Agenda packet — Soledad City Council, May 21, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
11 495

the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

Neither the state nor the federal governments have adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources. The MBARD does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be subject to MBARD Rule 402, Nuisance. Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to local governments and the MBARD.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air, but due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the FCAA or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are thus not subject to NAAQS or California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), respectively. Instead, the U.S. EPA and the ARB regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with MBARD rules, these federal and state statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national levels, the U.S. EPA has established National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs), in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.

Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. The following provides a summary of the primary TACs of concern within the State of California and related health effects:

Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) was identified as a TAC by the ARB in August 1998. DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute approximately 40 percent of the statewide total, with an additional 57 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources, contributing about 3 percent of emissions, include shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations. Emissions from these sources are from diesel-fueled internal combustion engines. Stationary sources that report DPM emissions also include heavy construction, manufacturers of asphalt paving materials and blocks, and diesel-fueled electrical generation facilities (ARB 2024b).

In October 2000, the ARB issued a report entitled: “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles”, which is commonly referred to as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). The DRRP provides a mechanism for combating the DPM problem. The goal of the DRRP is to reduce concentrations of DPM by 85 percent by the year 2020, in comparison to the year 2000 baseline emissions.

The key elements of the DRRP are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel engines, and to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel to protect new, and very effective, advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. When fully implemented, the DRRP will significantly reduce emissions from both old and new diesel-fueled motor vehicles and from stationary sources that burn diesel fuel. In addition to these strategies, the ARB continues to promote the use of alternative fuels and electrification. As a result of these actions, DPM concentrations and associated health risks in future years are projected to decline (ARB 2024b, ARB 2000).

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
12 496

Exposure to DPM can have immediate health effects. DPM can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, exposure to DPM also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Because children’s lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children. In California, DPM has been identified as a carcinogen.

Acetaldehyde is a federal hazardous air pollutant. The ARB identified acetaldehyde as a TAC in April 1993.

Acetaldehyde is both directly emitted into the atmosphere and formed in the atmosphere as a result of photochemical oxidation. Sources of acetaldehyde include emissions from combustion processes such as exhaust from mobile sources and fuel combustion from stationary internal combustion engines, boilers, and process heaters. A majority of the statewide acetaldehyde emissions can be attributed to mobile sources, including on-road motor vehicles, construction and mining equipment, aircraft, recreational boats, and agricultural equipment. Area sources of emissions include the burning of wood in residential fireplaces and wood stoves. The primary stationary sources of acetaldehyde are from fuel combustion from the petroleum industry (ARB 2024b).

Acute exposure to acetaldehyde results in effects including irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.

Symptoms of chronic intoxication of acetaldehyde resemble those of alcoholism. The U.S. EPA has classified acetaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen. In California, acetaldehyde was classified on April 1, 1988, as a chemical known to the State to cause cancer (U.S. EPA 2024a; ARB 2024b).

Benzene is highly carcinogenic and occurs throughout California. The ARB identified benzene as a TAC in January 1985. A majority of benzene emitted in California (roughly 88 percent) comes from motor vehicles, including evaporative leakage and unburned fuel exhaust. These sources include on-road motor vehicles, recreational boats, off-road recreational vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment. Benzene is also formed as a partial combustion product of larger aromatic fuel components. To a lesser extent, industry-related stationary sources are also sources of benzene emissions. The primary stationary sources of reported benzene emissions are crude petroleum and natural gas mining, petroleum refining, and electric generation that involves the use of petroleum products. The primary area sources include residential combustion of various types such as cooking and water heating (ARB 2024b).

Acute inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia in occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on developing fetuses have been observed in animal tests. Increased incidences of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. The U.S. EPA has classified benzene as a known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure (U.S. EPA 2018a).
1,3-butadiene was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1992. Most of the emissions of 1,3-butadiene are from incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels. Mobile sources account for the majority of the total statewide emissions. Additional sources include agricultural waste burning, open burning associated with forest management, petroleum refining, manufacturing of synthetics and man-made materials, and oil and gas extraction. The primary natural sources of 1,3-butadiene emissions are wildfires (ARB 2024b).

Acute exposure to 1,3-butadiene by inhalation in humans results in irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs. Epidemiological studies have reported a possible association between 1,3-butadiene exposure and cardiovascular diseases. Epidemiological studies of workers in rubber plants have shown an association between 1,3-butadiene exposure and increased incidence of leukemia. Animal studies have reported tumors at various sites from 1,3-butadiene exposure. In California, 1,3-butadiene has been identified as a carcinogen.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
13 497

Carbon Tetrachloride was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1987 under California’s TAC program . The primary stationary sources reporting emissions of carbon tetrachloride include chemical and allied product manufacturers and petroleum refineries. In the past, carbon tetrachloride was used for dry cleaning and as a grain-fumigant. Usage for these purposes is no longer allowed in the United States. Carbon tetrachloride has not been registered for pesticidal use in California since 1987. Also, the use of carbon tetrachloride in products to be used indoors has been discontinued in the United States. The statewide emissions of carbon tetrachloride are small (about 1.96 tons per year), and background concentrations account for most of the health risks (ARB 2024b).

The primary effects of carbon tetrachloride in humans are on the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.

Human symptoms of acute inhalation and oral exposures to carbon tetrachloride include headache, weakness, lethargy, nausea, and vomiting. Acute exposures to higher levels and chronic (long-term) inhalation or oral exposure to carbon tetrachloride produce liver and kidney damage in humans. Human data on the carcinogenic effects of carbon tetrachloride is limited. Studies in animals have shown that the ingestion of carbon tetrachloride increases the risk of liver cancer. In California, carbon tetrachloride has been identified as a carcinogen.

Hexavalent Chromium was identified as a TAC in 1986. Sources of hexavalent chromium include industrial metal finishing processes, such as chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing, and firebrick lining of glass furnaces. Other sources include mobile sources, including gasoline motor vehicles, trains, and ships (ARB 2024b).

The respiratory tract is the major target organ for hexavalent chromium toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing were reported from a case of acute exposure to hexavalent chromium, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposure.

Human studies have clearly established that inhaled hexavalent chromium is a human carcinogen, resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. In California, hexavalent chromium has been identified as a carcinogen.

Para‐Dichlorobenzene was identified by the ARB as a TAC in April 1993. The primary area-wide sources that have reported emissions of para-dichlorobenzene include consumer products such as non-aerosol insect repellants and solid/gel air fresheners. These sources contribute nearly all of the statewide paradichlorobenzene emissions (U.S. EPA 2024a).

Acute exposure to para-dichlorobenzene via inhalation results in irritation to the eyes, skin, and throat in humans. In addition, long-term inhalation exposure may affect the liver, skin, and central nervous system in humans. The U.S. EPA has classified para-dichlorobenzene as a possible human carcinogen.

Formaldehyde was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1992. Formaldehyde is both directly emitted into the atmosphere and formed in the atmosphere as a result of photochemical oxidation. Photochemical oxidation is the largest source of formaldehyde concentrations in California ambient air. Directly emitted formaldehyde is a product of incomplete combustion. One of the primary sources of directly emitted formaldehyde is vehicular exhaust. Formaldehyde is also used in resins, can be found in many consumer products as an antimicrobial agent, and is also used in fumigants and soil disinfectants. The primary area sources of formaldehyde emissions include wood burning in residential fireplaces and wood stoves (ARB 2024b).

Exposure to formaldehyde may occur by breathing contaminated indoor air, tobacco smoke, or ambient urban air. Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde in humans can result in respiratory symptoms, and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Limited human studies have reported an association between formaldehyde exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an increased incidence of nasal squamous cell cancer. Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

Methylene Chloride was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1987. Methylene chloride is used as a solvent, a blowing and cleaning agent in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and plastic fabrication, and as a solvent in paint stripping operations. Paint removers account for the largest use of methylene chloride in California, where methylene chloride is the main ingredient in many paint stripping formulations. Plastic Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
14 498

product manufacturers, manufacturers of synthetics, and aircraft and parts manufacturers are stationary sources reporting emissions of methylene chloride (ARB 2024b).

The acute effects of methylene chloride inhalation in humans consist mainly of nervous system effects including decreased visual, auditory, and motor functions, but these effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The effects of chronic exposure to methylene chloride suggest that the central nervous system is a potential target in humans and animals. Human data is inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride. In California, methylene chloride has been identified as a carcinogen.

