20.04.00.790 published by Bentley. This memorandum includes the results of our calculations, results, and recommendations regarding the proposed MWD Casa Loma Barrel No. 1 crossing structure and associated embankments for the flood-control structures. Discussed in this memorandum are:
• Project Description
• Preliminary Crossing Structure
• Subsurface Conditions & Soil Parameters
• Soil Constitutive Models
• Structural Components & Other Materials
• Model Construction, Boundary Conditions & Meshing
• Loading Conditions
• Model Staging
24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 2 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 • Evaluation of Results
• Conclusions and Recommendations
This memorandum is subject to the limitations contained in our geotechnical report.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand the project involves the design of an approximate 3-mile storm drain channel to be constructed in the City of San Jacinto. The new storm drain channel will be constructed near the existing ground surface and the majority of the alignment consists of earth embankment channels and several reinforced concrete box culverts. Storm water flow is generally south to north and in the northern portion of the alignment the proposed channel terminates at a proposed confluence basin.

In the vicinity of the MWD pipeline (Casa Loma Barrel No. 1), the channel transitions to a concrete channel with an approximate 160-ft base width with side slopes inclined about 15 to 17:1 (H:V). At the proposed crossing, the proposed channel and embankment cross-section is approximately 560-ft wide. A preliminary plan including contours of the proposed embankments and channel and a cross-section at the MWD pipeline crossing, dated 10/15/24 were provided by Albert A Webb Associates (Webb), shown in in Attachment A as Figure E1. CAD files and data used to construct these plans were also provided by Webb and utilized to construct surfaces for the 3D modeling.

Due to the low cover present over the MWD pipeline, the proposed construction also includes a bridge structure to facilitate possible equipment and vehicle loads, using a transfer slab on supporting foundations to limit induced displacement and stresses in the MWD pipeline. Two preliminary options were considered for the crossing structure: Option 1 - Shallow Spread Footings, and Option 2 – Deep Foundations consisting of cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) shafts. Kleinfelder is the structural engineer for this proposed crossing structure and provided the structural loading and was consulted in selection and modeling of the structural elements, as discussed in later sections of this memorandum.

PRELIMINARY CROSSING STRUCTURE
Two options were evaluated to support the proposed crossing structure: 1) a shallow foundation option and 2) a deep foundation option. Preliminary modeling of both solutions was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed construction. However, after preliminary modeling showed that the controlling induced displacement of the pipeline was primarily controlled by the embankment fills and flood loading, the pile option did not appear to be necessary for the crossing. In addition, difficult construction conditions, economic feasibility and other considerations have moved the preferred solution towards the shallow foundation option. As such, this memorandum focuses on the shallow foundation model development and results.

Additional discussion of the two options and selection considerations can be found in this geotechnical report and our separate structural report (Kleinfelder, 2025). 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 3 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS & SOIL PARAMETERS
We reviewed the geotechnical borings, laboratory test data, and other geotechnical analyses completed by Kleinfelder for the project for relevant information to define the mechanical behavior, including correlations to stiffness and strength characteristics. The various correlations and select laboratory test results were plotted in depth profiles to evaluate and select the relevant parameters for the proposed soil constitutive models. Plots of the profiles are provided in Figures E2 to E5. Based on elevation data provided by Webb, the approximate average ground surface in the vicinity is about EL. 1449.5 ft. For the purposes of plotting the soil parameters versus elevation, we have used a ground surface of EL. 1450 ft.

Groundwater levels appear to vary significantly throughout the region with potential for different regimes due to faulting and other geologic conditions, see the discussion in our geotechnical report. In the area of the proposed crossing, the groundwater elevations noted in our borings range from approximately

34.5 ft to 16.5 ft below ground surface. For the purposes of our analyses, we have assumed that the groundwater depth of 16.5 ft or EL. 1433.5 ft.

The soils logged in the borings near the proposed crossing and indicated by the soil behavior type CPT soil behavior type are predominantly silty sand to sandy silt with some interbedded silt and clay soils. Due to the non-plastic to low plasticity and interbedded deposition we expect that the soils will exhibit drained behavior and that if excess pore-pressures are produced they will likely dissipate within the time frame of the expected loading conditions. As such the model behavior of the soils is defined as drained and the effects of excess pore-pressure neglected.