Perchloroethylene was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1991. Perchloroethylene is used as a solvent, primarily in dry cleaning operations. Perchloroethylene is also used in degreasing operations, paints and coatings, adhesives, aerosols, specialty chemical production, printing inks, silicones, rug shampoos, and laboratory solvents. In California, the stationary sources that have reported emissions of perchloroethylene are dry cleaning plants, aircraft parts, equipment manufacturers, and fabricated metal product manufacturers. The primary area sources include consumer products such as automotive brake cleaners, tire sealants, and inflators (ARB 2024b).

Acute inhalation exposure to perchloroethylene vapors can result in irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes, kidney dysfunction, and at lower concentrations, neurological effects, such as reversible mood and behavioral changes, impairment of coordination, dizziness, headaches sleepiness, and unconsciousness. Chronic inhalation exposure can result in neurological effects, including sensory symptoms such as headaches, impairments in cognitive and motor neurobehavioral functioning, and color vision decrements. Cardiac arrhythmia, liver damage, and possible kidney damage may also occur. In California, perchloroethylene has been identified as a carcinogen.

Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally-occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California.

Serpentine rock often contains chrysotile asbestos. Serpentine rock, and its parent material, ultramafic rock, are abundant in the Sierra foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. The Project site, however, is not located in an area of known ultramafic rock (DOC 2000).

Asbestos is commonly found in ultramafic rock, including serpentine, and near fault zones. The amount of asbestos that is typically present in these rocks ranges from less than 1 percent up to about 25 percent, and sometimes more. Asbestos is released from ultramafic and serpentine rocks when they are broken or crushed.

This can happen when cars drive over unpaved roads or driveways which are surfaced with these rocks when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations. It is also released naturally through weathering and erosion. Once released from the rock, asbestos can become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods of time.

Additional sources of asbestos include building materials and other manmade materials. The most common sources are heat-resistant insulators, cement, furnace or pipe coverings, inert filler material, fireproof gloves and clothing, and brake linings. Asbestos has been used in the United States since the early 1900s; however, asbestos is no longer allowed as a constituent in most home products and materials. Many older buildings, schools, and homes still have asbestos-containing products.

Naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) was identified by ARB as a TAC in 1986. The ARB has adopted two statewide control measures that prohibit the use of serpentine or ultramafic rock for unpaved surfacing and control dust emissions from construction, grading, and surface mining in areas with these rocks. Various other laws have also been adopted, including laws related to the control of asbestos-containing materials during the renovation and demolition of buildings.

All types of asbestos are hazardous and may cause lung disease and cancer. Health risks to people are dependent upon their exposure to asbestos. The longer a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a health problem. Asbestos-related diseases, such as Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
15 499

lung cancer, may not occur for decades after breathing asbestos fibers. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Air quality within the NCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. EPA, ARB, and the MBARD.

Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although U.S. EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent.

FEDERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The U.S.

EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990.

Federal Clean Air Act
The FCAA required the U.S. EPA to establish NAAQS and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. NAAQS are summarized in Table 2.

The FCAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution.

The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The U.S. EPA has the responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the FCAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the U.S. EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) first authorized the U.S. EPA to regulate asbestos in schools and Public and Commercial buildings under Title II of the law, which is also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). AHERA requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to inspect their schools for ACBM and prepare management plans to reduce the asbestos hazard. The Act also established a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the U.S. EPA established the NESHAPs. These are technology-based sourcespecific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
16 500

Table 2. Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging
Time California Standards* National Standards*
(Primary)
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm –
8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 –
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – 0.03 ppm
24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
3-hour – 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)**
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
No
Federal
Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction coefficient:

0.23/kilometer-visibility of
10 miles or more (0.07-30
miles or more for Lake
Tahoe) due to particles
when the relative
humidity is less than 70
percent.
ppm=parts per million; ppb=parts per billion; AAM=Annual Arithmetic Mean; μg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter * For more information on standards visit: http//www.arb.ca.gov.research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf **Secondary Standard
Source: ARB 2024c
Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
17 501

STATE
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for Ozone, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practicable date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.

Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Toxic Air Contaminants
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC), commonly referred to as Title 24, contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property.

Included in the CBSC are energy efficiency standards, which are commonly referred to as green building standards or CalGreen standards. The CBSC is adopted every three years by the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In the interim, the BSC also adopts annual updates to make necessary mid-term corrections. The CBSC was most recently updated in 2022.

California Air Resources Board
The ARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, establishing CAAQS, which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The CAAQS are summarized in Table 2. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel, and engine used.

REGIONAL
Monterey Bay Air Resources District
The MBARD is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the NCCAB, within which the Project is located. Responsibilities of the MBARD include but are not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting, and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution, and responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA. In an attempt to achieve NAAQS and CAAQS and maintain air quality, the MBARD has completed several air quality plans including the 2014 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan, the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for achieving the state ozone standards and the 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan for maintaining federal ozone standards.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
18 502

To achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards, the MBARD has adopted various rules and regulations for the control of airborne pollutants. The MBARD Rules and Regulations that apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Rule 400 (Visible Emissions). The purpose of this rule is to provide limits for visible emissions from sources within the district.
 Rule 402 (Nuisances). The purpose of this rule is to prohibit emissions that may create a public nuisance.

Applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.  Rule 425 (Use of Cutback Asphalt). The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of vapors of organic compounds from the use of cutback and emulsified asphalt. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback, slow cure, and emulsified asphalt during paving and maintenance operations.

Monterey County General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element (OS) contained within the County of Monterey’s General Plan aims to guide the County of Monterey toward long-term conservation and preservation of open space lands and natural resources. These elements includes numerous policies related to air quality to help provide for the protection and enhancement of Monterey County’s Air quality. Relevant policies relating to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following (County of Monterey 2010):
 OS-10.6 The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District’s air pollution control strategies, air quality monitoring, and enforcement activities shall be supported.  OS-10.7 Use of the best available technology for reducing air pollution emissions shall be encouraged.
 OS-10.8 Air quality shall be protected from naturally occurring asbestos by requiring mitigation measures to control dust and emissions during construction, grading, quarrying, or surface mining operations. This policy shall not apply to Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities except as required by state and federal law.
 OS-10.9 The County of Monterey shall require that future development implement applicable Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) control measures. Applicants for discretionary projects shall work with the MBUAPCD to incorporate feasible measures that assure that health-based standards for diesel particulate emissions are met. The County of Monterey will require that future construction operate and implement MBUAPCD PM10 control measures to ensure that construction related PM10 emissions do not exceed the MBUAPCD’s daily threshold for PM10. The County of Monterey shall implement MBUAPCD measures to address off-road mobile source and heavy-duty equipment emissions as conditions of approval for future development to ensure that construction-related NOX emissions from non-typical construction equipment do not exceed the MBUAPCD’s daily threshold for NOX.

REGULATORY ATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS
An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A nonattainment designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation(s) was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Unclassified designations indicate insufficient data is available to determine attainment status.

The attainment status of the NCCAB is summarized in Table 3. Under the CCAA, the basin is designated as a nonattainment transitional area for the ozone CAAQS and nonattainment for the PM10 CAAQS. The basin is designated attainment or unclassified for the remaining CAAQS and NAAQS.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
19 503

Table 3. NCCAB Attainment Status Designations
Pollutant State Designation National Designation
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment-Transitional1 Attainment/Unclassified2 Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Unclassified Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Monterey County-Attainment Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified4 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified5 Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified6
Notes
1) Effective July 26, 2007, the ARB designated the NCCAB a nonattainment area for the State ozone standard, which was revised in 2006 to include an 8-hour standard of 0.070 ppm.
2) In 2015, EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. 3) This includes the 2006 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3 and the 2012 annual standard of 12 μg/m3. 4) In 2012, EPA designated the entire state as attainment/unclassified for the 2010 NO2 standard. 5) In June 2011, the ARB recommended to EPA that the entire state be designated as attainment for the 2010 primary SO2 standard. Final designations to be addressed in future EPA actions. 6) On October 15, 2008, EPA lowered the NAAQS for lead to 0.15 μg/m3 . Final designations were made by EPA in November 2011.

Source: ARB 2024d, MBARD 2018a.

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in Monterey County. The “King City415 Pearl Street” station is the closest representative monitoring site to the Project site with sufficient data to meet U.S. EPA and/or ARB criteria for quality assurance. This monitoring station monitors ambient concentrations of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Ambient monitoring data for NO2 was obtained from the “Salinas #3 Monitoring Station.” CO standards have not been exceeded in years and, as a result, are no longer monitored in Monterey County. Ambient monitoring data for the last three years of available measurement data (i.e., 2021 through 2023) are summarized in Table 4. As depicted, state and federal standards for O3, NO2, and PM2.5 have not exceeded ambient air quality standards during the last three years of available data. The NAAQS for PM10 has not been exceeded during the last three years. However, PM10 concentrations have exceeded the CAAQS 13, 16, and 7 times in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
20 504

Table 4. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data1 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (O3)1
Maximum concentration, ppm (1-hour/8-hour average) 0.078 / 0.064 0.070 / 0.057 0.063 / 0.057 Number of days state/national 1-hour standard exceeded 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Number of days state/national 8-hour standard exceeded 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)2
Maximum concentration, ppb (1-hour average) 27.0 30.0 31.0 Annual average 3 NA 3
Number of days state/national standard exceeded 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)1
Maximum concentration, μg/m3 (state/national) 94.9 / 77.2 64.5 / 64.4 84.7 / 81.8 Annual Average 24.0 23.1 18.4
Number of days state/national standard exceeded 13 / 0 16 / 0 7 / 0 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5)1
Maximum concentration, μg/m3 (state/national) 19.3 / 19.3 24.4 / 24.4 35.4 / 35.4 Annual Average 6.6 5.1 4.5
Number of days national standard exceeded
(measured/calculated3) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
ppm = parts per million by volume, ppb = parts per billion by volume, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, NA = not available

1. Data obtained from the King City-415 Pearl Street Station.

2. Data obtained from the Salinas-#3 Station.

3. Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the standard. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day.
* = Insufficient data available to determine the value.

Source: ARB 2024e

AIR QUALITY INDEX
The health effects of ambient air pollutant concentrations can be evaluated and presented in various ways.

The most common method is the use of the Air Quality Index (AQI). The U.S. EPA developed the AQI as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts based on measured ambient air quality in comparison to established ambient air quality standards. Tables 5 and 6 present a summary of the health impacts for O3 and PM2.5, respectively, based on the U.S. EPA’s AQI.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
21 505

Table 5. Air Quality Index Summary for Ozone & Related Health Effects Air Quality Index / 8-hour Ozone
Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 51-100: Moderate
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 55-70
ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 101-150: Unhealthy for Sensitive
Groups
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 71-85
ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 151–200: Unhealthy
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 86-105
ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 201-300: Very Unhealthy
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 106-200
ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

An AQI of 50 and below is categorized as “Good” and air quality is satisfactory and poses little or no risk. An AQI of 301 or higher is categorized as “Hazardous” having a health warning of emergency conditions: everyone is more likely to be affected. Outdoor activities should be avoided for all individuals.

AQI = Air quality index, ppb = parts per billion
Source: U.S. EPA 2024c
Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
22 506

Table 6. Air Quality Index Summary for Fine Particulate Matter & Related Health Effects Air Quality Index / 8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description AQI 51-100: Moderate
Ambient Concentrations: 12.1-35.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Some people who may be unusually sensitive to particulate.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.

AQI 101-150: Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Sensitive Groups: People with heart or lung disease, older adults, Ambient Concentrations: 35.5-55.4 µg/m3 children, and teenagers.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms for sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.

Cautionary Statements: If you have heart disease: Symptoms such as palpations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue may indicate a serious problem. If you have any of these, contact a health care provider.

AQI 151–200: Unhealthy
Ambient Concentrations: 55.5-150.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Everyone.

Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else: Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities.

AQI 201-300: Very Unhealthy
Ambient Concentrations: 150.5-250.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Everyone.

Health Effects Statements: Significant aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly; significant increase in respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid all physical activity outdoors. Move activities indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better. Everyone else: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion.

Consider moving activities indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better.

AQI = Air quality index, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: U.S. EPA 2024c
A summary of the annual AQI for the Project area, based on monitoring data obtained from the Monterey County monitoring area for the last three years of available data, is provided in Table 7. As depicted in Table 7, the Project area typically experiences "Good” air quality with the total number of days ranging from 274 to 299 days per year. Days classified as “Moderate” AQI ranged from 66 to 105 days per year. Information for the “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups”, “Unhealthy”, “Very Unhealthy”, and “Hazardous” classifications was generally not available (U.S. EPA 2024d).

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
23 507

Table 7. Air Quality Index Annual Historical Summary for Monterey County Year Air Quality Index (AQI) - Number of Days
Good Moderate Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Hazardous 2023 274 90 1 NA NA NA
2022 299 66 NA NA NA NA
2021 261 105 NA NA NA NA
Represents overall air quality taking into account all criteria pollutants measured.

Source: U.S. EPA 2024d

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
One of the most important reasons for air quality standards is the protection of those members of the population who are most sensitive to the adverse health effects of air pollution termed "sensitive receptors." The term sensitive receptors refer to specific population groups, as well as the land uses where individuals would reside for long periods. Commonly identified sensitive population groups are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land uses would include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Residential dwellings, schools, parks, playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals are examples of sensitive land uses.

The Project site is surrounded by residential, commercial, public facilities (i.e., parks and schools), and agricultural land uses. Residential uses surrounding the Project primarily consist of single-family residences.

Commercial use surrounding the Project primarily comprises retail businesses and a segment of general commercial area along Front Street and Highway 101. Sensitive receptors located near the Project site consist predominantly of schools and residential land uses. The nearest schools and residential land uses are located adjacent the Project.

PROJECT IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Criteria for determining the significance of air quality impacts were developed based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Appendix G). According to those guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following conditions:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan.

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the MBARD has published the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (MBARD 2008). This guidance document includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short-term construction, long-term operational, odor, TAC, and cumulative air quality impacts. These thresholds were developed taking into consideration potential impacts on regional and local air quality and related public-health concerns. The following MBARD-recommended thresholds of significance were relied upon for the determination of impact significance:
 Short-term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants. Construction impacts would be significant if the project would emit greater than 82 pounds per day of PM10 or would cause a violation of PM10 National or State AAQS at nearby receptors. Construction-generated emissions of ozone precursors (i.e., ROG or Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
24 508

NOX) are accommodated in the emission inventories of State and federally-required air plans. For this reason, the MBARD has not identified recommended thresholds of significance for constructiongenerated ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX).  Long-Term Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants. Emissions of 137 pounds per day or more of direct and indirect VOC emissions would have a significant impact on regional air quality by emitting substantial amounts of ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx) (MBARD 2008). Such projects would significantly impact attainment and maintenance of O3 AAQS. In addition, operational impacts would be significant if the project would emit greater than 82 lbs/day of PM10, or if the project would contribute to local PM10 concentrations that exceed AAQS. Emissions of SOX would be significant if the project generates direct emissions greater than 150 lbs/day.
 Local Mobile-Source CO Concentrations. Local mobile-source impacts would be significant if the project generates direct emissions of greater than 550 lbs/day of CO or if the project would contribute to local CO concentrations that exceed the CAAQS of 9.0 parts per million (ppm) for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour. Indirect emissions are typically considered to include mobile sources that access the project site but generally emit off-site; direct emissions typically include sources that are emitted onsite (e.g., stationary sources, on-site mobile equipment).  Toxic Air Contaminants. TAC impacts would be significant if the project would expose the public to substantial levels of TACs so that the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual would exceed 10 in 1 million and/or so that ground-level concentrations of noncarcinogenic toxic air contaminants would result in a Hazard Index (HI) greater than 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual.
 Odorous Emissions. Odor impacts would be significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors.

METHODOLOGY
Short-term Construction
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.26. Emissions modeling included the analysis of the distribution system pipelines. Emissions associated with the Project were quantified based on project-specific data provided and default modeling parameters contained in the model for Monterey County. Construction emissions modeling assumes that approximately 100 percent of travel would occur predominantly on paved roads. Onsite travel for construction vehicles was assumed to be on unpaved surfaces. Refer to Appendix A for emissions modeling assumptions and results. Construction projects using typical construction equipment such as dump trucks, scrapers, bulldozers, compactors, and front-end loaders that temporarily emit precursors of ozone [i.e., VOCs or NOx], are accommodated in the emission inventories of state- and federally-required air plans and would not have a significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of O3 AAQS (MBARD 2008). As a result, construction-generated emissions of other criteria air pollutants, including ROG and NOx, are presented for informational purposes only.

Long-term Operation
Long-term operation of the Project would require the use of two below ground electric powered vertical turbine water pumps. Operational emissions associated with electricity use would occur off-site and largely outside of Monterey County, criteria pollutants were not calculated for long-term operation.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
25 509

PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan.