After discussions with MWD, additional geophysical testing was conducted to measure the shear-wave velocity (VS) and therefore, the stiffness of the subsurface conditions. The report from GEOVision detailing the data collection and processing is Appendix C of this geotechnical report. The average VS profiles of the two arrays, one conducted north and one south of the MWD pipeline are shown on the soil property figures. The elastic modulus (E) calculated from the shear-wave velocity data using the relationship =

, where Gmax is the maximum or low-shear strain (< 10-4 to 10-3 %) shear modulus and ρ is the soil mass density and Poisson’s ratio derived from the soil strength. Additionally, to adjusted Gmax from low shear strains (< 10-4 to 10-3 %) to strain magnitudes expected in the modeling (~0.1 to 1%), the VS was divided by a factor of either 2 or 3 to calculate an implied G and subsequent E moduli and provide a reference for the values used in the constitutive models. Plots of these implied elastic modulus are shown on Figures E4a and E4b.

SOIL CONSTITUTIVE MODELS
The constitutive models define the stress-strain behavior of the soil. The primary characteristics considered when selecting the soil constitutive model, included the ability of the constitutive model to:

1. provide a reasonable fit to the expected stress-strain behavior.

2. capture the depth/stress dependent stiffness characteristics evidenced by the in-situ and VS data.

3. provide both unload and reload moduli.

Within PLAXIS, there are several constitutive models available. However, two were considered as part of this study: 1) the linear-elastic perfectly plastic (Mohr-Coulomb) model and 2) the hardening soil (Hardening) model. Each model requires several inputs that define the behavior, with the primary being 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 4 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 the soil strength parameters (c = cohesion, φ = friction angle) and stiffness parameters (varies dependent on the model). Both models were considered for use in the 3D model.

The Mohr-Coulomb model presents the simpler model stiffness inputs with the stiffness behavior defined by the elastic modulus (E) and Poisson’s Ratio (ν). As the elastic modulus does change with shear strain, care must be taken in selected this parameter for the appropriate stress/strain levels expected in the modeling. An option to vary the stiffness with depth/elevation is provided in PLAXIS and was utilized to better match the observed variation in stiffness with depth. One drawback of the Mohr-Coulomb model as implemented in PLAXIS, is that the definition of an unload/reload modulus is not allowed. The MohrCoulomb was utilized for the embankment fills, geofoam, and concrete volumes as discussed further below.

The Hardening model is also a Mohr-Coulomb model, in that the strength behavior is governed by Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope. However, the model is different in that it incorporates hardening plasticity (e.g. decreasing stiffness with plastic straining) (Shanz 1998). This allows for the modeling of non-linear stress-strain behavior that is observed in soil laboratory testing, often called “hyperbolic soil” behavior and implemented by Duncan and Chang (1970). Shanz et. al. (1998 and 1999) built on the Duncan and Chang (1970) framework to make the required input parameters more easily defined and related to conventional geotechnical engineering properties, as well as more technical aspects that we would refer the reader to either the PLAXIS, FLAC, or source papers for more information. Specific to this study, the hardening model allows for a stress dependent stiffness definition and the non-linear hyperbolic stress-strain behavior observed in the laboratory testing. The implementation of this model also allows for the definition of an unload/reload modulus making the model well suited for excavation analyses. The Hardening model is used for the naturally deposited Sandy SILT to Silty SAND soils observed in the geotechnical investigation.

As a summary of the similarities and differences between the Mohr-Coulomb and Hardening model:

Model Aspect Mohr-Coulomb Hardening
Strength Envelope Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Stiffness Dependency Yes, through depth. Yes, through stress.

Stress-Strain Behavior Perfectly Elastic, Perfectly Plastic Hyperbolic, Perfectly Plastic Unload/Reload Modulus No Yes
Table E1 shows the input various input parameters selected for the models. As the goal of this study is to evaluate the induced displacements in the MWD pipeline, particular care was taken when selecting the various input parameters related to the stiffness of the soil models. Figure E6 is included to help show how the Hardening model input stiffness parameters relate to the stress-strain behavior. The stress-dependent E50 stiffness computed per Eq. 151 of the PLAXIS manual is plotted on Figure E4a. The initial modulus (Ei) shown on Figure E6 is also plotted on Figure E4a for comparison purposes computation per Eq. 136 of the PLAXIS manual. The stress-dependent elastic unload/reload modulus (Eur) is likewise computed per Eq. 139 of the PLAXIS manual and plotted on Figure E4b. For comparison with the VS data, the E50 represents an approximate dividing factor of 3.5 to the measured VS data. Likewise, the Ei and Eur for comparison are an approximate dividing factor of 2.65 to the measured VS data. 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 5 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Table E1: Soil Constitutive Model Parameters for Silty SAND to Sandy SILT Soils Parameter Description Hardening
E50ref (ksf) Reference Secant Elastic Modulus at 50% of Strength Failure 180
Eoedref (ksf) Reference Oedometer Modulus at 50% of Strength Failure 200 Eur
ref (ksf) Reference Unload/Reload Modulus at 50% of Strength Failure 600
m Power for Stress Dependency of Stiffness 0.8
Pref (psf) Reference Stress for Stiffness (Used Atmospheric Pressure) 2116 K0
nc At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient for Normal
Consolidation (Based on the Design Friction Angle) 0.5
Rf Failure Ratio (Ratio of qa / qf in Figure E6) 0.9
νur Poisson’s Ratio for Unload/Reload Modulus 0.2
ν Poisson’s Ratio (Based on the Design Friction Angle) 0.33 γunsat (pcf) Dry Unit Weight 85
γsat (pcf) Saturated Unit Weight 115
c (psf) Cohesion 50
φ (deg) Friction Angle 30
ψ (deg) Dilatancy Angle 0
σt (psf) Tensile Strength 0
Laboratory testing conducted on select soil samples were digitized and imported into PLAXIS for use in the soil test module, which simulates common types of laboratory tests in the finite element framework, to assist with the calibration of the soil constitutive model parameters and stress-strain behavior. Figures E7 to E9 show the results of the laboratory direct simple shear tests with the Hardening model. For reference, the equivalent elastic modulus calculated from the VS /2 data is included on the figures.

The final selected parameters were selected to present a reasonable match to the shape and behavior of the laboratory testing, but the soil stiffnesses relied upon the correlations and Vs measurements as the soil samples used for laboratory testing were taken from thick-walled SPT samplers and were likely subjected to sample disturbance than would particularly affect the small stiffness behavior during laboratory testing. Otherwise, the soil parameters selected present a reasonable match to the laboratory testing based on our professional experience and judgment.

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS & OTHER MATERIALS
The structural components modeled included the MWD pipeline and proposed crossing structure shallow footings, both of which are concrete. In discussion with MWD and Kleinfelder’s structural engineering team, we understand that the compressive strength of the concrete to be 3000 psi and 3600 psi for each component, respectively. The compressive strengths are not directly used as inputs to the selected linearelastic constitutive models and instead used to calculate the elastic modulus (EC) following Eq. 19.2.2.1.b of ACI 318-19. To account for possible cracking, a 50% reduction was applied to the calculated EC. Other necessary inputs include, Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0.2, and unit weight taken as 150 pcf. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the concrete constitutive model parameters and no significant effect on the model results were found, likely due to the much larger relative stiffness of the concrete compared to the soils.
24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 6 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 The thickness and dimensions of the MWD pipeline and proposed concrete footings were provided by information from Webb and Kleinfelder’s structural team. The preliminary cross section of the MWD pipe and proposed shallow foundation concept used to construction the PLAXIS model are shown in Figure E10. The MWD pipeline was modeled as “plate” or shell elements with virtual thickness of 1 ft and necessary simplification to a circular section was made to model the pipeline. The MWD pipeline invert was placed at EL. 1432.85. The concrete footings were modeled using volume elements like the soil materials. The modeling including 1.5H:1V excavation extents anticipated during construction to install the footings. We understand that some minor revisions to the footing shape and possible excavation extents (i.e. using soil forming to reduce the excavation) will be incorporated into the final design to facilitate construction formwork and reduce the need for lateral bracing that may impact the MWD pipeline. Details and discussion of the structural analysis can be found in Kleinfelder’s structural report (Kleinfelder, 2025). The proposed changes have been discussed with the project team and are not expected to impact the results of the PLAXIS modeling as 1) only small changes are expected to the footing loads and footing concrete volumes, and 2) the model results controlling the displacement are drive by the embankment fills and the 100-yr flood loads (discussed further in later sections).