The NCCAB is currently classified as nonattainment for the state's PM10 standard and nonattainment transitional for the state’s 8-hour and 1-hour O3 standards. MBARD has adopted the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan for the purpose of enforcing state and federal air quality standards (MBARD 2018b).

Consistency with the AQMP is assessed by comparing the proposed growth associated with a project with the population and dwelling unit forecasts adopted by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). These projections are used to generate emission forecasts upon which the AQMP is based. Projects that are consistent with AMBAG’s regional forecasts would be considered consistent with the AQMP. In addition, projects that would result in a significant increase in emissions, in excess of MBARD significance thresholds, would also be considered to potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

The Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in population growth. In addition, as noted in Impact AQ-2, the Project would not result in a change in regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated long-term operational emissions. PM10 emissions associated with multiple overlapping construction activities would not exceed MBARD’s significance threshold of 82 lbs/day. For these reasons, implementation of the Project could result in a substantial increase in either direct or indirect emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. This impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Construction Emissions
Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but possess the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The construction of the Project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site preparation, grading, foundation/concrete, pump station installation, asphalt paving, trenching, and motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips. Emissions of PM are largely associated with ground disturbance and the movement of construction vehicles and equipment on unpaved surfaces.

Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 8. As depicted in Table 8, short-term construction associated with the Project could generate up to approximately 9 lbs/day of PM10, which would not exceed MBARD’s significance threshold of 82 lbs/day. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant. Furthermore, compliance with existing MBARD rules and regulations, such as Rule 400 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisances), and Rule 400 (Visible Emissions) would further minimize emissions of PM10 during construction.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
26 510

Table 8. Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants Facilities
Emissions (lbs/day)1
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Foundation/Concrete - Unmitigated 0.57 0.43 4.99 0.37 0.1 Grading - Unmitigated 1.46 1.16 12.33 7.05 3.5
Pump Station Install - Unmitigated 0.47 0.4 3.75 0.08 0.01 Asphalt Paving - Unmitigated 0.38 0.24 3.84 0.51 0.13
Trenching - Unmitigated 0.46 0.31 4.4 0.5 0.13
Total All Facilities 3.34 2.54 29.31 8.51 3.87
MBARD Significance Threshold2: -- -- -- 82 --
Exceeds Threshold/Significant Impact? -- -- -- No --

1. Based on the highest daily emissions during summer or winter conditions without the implementation of fugitive dust control measures. Assumes foundation/concrete, pump station install, trenching (2025) and asphalt paving could potentially occur simultaneously.

2. The MBARD has not identified significance thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO or PM2.5. Emissions of ROG and NOX are accommodated in the emission inventories of State- and federally-required air plans and would not have a significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of ozone AAQS. Emissions of PM2.5 are a component of PM10.

Refer to Appendix A for emissions modeling assumptions and results.

Operational Emissions
Daily activities associated with long-term operations of the Project would not generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors from mobile, energy use, and area sources. Daily operational emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed any MBARD emissions thresholds and would not have a significant impact on regional air quality or attainment and maintenance of O3 ambient air quality standards (AAQS). For these reasons, operational emissions would not be anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact on public health. As a result, long-term operational activities would be considered to have a less-than-significant air quality impact.

Impact AQ-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Short-term and long-term pollutants of primary concern with regard to potential health-related impacts include construction-generated emissions of TACs, NOA, PM, and CO. Short-term and long-term localized air quality impacts are discussed in greater detail, as follows:

Short-term Construction
Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
The ARB identifies NOA as a TAC. In accordance with ARB Air Toxics Control Measure, prior to any grading activities, a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that would be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request form, along with a copy of the geologic report, must be filed with the local air district. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure. The Project site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for naturally-occurring ultramafic rock and serpentine soils. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding the proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACM could be encountered during the demolition of existing buildings, particularly older structures constructed prior to 1970. Asbestos Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
27 511

can also be found in various building products, including (but not limited to) utility pipes/pipelines (transit pipes or insulation on pipes). If a project involves the disturbance or potential disturbance of ACM, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the NESHAP (40CFR61, Subpart M-Asbestos). The Project would not include the demolition of existing on-site structures. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

TACs (DPM Emissions)
The primary TAC of concern associated with short-term construction activities is DPM. Implementation of the Project would result in the generation of DPM emissions during construction associated with the use of offroad diesel equipment for site grading, paving, and other construction activities. Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily associated with long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. For off-site work and residential land uses, the calculation of cancer risk associated with exposure to TACs is typically calculated based on a 25-year and 30-year period of exposure, respectively. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic, typically only occurring over a short period (i.e., weeks or months). For this reason and given the highly dispersive nature of DPM, exposure to construction-generated DPM would not be anticipated to exceed applicable thresholds (i.e., incremental increase in cancer risk of 10 in one million or a HI greater than 1). As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Implementation of the Project would result in short-term emissions of fugitive PM associated with ground disturbance. However, compliance with applicable MBARD rules and regulations, including but not limited to Rule 402 for the control of nuisance–related emissions would minimize potential impacts to occupants of nearby land uses. Furthermore, as noted in Impact AQ-2, construction-generated PM10 would be significantly less than MBARD’s daily significance threshold of 82 lbs/day. As previously noted, MBARD has determined that emissions below 82 lbs/day would not be expected to exceed AAQS.

As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would include measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. With mitigation, emissions of fugitive dust would be reduced by approximately 50 percent or more.

With mitigation, emissions associated with construction would not exceed the air district's significance threshold of 82 lbs/day for PM10. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Long-term Operation
The Project would not result in the installation or operation of any major stationary sources of emissions. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact AQ-4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Other emissions potentially associated with the Project would be predominantly associated with the generation of odors during Project construction. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Construction of the Project would involve the use of a variety of gasoline or diesel-powered equipment that would emit exhaust fumes. Exhaust fumes, particularly dieselAir Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
28 512

exhaust, may be considered objectionable by some people. In addition, pavement coatings used during Project construction would also emit temporary odors. However, construction-generated emissions would occur intermittently throughout the workday and would dissipate rapidly within increasing distance from the source. As a result, short-term construction activities would not expose a substantial number of people to frequent odorous emissions. In addition, no major sources of odors have been identified in the Project area.

This impact would be considered less than significant.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
29 513

GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

EXISTING SETTING
To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect” and to define the GHGs that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, are discussed, as follows:
 Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (U.S. EPA 2024a).
 Methane. Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances.

CH4 is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 into the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires.

Methane’s atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years (U.S. EPA 2024a).  Nitrous Oxide. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years (U.S. EPA 2024a).  Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC-23, which is generated as a byproduct of the production of HCFC-22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 270 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes of less than 15 years (e.g., HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (U.S. EPA 2024a).
 Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and non-toxic.

There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). Natural geological emissions have been responsible for the PFCs that have accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, the largest current source is aluminum production, which Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
30 514

releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for PFCs ranges from 2,600 to 50,000 years (U.S. EPA 2024a).
 Nitrogen Trifluoride. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, toxic, nonflammable gas used as an etchant in microelectronics. NF3 is predominantly employed in the cleaning of the plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chambers in the production of liquid crystal displays and silicon-based thin-film solar cells. It has a global warming potential of 16,100 carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). While NF3 may have a lower global warming potential than other chemical etchants, it is still a potent GHG. In 2009, NF3 was listed by California as a high global warming potential GHG to be listed and regulated under AB 32 (Section 38505 Health and Safety Code).  Sulfur Hexafluoride. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and generally non-flammable. SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80 percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Leaks of SF6 occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (U.S. EPA 2024a).
 Black Carbon. Black carbon is the strongest light-absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly by absorbing sunlight and indirectly by depositing on snow and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is considered a short-lived species, which can vary spatially and, consequently, it is very difficult to quantify associated global-warming potentials.

The main sources of black carbon in California are wildfires, off-road vehicles (locomotives, marine vessels, tractors, excavators, dozers, etc.), on-road vehicles (cars, trucks, and buses), fireplaces, agricultural waste burning, and prescribed burning (planned burns of forest or wildlands) (CCAC 2018, U.S. EPA 2024b).

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in CO2e, which weighs each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Table 11 provides a summary of the GWP for GHG emissions of typical concern with regard to community development projects, based on a 100-year time horizon. As indicated, CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon.