Interface elements were included in the model to control the normal and shear behavior between the concrete footing and the adjacent soils, which allows for non-rigid connections between these elements.

The interface parameters automatically derived based on the adjacent material with a manual input factor to reduce the shear strength of the soil, which should be determined based on the interfacing materials.

Interface friction angles for fine sandy silt (non-plastic silt) presented in the NAVFAC (1982a) range from 17 to 19 degrees. Using an interface friction angle of 18 degrees and 30 degrees soil friction angle, this results in a reduction factor from the soil strength to soil-concrete interface strength of 0.56. This factor was applied for all soil materials.

In addition to the structural elements, the modeling utilized volume elements to represent the various embankment fills and other materials proposed materials needed to maintain the induced displacement criterion for the MWD pipeline. These consist of geofoam proposed to be placed below the crossing structure slab, lightweight flowable fill, consisting of lightweight cellular concrete, proposed as the primary fill material within the specified distance from the MWD pipeline alignment, and structural fill, consisting of soil material, for the remaining areas outside the crossing and assumed to consist of properly placed and compaction soils similar to the on-site soils. The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was selected for these materials as 1) significant unload/reload behavior is not expected (e.g. excavations) in these materials and 2) in-situ and laboratory testing was not available to confirm the stress-dependent behavior, nor that non-linear behavior exhibited by the Hardening model would be appropriate for these materials, and 3) the primary purpose of the fill volumes is to more accurately represent the added weight and resultant stresses on the model.
24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 7 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 The selected input parameters from available literature are presented in Table E2.

Table E2: Fill Material Constitutive Model Parameters
Parameter Description Structural Fill
(Soil Material)
Lightweight
Flowable Fill (LCC)1
EPS Geofoam
(Underslab Fill)2
E (ksf) Elastic Modulus 500 2140 216
ν
Poisson’s Ratio (Based on the
Design Friction Angle) 0.33 0.3 0.15
γunsat (pcf) Dry Unit Weight 127.5 30 2.4
γsat (pcf) Saturated Unit Weight 127.5 30 2.4
c (psf) Cohesion 50 5 1080
φ (deg) Friction Angle 30 34 0
ψ (deg) Dilatancy Angle 0
σt (psf) Tensile Strength 0

1. LCC = Lightweight Cellular Concrete, parameters estimated from Legatski (1994) and Tiwari, et. al. (2017)

2. Parameters taken as EPS-39 Geofoam.

MODEL CONSTRUCTION, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS & MESHING
Model boundary conditions for static analyses were not altered from the default PLAXIS conditions, which consist of fixed displacements in all directions for the bottom of the model, fixed displacements normal to the lateral extents, and the surface of the model is free in all directions. The horizontal boundaries were set such that along the pipeline (the approximate model x-direction) the model extended about 55 ft beyond the extents of the proposed fills. Roughly perpendicular to the pipeline (the approximate model y-direction) the model was extended to about 70 ft from the closet distance to the centerline of the pipe alignment. Based on our review of the induced displacements and stresses due to the fills and loads, the model boundary conditions appear to be at a sufficient distance to have not significantly influenced the model results in the vicinity of the pipeline (the area of interest).

Geometric objects were constructed in PLAXIS to represent the embankment fills, pipeline, footings, and excavations. The embankment point cloud data was provided in AutoCAD files provided by Webb. The point cloud data was imported using the related feature in PLAXIS, which discretizes the data into a triangular irregular network (TIN) to provide an elevation surface. This surface was then laid on the average approximate ground surface within the model boundaries to generate the fill volumes for the embankments and channel alignment. The use of the average approximate ground surface was a necessary simplification because of issues with the merging of the existing and proposed surfaces caused by floating point precision of intersecting planes. Based on our review of the existing elevation data, we expect that this necessary simplification should have overall minor impact on the results of the modeling as the existing surface was relatively flat, particularly in the area around the pipeline, and by using the average, the relative ± elevation differences should be roughly offsetting. Other geometric objects were constructed in the model using the simpler polygonal tools in PLAXIS to match the proposed structural footing and excavation dimensions and elevations and existing pipeline alignment.

Meshing of the model was completed using PLAXIS’s internal meshing routines and control parameters prescribed such that elements around areas of interest (e.g. the footings, excavations, and pipeline), were approximately 2 ft in size. Elements away from the areas of interest were gradually increased in size by the PLAXIS routines to allow for more efficient computations. Figure E11 shows a plan view of the model 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 8 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 mesh. The meshed geometry was evaluated to ensure the meshing routines produced reasonably sized and shaped elements. Some small and elongated elements were generated but were deemed acceptable as they were generally located towards the model boundaries and edges of the fills and not expected to significantly impact the results.

LOADING CONDITIONS
Several loading conditions were considered during our evaluation and were provided by Kleinfelder’s structural team, including:
• Water Load in the Pipe (Initializing Condition)
• Dead Loads of the Bridge Slab
• Water Load on the Bridge Slab & Modeled Channel
• Live Loads of Equipment on the Bridge Slab
We understand from discussion with MWD that this portion of the pipeline alignment the water inside the pipe is gravity flowing. Therefore, the water load was included in the model to better reflect the actual conditions. The water load was incorporated as a volume material with the parameters shown in Table E3 to better represent the weight and stress distribution to the model. An interface was included between the pipe and the elements to eliminate rigid connections between the water and pipe elements.

Table E3: Water Constitutive Model Parameters
Parameter Description Water
K (ksf) Bulk Modulus 43,170
ν
Poisson’s Ratio (Based on the
Design Friction Angle) 0.499
γ (pcf) Unit Weight 62.4
Su (psf) Shear Strength1 5
σt (psf) Tensile Strength 0

1. A minimal amount of shear strength was given to the water material to allow the model to converge.

More detailed discussion of the loads applied by the proposed crossing structure can be found in Kleinfelder’s structural report (Kleinfelder, 2025). We note that minor differences in the applied slab dead load (~3%) shown in our structural report due to the slight changes in the footing geometry, extending the crossing slab. However, we don’t anticipate that these will present significant changes to the PLAXIS model results as the worst-case displacement conditions are controlled by the embankment placement and 100-yr flood loading. The 100-yr flood elevation has not changed and due to the inclusion of the surface load, the overall model loading in this condition would not change. Table E4 shows the loading conditions applied to the PLAXIS model. Based on the rough profile dimensions and elevations show on Figure E1, we anticipate that the anticipated 100-yr flood load and embankment loads using light weight fill will add stresses at the existing ground surface in the range 200 to 300 psf. These loading conditions were incorporated into our model staging discussed further below. 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 9 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Table E4: Footing Loads from Transfer Slab
Loading
Condition Description Applied Load
Dead Dead Load of Slab 2.65 k/ft
Water1 100-yr Flood Load on Slab 3.5 k/ft
Live Load Excavator Transverse2,3 5.54 k/ft
Excavator Longitudinal2,4 36.47 k

1. The 100-yr flood load was also included as surface load applied across the proposed channel formed by the embankments. The surface load utilized PLAXIS features to apply a 62.4 pcf vertical load increment from the reference elevation of 1453.47 ft (the provided 100-yr flood elevation) at the MWD alignment.

2. When the live loads were applied, they were only applied to the upstream crossing structure footing.

3. Transverse load was applied of a 13.17 ft length and placed in three locations along the bridge (left side, centered, and right side), as provided by the structural team.

4. Longitudinal load was applied as a point load at three locations along the bridge (left side, centered, and right side), as provided by the structural team.