Table 9. Global Warming Potential for GHGs
Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential (100-year)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 25
Nitrous Dioxide (N2O) 298
Based on IPCC GWP values for a 100-year time horizon
Source: IPCC 2007

SOURCES OF GHG EMISSIONS

REGIONAL
On a global scale, GHG emissions are predominantly associated with activities related to energy production; changes in land use, such as deforestation and land clearing; industrial sources; agricultural activities; transportation; waste and wastewater generation; and commercial and residential land uses. Worldwide, energy production including the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global GHG emissions (U.S. EPA 2024b).

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
31 515

22% • Industrial
11 % • Electricity

IN STA E
5% • Electricity

I PORTS
-- 8% • Agriculture
& Forestry
6% • Commercial
8% • Residential
39% • Transportation
381.3 MMT CO2e
2021 TOTAL CA EMISSIONS
In 2021, GHG emissions within California totaled 381.3 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e. GHG emissions, by sector, are summarized in Figure 4. In California, the transportation sector is the largest contributor, accounting for approximately 39 percent of the total state-wide GHG emissions. Emissions associated with industrial uses are the second largest contributor, totaling roughly 22 percent. Electricity generation totaled roughly 11 percent (ARB 2024f).

Figure 4. California 2000-2021 GHG Inventory (2023 Edition) Source: ARB 2024f
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), such as black carbon, fluorinated gases, and CH4 also have a dramatic effect on climate change. Though short-lived, these pollutants create a warming influence on the climate that is many times more potent than that of carbon dioxide.

As part of the ARB’s efforts to address SLCPs, the ARB has developed a statewide emission inventory for black carbon. The black carbon inventory will help support the implementation of the SLCP Strategy, but it is not part of the State’s GHG Inventory that tracks progress towards the State’s climate targets. The most recent inventory for year 2013 conditions is depicted in Figure 5. As depicted, off-road mobile sources account for a majority of black carbon emissions totaling roughly 36 percent of the inventory. Other major anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion, and industrial processes (ARB 2024f).

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
32 516

On-road Brake & Tire On-Road Gasoline
2%
Agrlgultural Burning
3%
Commercial Cooking
4%
2%
Figure 5. California Black Carbon Emissions Inventory (Year 2013) Source: ARB 2024g
LOCAL

COUNTY OF MONTEREY
Within the County of Monterey, GHG emissions are predominantly associated with transportation, agriculture, and building energy. In 2019, GHG emissions within Monterey County totaled 1,101,405 metric tons (MT) of CO2e. GHG emissions, by sector, are summarized in Figure 6. Within Monterey County, the transportation sector is the largest contributor, accounting for approximately 43 percent of the total county-wide GHG emissions. Emissions associated with agriculture uses are the second largest contributor, totaling roughly 24 percent. Building energy generation both non-residential and residential totaled roughly 23 percent (MCHD 2024).

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
33 517

On-Road Transportation
■ Residential Building Energy
■ Wastewater Treatment
■ Agriculture
■ Solid Waste
■ Water Supply
■ Nonresidential Building Energy
Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment
Figure 6. Monterey County GHG Emissions Inventory by Sector 2019 (MTCO2e) Source: MCHDC 2024

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
There are uncertainties as to exactly what climate changes would occur in various local areas of Earth. There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet:
sea-level rise, the spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, increased air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.

Within California, climate changes would likely alter the ecological characteristics of many ecosystems throughout the state. Such alterations would likely include increases in surface temperatures and changes in the form, timing, and intensity of precipitation. For instance, historical records depict an increasing trend toward earlier snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada. This snowpack is a principal supply of water for the state, providing roughly 50 percent of the State’s annual runoff. If this trend continues, some areas of the state may experience an increased danger of floods during the winter months and possible exhaustion of the snowpack during the spring and summer months. An earlier snowmelt would also impact the State’s energy resources. Currently, approximately 20 percent of California's electricity comes from hydropower. An early exhaustion of the Sierra snowpack may force electricity producers to switch to more costly or non-renewable forms of electricity generation during the spring and summer months. A changing climate may also impact agricultural crop yields, coastal structures, and biodiversity. As a result, resultant changes in climate would likely have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry (ARB 2017).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
Executive Order 13514
Executive Order 13514 is focused on reducing GHGs internally in federal agency missions, programs, and operations. In addition, the executive order directs federal agencies to participate in the Interagency Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
34 518

Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, which is engaged in developing a national strategy for adaptation to climate change.

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the FCAA and that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate GHG. The Court held that the U.S. EPA Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
 Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.  Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these wellmixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Although these findings did not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities, this action was a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA’s “Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles”, which was published on September 15, 2009. On May 7, 2010, the final “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards” was published in the Federal Register.

U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles with reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles and engines. These next steps include developing the first-ever GHG regulations for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, as well as additional light-duty vehicle GHG regulations.

These steps were outlined by President Obama in a Presidential Memorandum on May 21, 2010.

The final combined U.S. EPA and NHTSA standards that make up the first phase of this national program apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile (the equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements). Together, these standards would cut GHG emissions by an estimated 960 MMT and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). On August 28, 2012, U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued their joint rule to extend this national program of coordinated GHG and fuel economy standards to model years 2017 through 2025 passenger vehicles.

STATE
Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 (Pavley) of 2002 (Health and Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) requires the ARB to develop and adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for automobiles. These standards are also known as Pavley I. The California Legislature declared in AB 1493 that global warming is a matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment. It cites several risks that California faces from climate change, including a reduction in the state’s water supply; an increase in air pollution caused by higher temperatures; harm to agriculture; an increase in wildfires; damage to the coastline; and economic losses caused by higher food, water, energy, and insurance prices. The bill also states that technological solutions to reduce GHG emissions would stimulate California’s economy and provide jobs. In 2004, the State of California submitted a request for a waiver from federal clean air regulations, as the State is authorized to do under the FCAA, to allow the State to require reduced tailpipe emissions of CO2. In late 2007, the U.S. EPA denied California’s waiver request and declined to promulgate adequate federal regulations limiting GHG emissions. In early 2008, the State brought suit against the U.S. EPA related to this denial.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
35 519

In January 2009, President Obama instructed the U.S. EPA to reconsider the Bush Administration’s denial of California’s and 13 other states’ requests to implement global warming pollution standards for cars and trucks. In June 2009, the U.S. EPA granted California’s waiver request, enabling the State to enforce its GHG emissions standards for new motor vehicles beginning with the current model year.

In 2009, President Obama announced a national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing GHG pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the US. The new standards would cover model years 2012 to 2016 and would raise passenger vehicle fuel economy to a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. When the national program takes effect, California has committed to allowing automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements.

California is committed to further strengthening these standards beginning in 2017 to obtain a 45 percent GHG reduction from the 2020 model year vehicles.

Executive Order No. S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 (State of California) proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra’s snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total GHG emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, to the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.

The Executive Order directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and state legislature describing (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets, (2) impacts of global warming on California’s resources, and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the secretary of CalEPA created a Climate Action Team made up of members from various state agencies and commissions. The Climate Action Team released its first report in March 2006 and continues to release periodic reports on progress. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government, and community actions, as well as through state incentive and regulatory programs.

Assembly Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 32 (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561–38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592–38599) requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The gases that are regulated by AB 32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, NF3, and SF6. The reduction to 1990 levels will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that were phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles.

However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then ARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

AB 32 requires that ARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap, institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions (ARB 2018).

Climate Change Scoping Plan
In October 2008, ARB published its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, which is the State’s plan to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32. This initial Scoping Plan contained the main strategies to be implemented in order to achieve the target emission levels identified in AB 32. The Scoping Plan included ARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the state’s GHG inventory.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
36 520

The largest proposed GHG reduction recommendations were associated with improving emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, implementing the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, implementing energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances, the widespread development of combined heat and power systems, and developing a renewable portfolio standard for electricity production.

The Scoping Plan states that land use planning and urban growth decisions will play important roles in the state’s GHG reductions because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is developed to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. ARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is used will have large impacts on the GHG emissions that will result from the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas emissions sectors. With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects approximately

5.0 MMT CO2e will be achieved associated with the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375, which is discussed further below.

The initial Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and is updated every five years.

The first update of the Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on May 22, 2014, which looked past 2020 to set mid-term goals (2030-2035) on the road to reaching the 2050 goals., The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, was released in November 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan incorporates strategies for achieving the 2030 GHG-reduction target established in Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) and EO B-30-15. Most notably, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan encourages zero net increases in GHG emissions. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recognizes that achieving net zero increases in GHG emissions may not be possible or appropriate for all projects and that the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to zero would not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.

On November 16, 2022, the ARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. The 2022 Scoping Plan continues the path to achieve the SB 32 2030 target and expands upon earlier plans by targeting an 85 percent reduction in GHG below 1990 levels by 2045 (ARB 2022).

Senate Bill 1078 and Governor’s Order S-14-08 (California Renewables Portfolio Standards) SB 1078 (Public Utilities Code Sections 387, 390.1, 399.25, and Article 16) addresses electricity supply and requires that retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, provide a minimum of 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. This SB will affect statewide GHG emissions associated with electricity generation. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which set the Renewables Portfolio Standard target to 33 percent by 2020. It directed state government agencies and retail sellers of electricity to take all appropriate actions to implement this target.

Executive Order S-14-08 was later superseded by Executive Order S-21-09 on September 15, 2009. Executive Order S-21-09 directed the ARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State to come from renewable energy by 2020. Statute SB X1-2 superseded this Executive Order in 2011, which obligated all California electricity providers, including investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities, to obtain at least 33 percent of their energy from renewable electrical generation facilities by 2020.

ARB is required by current law, AB 32 of 2006, to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction of 1990 levels by 2050. The California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission serve in advisory roles to help ARB develop the regulations to administer the 33 percent by 2020 requirement. ARB is also authorized to increase the target and accelerate and expand the time frame.

Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions
The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32, 2006) requires the reporting of GHGs by major sources to the ARB. Major sources required to report GHG emissions include industrial facilities, suppliers of transportation fuels, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied petroleum gas and carbon dioxide, operators of petroleum and natural gas systems, and electricity retail providers and marketers.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
37 521

Cap-and-Trade Regulation
The cap-and-trade regulation is a key element in California’s climate plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive longterm investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The cap-and-trade rules came into effect on January 1, 2013, and apply to large electric power plants and large industrial plants. In 2015, fuel distributors, including distributors of heating and transportation fuels, also became subject to the cap-andtrade rules. At that stage, the program will encompass around 360 businesses throughout California and nearly 85 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions.

Under the cap-and-trade regulation, companies must hold enough emission allowances to cover their emissions and are free to buy and sell allowances on the open market. California held its first auction of GHG allowances on November 14, 2012. California’s GHG cap-and-trade system is projected to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and would achieve an approximate 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bill 32
SB 32 was signed by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016. SB 32 effectively extends California’s GHG emission-reduction goals from the year 2020 to year 2030. This new emission-reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is intended to promote further GHG-reductions in support of the State’s ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 also directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to address this interim 2030 emission-reduction target.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will address land-use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. ARB, in consultation with MPOs, establishes regional reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. ARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, funding for transportation projects may be withheld.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvements to real property. The CBC is adopted every three years by the BSC. In the interim, the BSC also adopts annual updates to make necessary mid-term corrections. The CBC standards apply statewide; however, a local jurisdiction may amend a CBC standard if it makes a finding that the amendment is reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

Green Building Standards
In essence, green building standards are indistinguishable from any other building standards. Both standards are contained in the CBC and regulate the construction of new buildings and improvements. The only practical distinction between the two is that whereas the focus of traditional building standards has been protecting public health and safety, the focus of green building standards is to improve environmental performance. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2019 Standards), which were adopted in May 2018, address several important areas including smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards to prevent heat transfer, residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. While the 2019 standards led to notable energy reductions, homes may still utilize other energy sources like natural gas. Actual energy savings depend on various factors such as building Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
38 522

orientation and sun exposure. Non-residential buildings can expect around 30 percent energy reduction primarily due to lighting upgrades.

More recently, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Standards) were approved in December 2021 to further enhance energy efficiency in buildings. These standards promote efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements when installing natural gas, support future battery storage installation, and expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards. Notably, the 2022 standards extend solar PV system requirements and battery storage capabilities to various land uses, including high-rise multi-family and non-residential structures like office buildings, schools, restaurants, warehouses, theaters, and grocery stores. The sizing of solar systems for these structures should aim to meet targets of up to 60 percent of the building's loads. These new solar requirements came into effect on January 1, 2023, aligning with California's goal of achieving a net-zero carbon footprint by 2045 (CEC 2021).

Senate Bill 97
SB 97 was enacted in 2007. SB 97 required OPR to develop, and the Natural Resources Agency to adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. Those CEQA Guidelines amendments clarified several points, including the following:
 Lead agencies must analyze the GHG emissions of proposed projects and must reach a conclusion regarding the significance of those emissions.
 When a project’s GHG emissions may be significant, lead agencies must consider a range of potential mitigation measures to reduce those emissions.  Lead agencies must analyze potentially significant impacts associated with placing projects in hazardous locations, including locations potentially affected by climate change.  Lead agencies may significantly streamline the analysis of GHGs on a project level by using a programmatic GHG emissions reduction plan meeting certain criteria.  CEQA mandates analysis of a proposed project’s potential energy use (including transportationrelated energy), sources of energy supply, and ways to reduce energy demand, including through the use of efficient transportation alternatives.

As part of the administrative rulemaking process, the California Natural Resources Agency developed a Final Statement of Reasons explaining the legal and factual bases, intent, and purpose of the CEQA Guidelines amendments. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 97 became effective on March 18, 2010.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
In March 2017, the ARB adopted the “Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy” (SLCP Strategy) establishing a path to decrease GHG emissions and displace fossil-based natural gas use. Strategies include avoiding landfill methane emissions by reducing the disposal of organics through edible food recovery, composting, in-vessel digestion, and other processes; and recovering methane from wastewater treatment facilities, and manure methane at dairies, and using the methane as a renewable source of natural gas to fuel vehicles or generate electricity. The SLCP Strategy also identifies steps to reduce natural gas leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, valves, and pumps to improve safety, avoid energy losses, and reduce methane emissions associated with natural gas use. Lastly, the SLCP Strategy also identifies measures that can reduce HFC emissions at national and international levels, in addition to State-level action that includes an incentive program to encourage the use of low-GWP refrigerants, and limitations on the use of high-GWP refrigerants in new refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment (ARB 2017).

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 2022-2045 MTP/SCS The AMBAG 2022-2045 MTP/SCS seeks to ensure that transportation within the County of Monterey operates and will continue to operate efficiently. The metropolitan transportation plan focuses on regional transportation infrastructure needs while the SCS addresses planned growth patterns. Linking MTP and SCS ensures that future changes to the regional transportation network will address both existing and future needs. Key State goals, policies, and Executive Orders considered in the 2045 MTP/SCS include but are not limited to the following:

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
39 523

• SB 375 and SCS Program and Evaluation Guidelines
• 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations • California Transportation Plan 2050
• California SB 32 (Pavley, 2016): Reduce GHG emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 • EO B-55-18: Carbon Neutrality by 2045
• EO S-3-05: Reduce GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 • EO N-19-19: empowers the California State Transportation Agency to leverage discretionary state transportation funds to help meet the state’s climate goals. • EO N-79-20: 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035

PROJECT IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a project would be considered to have a significant impact on climate change if it would:
a) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or,
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

As of August 2024, the County of Monterey Community Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CCAAP) was still being developed and has not yet been adopted. The proposed CCAAP establishes strategies and provides guidance on reducing GHG emissions but does not provide a recommended significance threshold or offer a method of analysis for projects subject to CEQA review.

MBARD has not adopted a CEQA-compliant GHG reduction plan. In addition, MBARD has not issued recommended guidance for the evaluation of GHG impacts associated with projects subject to CEQA review. However, other air districts in the State have recently released guidance for the evaluation of GHG impacts. For instance, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has recently released recommended GHG significance thresholds that are based on a “fair share” approach for achieving carbon neutrality goals and to ensure consistency with the State’s GHG-reduction efforts, including the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. Consistent with this approach, new land use development projects would be considered to be consistent with the State’s carbon neutrality goals and would be considered to have a less than significant impact if: 1) the project is deemed consistent with regional VMT-reduction targets; 2) the project reduces the need for natural gas infrastructure; and 3) the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Similarly, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has also recently released Best Management Practices (BMPs), which also include the prohibited installation of natural gas infrastructure for development projects as well as a requirement that projects meet current CalGreen Tier 2 standards for electric-vehicle (EV) spaces, except that EV-capable spaces shall instead be electric vehicle (EV) ready. This additional requirement requires the installation of electrical infrastructure sufficient to service the future installation of EV chargers.