MODEL STAGING
Once the constitutive models for the various components were defined and the geometries created, the model staging and sequencing were developed in PLAXIS. Construction staging was utilized in PLAXIS to initiate existing stresses and strains within the model, including the existing MWD pipeline. This was followed by staging of excavations, footing sequencing, backfilling, and various loading conditions. The construction staging followed these steps:
• Step 0: Initial Phase - This step is used to initiate stresses into the model and displacements/strains are reset following this step.
o 0.a: PLAXIS K0 Routine & Gravity Loading
o 0.b: Activation of MWD Pipe – the MWD pipe is “wished” into place and external interface is activated.
o 0.c: Add Water Inside the MWD Pipe – the water is “wished” into place and interface activated.
• Step 1: Excavate & Place Footings – This represents construction sequencing used to limit the uplift of the MWD pipe. The crossing structure is divided into 1/3 sections and excavation and placing of the footings is done on both side of the pipe simultaneously to limit lateral displacements of the MWD pipe. See the conclusions and recommendations section for more discussion.
o 1.a: Excavate Center 1/3
o 1.b: Construct Center 1/3 Footing
o 1.c: Excavate Left 1/3
o 1.d: Construct Left 1/3 Footing
o 1.e: Excavate Right 1/3
o 1.f: Construct Right 1/3 Footing
• Step 2: Backfill Footings – This represents the backfilling of the constructed footings. The crossing structure will be backfilled with medium weight flowable fill/LCC to limit induced vibrations that 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 10 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 may impact the MWD pipeline. The structural design of the backfill requires that the LCC has similar unit weight and strengths to the existing soils for overturning and confinement. Therefore, the model sequencing backfills with the existing soil.
• Step 3: Place Channel Embankments – This represents the fill placement to construct the channel embankments.
• Step 4: Apply Dead Loads from Slab – This represents the construction of the transfer slab. • Step 5: Apply Various Loads – This represents the various loading conditions applied to the footings by the loads on the transfer slab and the 100-yr flood load. We note that these loading conditions are not expected to occur at the same time and are therefore branches in the analysis tree.
o 5.a: 100-yr Flood Load
 5.a.1: Remove 100-yr Flood Load
o 5.b: Transverse Excavator on Left
o 5.c: Transverse Excavator on Center
o 5.d: Transverse Excavator on Right
o 5.e: Longitudinal Excavator on Left
o 5.f: Longitudinal Excavator on Center
o 5.g: Longitudinal Excavator on Right
Figures E12 to E30 show a view of the model for each of these steps.

EVALUATION OF RESULTS
Based on discussions with MWD, we understand that the following results are desired to evaluate the impact of the proposed construction on the MWD pipeline:
• Vertical Displacement Profiles
• Lateral Displacements
• Longitudinal Stress Profiles (Extreme Fiber)
• Hoop Stress Profiles (Extreme Fiber)
The requested results are presented for select load cases in the figures outlined in Table E5.

Table E5: Summary of Profile Results
Modeling Stage Results Shown Figure #
Step 1: Full Length
Excavation
Vertical Displacement
(Crown & Invert) E31
Step 1a-f: Staged
Excavations
Vertical Displacement
(Invert Comparison) E32
Vertical Displacement
(Crown & Invert at Each Stage) E33 to E38
Lateral Displacement
(Spring Lines at Each Stage) E39
24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 11 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Modeling Stage Results Shown Figure #
Step 3: Place Channel
Embankments
Vertical Displacement – Full
Weight vs Light Weight
Comparison
(Crown & Invert)
E40
Lateral Displacement
(Spring Lines) E41
Step 4-5a.1: 100-yr Flood
Loading
Vertical Displacement
(Crown Comparison) E42
Vertical Displacement
(Crown & Invert) E43 to E45
Lateral Displacement
(Spring Lines) E46
Step 5.b to 5.g: Various
Equipment Load Cases
Vertical Displacement
(Crown Comparison) E47
PLAXIS Pipe Axis and Stress
Derivation N/A E48
Step 1.e, 3, 5.a
Longitudinal Stress
(Crown) E49 to E51
Longitudinal Stress
(Invert) E52 to E54
Hoop Stress
(Crown) E55 to E57
Hoop Stress
(Invert) E58 to E60
Hoop Stress
(Downstream Spring Line) E61 to E63
Hoop Stress
(Upstream Spring Line) E64 to E66
Excavations for Footings
Initial construction sequencing considered the potential that footing excavations may be made on one side of the pipe then the other. Modeling results of this scenario showed that the lateral induced displacement from excavating on one side then the other exceeded the allowed tolerances before combining with the potential uplift. Therefore, during conversations with the design team and contractors the limitation of simultaneous excavation was discussed and determined that simultaneous excavation would be possible and not overly burdensome to the construction effort and additional refinements and results for the “unbalance excavation” scenario are not included.

Figure E31 shows the vertical displacement results for the full-length excavation. The results indicate that the Hardening model exceeds the ¼ inch per 100-ft differential tolerance. As such, additional consideration was given to sequencing the excavation and construction of the footing into 1/3 lengths where a portion of the footing is excavated then constructed before additional excavation is completed.

Figure E32 shows the results of the 1/3-staging sequence for the pipe invert, which shows the higher vertical displacements. The full-length excavation is shown for reference.

Figures E33 to E38 show the results of the vertical displacement results for the staged excavations (Step 1a to 1f, respectively). The results are shown for the crown and invert to evaluate the potential squashing 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 12 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 of the pipe. Again, the full-length excavation is shown for reference. Vertical displacement results after backfilling of the footing show that the uplift of the pipe is reversed and the displacements nearly return to zero, showing some pipe settlement due to the added footing weight.

Figure E39 shows the resulting lateral displacement profiles at the pipe spring lines for each construction sequencing step. The results from the full-length excavation are shown for reference. We note that only minor changes were observed between the excavation and footing placement, so many of the profiles are overlapped. Maximum estimated lateral displacements are on the order of 0.07 inches.

Full Weight vs Light Weight Fill
Initial considerations for the proposed embankments revolved around the embankment material. Figure E40 shows the vertical displacement results using full weight fill, consisting of soil structural fill as defined in our geotechnical report, for the full extents of the model domain at both the pipe invert and crown.

Maximum predicted displacements are on the order of 5/8 to 3/4 inches with differentials over a 100 ft span of up to about 5/8 inch, which exceed the acceptable tolerances. Therefore, lightweight flowable fill will be required in the proximity of the MWD pipeline.

Based on the induced displacements of the full weight fill, the lightweight material’s unit weight was selected to be 30 pcf. We anticipate that the most readily available material is a lightweight cellular concrete (LCC) and developed the constitutive model parameters based on this material, as discussed previously. We selected a distance of 50 feet from the edge of the MWD pipe alignment as the area in which the LCC will be required. This was a combination of engineering judgement and to provide adequate distance such that vibratory compaction equipment needed to place and compact structural fill would present minimal impact to the pipe. Figure E40 also shows the vertical displacement results using the lightweight fill, which met the ¼-inch over 100 ft criteria.

Figure E41 shows the lateral displacement results at the pipe spring lines using the full weight and light weight fill.

Dead, Live & 100-yr Flood Loads
Figure E42 shows the progression from Step 3 with the lightweight fill to Step 5.a.1, which follows the possible loading sequence of a 100-yr flood load being applied after construction of the crossing structure.

For clarity, these figures are shown just for the pipe crown, which shows more displacement (dashed lines in Figure E40). The peak displacement induced by the 100-yr flood load is about 0.4 inches. The unloading phase indicates that no permanent displacement of the pipe is expected after the 100-yr flood loading.

This is likely due to the low stresses added stresses during the peak flood load, about 250 psf based on the bridge and flood elevations. This load added stress results in only small strain development in the soil constitutive models, where the loading modulus of the Hardening model is closer to the initial elastic modulus (Ei) in Figure E4a. Inspection of the Ei in Figure E4a and the unload/reload modulus (Eur) in Figure E4b indicates that these moduli are similar for most of the profile depth. Therefore, it appears that the results seen in Figure E42 are in-line with the expected model behavior.

Figures E43 to E45 show the results for both the invert and crown in Steps 4, 5.a, and 5.a.1, respectively, to evaluate the pipe squashing. Figure E46 shows the results lateral displacements for the various steps during the 100-yr flood sequence at the pipe spring lines. 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 13 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039 Figures E47 show the vertical displacement results for the remaining equipment load cases, including Steps 3 and 4 for reference at the pipe crown. We note that the induced vertical displacements from the equipment loads are very similar to the slab dead load and each other and are overlapping on the presented plots. Additionally, the displacements are much less than the peak displacement exhibited by the 100-yr flood load. Therefore, for simplicity we have not included the lateral displacement or pipe crown vs invert results.