The BAAQMD and SMAQMD thresholds are based on an approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015). Although not located within these jurisdictions, development in Monterey County and associated GHG emissions are comparable to those generated by developments within other areas of the state, including the BAAQMD and SMAQMD jurisdictions. Given that climate change is inherently a cumulative impact that occurs on a global scale, these BMPs would, likewise, be considered representative of the project’s “fair share” of what would be required to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, and ensuring consistency with the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. It is also important to note that the ARB 2022 Scoping Plan states that under the Lead Agencies discretion with supporting evidence projects that incorporate some but not all Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
40 524

applicable key attributes could be found by the lead agency as being consistent with the State’s Scoping Plan. Project related operational GHG impacts were assessed based on consistency with the State's 2022 Climate Scoping Plan and contributing its fair share of meeting the State’s long-term climate goals.

METHODOLOGY
Short-term Construction
Short-term construction emissions associated with the Project were quantified using the CalEEMod, version 2022.1.1.26. Emissions modeling included the analysis of proposed foundation/concrete, grading, pump station installation, asphalt paving, and trenching. Emissions were quantified based on project-specific data provided, and default modeling parameters contained in the model for Monterey County. Since equipment may not be used everyday of the construction phase, phase durations in CalEEMod were based on the number of days of equipment use. CalEEMod offsite worker emissions were scaled based on the number of working days in the phase. Emissions calculations are included in Appendix A of this report. Constructiongenerated GHG emissions were amortized over an approximate 30-year project life and included with operational emissions estimates. Construction-generated GHG emissions attributable to the Project are presented for informational purposes. Refer to Appendix A for emissions modeling assumptions and results.

Long-term Operation
Long-term operational emissions of the Project were quantified using energy intensity factors for Monterey County from CalEEMod, version 2022.1.1.26. CalEEMod does not provide adjusted energy intensity factors to account for anticipated reductions in energy use in future years. Therefore, year 2027 energy intensity factors were conservatively used for turbine pump emission calculations. Two turbine water pumps would be in use during standard operation and the third used as a back-up. Based on information provided by the Project proponent, the water pumps would operate at 150 horsepower (hp) each. This is the equivalent of approximately 112 kW (kilowatts) per pump. Each of the two primary pumps were estimated to operate approximately 1,664 hours annually. Refer to Appendix A for turbine pump operation schedule, emissions modeling assumptions and results.

PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact GHG-A Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? or Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Implementation of the Project would contribute to increases in GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Short-term and long-term GHG emissions associated with the development of the Project are discussed in greater detail, as follows:

Short-term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Short-term annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 10. Based on the modeling conducted, emissions of GHGs associated with the construction of the Project would total approximately 396 MTCO2e. There would also be a small amount of GHG emissions from waste generated during construction; however, this amount is speculative. Actual emissions would vary, depending on various factors including construction schedules, equipment required, and activities conducted. Assuming an average project life of 30 years, amortized construction-generated GHG emissions would total approximately 13 MTCO2e/yr.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
41 525

Table 10. Amortized Construction GHG Emissions
Construction GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Foundation/Concrete 5.73
Grading 62.15
Pump Station Install 2.01
Asphalt Paving 70.03
Trenching 256.48
Total: 396.39
Amortized Construction Emissions: 13.21
Based on CalEEMod computer modeling. Amortized construction-generated GHG emissions assume a 30-year project life. Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.

Long-term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Estimated long-term increases in GHG emissions for future target years 2027 and year 2045 were calculated to ensure consistency with SB 32 and are depicted in Tables 11. As depicted in Table 11, annual operational GHG emissions associated with the Project would total approximately 35 MTCO2e/year. With the inclusion of amortized construction emissions, operational GHG emissions would total approximately 48 MTCO2e/year.

Table 11. Annual Operational GHG Emissions - Unmitigated Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year) 1
Turbine Water Pumps2 34.8
Total Project Operational Emissions: 34.8
Amortized Construction Emissions: 13.2
Total with Amortized Construction Emissions: 48.0

1. Project-generated emissions were quantified using intensity factors from the CalEEMod computer program.

2. Includes operation of two electrified 150 hp (112 kW) turbine water pumps for an annual total of 3,328 hours.

Refer to Appendix A for modeling results and assumptions.

As mentioned above quantified emissions are provided for informational purposes only. Project impacts relating to GHG emissions are discussed below and assessed by determining consistency with the State's 2022 Climate Scoping Plan and contributing its fair share of what would be required to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Consistency with Applicable Plans
Applicable GHG-reduction plans include the AMBAG 2022-245 MTP/SCS and ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. Project consistency with these plans is discussed in greater detail, as follows:

AMBAG 2022-2045 MTP/SCS Consistency
To support the State’s GHG-reduction goals, including the goals mandated by SB 32, California established the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375). SB 375 requires regional metropolitan planning organizations, such as AMBAG, to develop SCSs that align transportation, housing, and land use decisions toward achieving the State’s GHG emissions-reduction targets. Under SB 375, the development and implementation of SCSs, which link transportation, land use, housing, and climate policy at the regional level, are designed to reduce per capita mobile-source GHG emissions, which is accomplished through the implementation of measures that would result in reductions in per capita VMT.

As previously noted, the AMBAG 2022-2045 MTP/SCS was developed in accordance with state and federal requirements including SB 375 which aims to reduce GHG emissions related to mobile sources. Based on AMBAG guidelines, the Project would not have an impact on regional VMT. As a result, the Project would not conflict with any goals or objectives identified in the AMBAG 2022-2045 MTP/SCS.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
42 526

Climate Change Scoping Plan
The previously adopted 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan incorporated the State’s GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030, as mandated by SB 32. On November 16, 2022, the ARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. The recently adopted 2022 Scoping Plan continues the path to achieve the SB 32 2030 target and expands upon earlier Scoping Plans by targeting an 85 percent reduction in GHG below 1990 levels by 2045. A significant part of achieving the SB 32 goals are strategies to promote sustainable communities, such as the promotion of zero net energy buildings, and improved transportation choices that result in reducing VMT. Other measures include the increased use of low-carbon fuels and cleaner vehicles, as well as, measures that promote the conservation of energy and water use.

California has started to implement major policies to build resilience to combat the effects of climate change, including droughts. Such policies include the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, the governor’s Water Resilience Portfolio (2020), the governor’s Water and Supply Strategy (August 2022), and new standards for indoor, outdoor, and industrial water use. In addition, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. As part of this effort, policies and programs undertaken to achieve this goal include the protection of the state’s water supply through, in part, the promotion of efforts to build a climate-resilient water infrastructure to insulate our communities from increasing and more intense drought conditions. The increased use of recycled water promotes a long-term reliable water supply sources and is an important water resource strategy for increasing drought resiliency in regions throughout California. Water recycling is also a critically important environmental and water use efficient strategy for the state. By effectively reusing water for potable and/or non-potable purposes, many areas of the state are able to reduce existing and future reliance on environmentally stressed imported water sources. The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) recently updated California’s Recycled Water Policy and added new ambitious recycled water goals for the state (ARB 2022, WateReuse 2019).

Implementation of the proposed Project would help to support the state’s energy and water-conservation efforts. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
43 527

REFERENCES
Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. Available at url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/diesel-risk-reduction-plan. ———. Accessed August 2024a. Criteria Pollutant Emission Inventory Data. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/criteria-pollutant-emission-inventory-data ———. Accessed August 2024b. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Reports. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/toxic-air-contaminant-identification-reports ———. Accessed August 2024c. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/ambient-air-quality-standards-0 ———. Accessed August 2024d. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/state-and-federal-area-designations. ———. Accessed August 2024e. Air Quality Data. Website url: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). August 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in CaliforniaAreas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Open File Report 2000-19.

County of Monterey. October 26th, 2010. Monterey County General Plan. Available at website url:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/housing-communitydevelopment/planning-services/current-planning/general-info/2010-monterey-county-general-planadopted-october-26-2010.

Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at website url:
http://mbard.org/programs-resources/planning/ceqa/
———. 2018a. NCCAB Area Designations and Attainment Status. Website url:
http://mbard.org/programs-resources/planning/ceqa/
———. 2018b. Air Quality Plans. Website url: https://www.mbard.org/files/6632732f5/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Accessed August 2024a. Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Website url: https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants. ———. Accessed August 2024b. Black Carbon Research. Website url:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/air-research/black-carbon-research_.html. ———. Accessed August 2024c. Air Quality and Your Health. Website url:
https://www.airnow.gov/air-quality-and-your-health-publications/. ———. Accessed August 2024d. Air Quality Index Report. Website url:
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-quality-index-report Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Website URL:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/03142017/final_slcp_report.pdf. ———. September 28, 2018. AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warming-solutions-act-2006. ———. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf ———. Accessed August 2024f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: 2023 Edition. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.
———. Accessed August 2024g. GHG Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Inventory. Website url:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-slcp-inventory
California Energy Commission (CEC). August 11, 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at website url:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency
Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC). 2018. Black Carbon. Website url:
http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/black-carbon.