The displacement results show that the ¼-inch over 100 ft criteria are met, provided the assumptions regarding the proposed materials, extents, and sequencing are met.

Stress Profiles
We understand that MWD wishes to evaluate the predicted stresses from the explicit modeling of the pipe. The results provided by PLAXIS for shell elements are the axial, shear, and bending moment forces per unit length along three local axes. The local axes of the pipe shell element correspond with Axis 1 – Longitudinal, Axis 2 – Hoop, Axis 3 – Perpendicular to the Shell. Figure E48a shows these local axes from the model. These results were used in conjunction with the element thickness to calculate the various requested stresses in the pipe following bending stress equations, shown in Figure E48b. Based on these calculations, at any given profile (e.g. the longitudinal stresses at the pipe crown) there are three possible stresses that can be reported:
• Axial Stress
• Combined Stress (Axial + Bending)
• Combined Stress (Axial - Bending)
As the MWD Casa Loma Barrel is constructed of concrete, we have focused the results on the “tension side” combined stress (axial + bending) as this will present the more positive or more tensile stresses in the pipe elements at the subject location.

To emphasize the model conditions expected to have the most significant impact on pipe stresses due to induced displacements, we present the stress results for Steps 1.e, 3, and 5.a. As the pipe stresses are initialized during Step 0.c, but not reset, each plot contains the initial stress after adding the water into the pipe to evaluate the induced changes at each stage.

Figures E49 to E54 show the longitudinal fiber stresses for each selected step at the invert and crown model results. Likewise, Figures E55 to E60 show the hoop fiber stresses at the invert and crown, and Figures E61 to E66 shows the hoop fiber stresses at the pipe spring lines. We note that some chattering is present in the stress data. Based on a response from PLAXIS support, they believe this is an artifact caused by the extrapolation of the stress/force data from the internal gaussian stress points to the points at which the data is extracted (generally at the nodes of the elements). PLAXIS stated that artifact would not affect the estimated pipe deflections. It is possible that reduction of the pipe element mesh may reduce this noise but would likely still be present to some degree due to the triangular elements. Based on the subsequent discussion with MWD, it was decided not to further refine the pipe mesh. 24002328.001A/SDI24M174280 Page 14 of 15 March 3, 2025
© 2025 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com
KLEINFELDER 770 First St., Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101 p | 619.831.4600 f | 619.232.1039

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analyses completed, the proposed flood channel and associated embankments/crossing structure are expected to induce less than the required ¼” inch over 100 ft displacement tolerance required by MWD, provided the recommendations contained in this memorandum and geotechnical report, and Kleinfelder’s structural engineering report are followed. The key recommendations and assumptions utilized in the modeling that must be implemented in the design and construction of the crossing are:
• Excavations will not be completed at a time when MWD has emptied the pipeline (i.e. it is not inservice). • The crossing structure footings are constructed following the 1/3 sequence of excavation and footing placement.
o Excavation of the subsequent 1/3 shall not progress until the footing for the previous 1/3 is in-place.
o Excavation slopes and benches shall not be flatter than 1.5H:1V. • Excavation and footing construction sequence shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean:
o Elevations in excavations on either side shall not be more than 1 ft different. o The concrete footings shall be poured on both sides at the same time. • Excavations shall not be backfilled until the full footing construction sequence is completed. o Backfill will consist of a flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) with a unit weight of approximately 85 pcf which does not require high vibration compactor equipment during placement. o Backfill shall be completed simultaneously on the upstream and downstream sides of the MWD pipeline. Simultaneously shall mean elevations of the backfill on each side shall not be more than 1 ft different.
• Lightweight flowable fill shall be used for embankments within 50 ft from the edge of the MWD pipe. Embankment fill shall consist of lightweight flowable fill material (e.g. LCC) not to exceed a unit weight of 30 pcf and does not require compaction to limit vibration impacts. • Embankment fill shall be placed such that the elevation difference across (upstream to downstream sides) the MWD pipe is not greater than 1 ft at any time until final grades are established.
• The channel section shall limit the 100-yr flood event to a peak water elevation of 1453.47 ft.

San Jacinto City CouncilJune 2, 2026

San Jacinto City Council
June 2, 2026