Air Quality & GHG Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Recycled Water Conveyance Project August 2024
44 528

APPENDIX A
Emissions Modeling
529
CalEEMod Output
530
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Foundation/Concrete (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Foundation/Concrete (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Pump Station Install (2025) - Unmitigated
1 / 49
531
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

3.6. Pump Station Install (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Asphalt Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Asphalt Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Trenching (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Trenching (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Trenching (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Trenching (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
2 / 49
532
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
3 / 49
533
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
4 / 49
534
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Construction Start Date 5/1/2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 5.00
Location 36.42096987505816, -121.34023647608893
County Monterey
City Soledad
Air District Monterey Bay ARD
Air Basin North Central Coast
TAZ 3211
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined Linear 5.01 Mile 4.32 0.00 0.00 — — —
5 / 49
535
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.47 1.16 13.2 12.9 0.05 0.48 7.05 7.53 0.44 3.50 3.94 — 6,449 6,449 0.34 0.69 9.91 6,674 Mit. 0.84 0.56 14.8 15.1 0.05 0.45 2.19 2.52 0.42 1.01 1.31 — 6,449 6,449 0.34 0.69 9.91 6,674 %
Reduced
43% 52% -12% -17% — 5% 69% 66% 6% 71% 67% — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45 0.31 4.53 5.19 0.02 0.12 0.50 0.62 0.12 0.13 0.25 — 2,263 2,263 0.12 0.25 0.09 2,342 Mit. 0.30 0.19 5.33 5.43 0.02 0.16 0.49 0.65 0.15 0.13 0.28 — 2,263 2,263 0.12 0.25 0.09 2,342 %
Reduced
35% 38% -18% -5% — -29% 2% -4% -27% 1% -12% — — — — — — — Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.40 0.29 3.71 3.68 0.01 0.12 1.04 1.16 0.11 0.46 0.57 — 1,550 1,550 0.08 0.16 1.02 1,602 Mit. 0.21 0.14 3.73 3.76 0.01 0.11 0.50 0.62 0.11 0.18 0.29 — 1,550 1,550 0.08 0.16 1.02 1,602 6 / 49
536
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 %
Reduced
48% 52% > -0.5% -2% — 5% 52% 47% 6% 60% 49% — — — — — — — Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 0.05 0.68 0.67 < 0.005 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 257 257 0.01 0.03 0.17 265 Mit. 0.04 0.03 0.68 0.69 < 0.005 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 257 257 0.01 0.03 0.17 265 %
Reduced
48% 52% > -0.5% -2% — 5% 52% 47% 6% 60% 49% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.47 1.16 13.2 12.9 0.05 0.48 7.05 7.53 0.44 3.50 3.94 — 6,449 6,449 0.34 0.69 9.91 6,674 2026 0.43 0.29 4.20 5.19 0.02 0.11 0.50 0.61 0.10 0.13 0.24 — 2,235 2,235 0.11 0.25 3.40 2,317 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.45 0.31 4.53 5.19 0.02 0.12 0.50 0.62 0.12 0.13 0.25 — 2,263 2,263 0.12 0.25 0.09 2,342 2026 0.43 0.29 4.31 5.12 0.02 0.11 0.50 0.61 0.10 0.13 0.24 — 2,230 2,230 0.11 0.25 0.09 2,309 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.40 0.29 3.71 3.68 0.01 0.12 1.04 1.16 0.11 0.46 0.57 — 1,550 1,550 0.08 0.16 1.02 1,602 2026 0.13 0.09 1.27 1.52 < 0.005 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.03 0.04 0.07 — 663 663 0.03 0.08 0.44 687 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.07 0.05 0.68 0.67 < 0.005 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.02 0.08 0.10 — 257 257 0.01 0.03 0.17 265 2026 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 — 110 110 0.01 0.01 0.07 114 7 / 49
537
-------------------
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.84 0.56 14.8 15.1 0.05 0.45 2.19 2.52 0.42 1.01 1.31 — 6,449 6,449 0.34 0.69 9.91 6,674 2026 0.29 0.19 5.14 5.43 0.02 0.16 0.49 0.65 0.15 0.13 0.28 — 2,235 2,235 0.11 0.25 3.40 2,317 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.30 0.19 5.33 5.43 0.02 0.16 0.49 0.65 0.15 0.13 0.28 — 2,263 2,263 0.12 0.25 0.09 2,342 2026 0.28 0.19 5.25 5.36 0.02 0.16 0.49 0.65 0.15 0.13 0.28 — 2,230 2,230 0.11 0.25 0.09 2,309 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 0.14 3.73 3.76 0.01 0.11 0.50 0.62 0.11 0.18 0.29 — 1,550 1,550 0.08 0.16 1.02 1,602 2026 0.08 0.06 1.55 1.59 < 0.005 0.05 0.15 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.08 — 663 663 0.03 0.08 0.44 687 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.04 0.03 0.68 0.69 < 0.005 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 257 257 0.01 0.03 0.17 265 2026 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 110 110 0.01 0.01 0.07 114

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Foundation/Concrete (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
8 / 49
538
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Off-Roa
Equipme

0.45 nt

0.38 3.66 3.12 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 990 990 0.04 0.01 — 994 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.6 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.25 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.25 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
9 / 49
539
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.02 1.29 0.47 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.29 0.02 0.08 0.09 — 1,054 1,054 0.06 0.17 2.18 1,107 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.39 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.51

3.2. Foundation/Concrete (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.17 4.35 4.88 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 990 990 0.04 0.01 — 994 10 / 49
540
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.6 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 11 / 49
541
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.02 1.29 0.47 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.29 0.02 0.08 0.09 — 1,054 1,054 0.06 0.17 2.18 1,107 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.39 2.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.51

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.31 1.10 10.4 9.63 0.02 0.45 — 0.45 0.41 — 0.41 — 1,703 1,703 0.07 0.01 — 1,709 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 6.56 6.56 — 3.37 3.37 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 / 49
542
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.12 1.14 1.06 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 187 187 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.72 0.72 — 0.37 0.37 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.0 61.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 63.9 Hauling 0.12 0.03 1.82 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.38 0.40 0.03 0.11 0.13 — 1,479 1,479 0.09 0.23 3.06 1,554 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 49
543
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.69 6.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.99 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.21 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 162 162 0.01 0.03 0.15 170 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.11 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.16 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 28.2

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.32 0.32 7.76 8.97 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,703 1,703 0.07 0.01 — 1,709 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14 / 49
544
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Off-Roa
d

0.04 0.03 0.85 0.98 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 187 187 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.16 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.0 61.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 63.9 Hauling 0.12 0.03 1.82 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.38 0.40 0.03 0.11 0.13 — 1,479 1,479 0.09 0.23 3.06 1,554 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.69 6.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.99 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.21 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 162 162 0.01 0.03 0.15 170 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
15 / 49
545
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.11 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.16 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 28.2

3.5. Pump Station Install (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.45 0.38 3.66 3.12 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 990 990 0.04 0.01 — 994 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.43 5.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.45 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
16 / 49
546
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.90 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 59.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 61.0 61.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 63.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 / 49
547
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

3.6. Pump Station Install (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.17 4.35 4.88 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 990 990 0.04 0.01 — 994 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.43 5.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.45 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 / 49
548
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.90 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

3.7. Asphalt Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 19 / 49
549
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.22 0.18 1.84 2.28 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 350 350 0.01 < 0.005 — 352 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.04 0.03 0.30 0.37 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.8 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.57 20 / 49
550
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.96 0.71 0.01 0.03 0.41 0.43 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,591 1,591 0.10 0.25 3.29 1,672 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 262 262 0.02 0.04 0.23 275 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.51 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.3 43.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 45.5

3.8. Asphalt Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
21 / 49
551
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.09 1.90 2.43 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 350 350 0.01 < 0.005 — 352 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.02 0.01 0.31 0.40 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.8 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.57 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — 22 / 49
552
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.96 0.71 0.01 0.03 0.41 0.43 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,591 1,591 0.10 0.25 3.29 1,672 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 262 262 0.02 0.04 0.23 275 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.51 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.3 43.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 45.5

3.9. Trenching (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
23 / 49
553
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.30 0.25 2.45 4.03 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 615 615 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.88 1.45 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 222 222 0.01 < 0.005 — 222 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24 / 49
554
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Off-Roa
d
Equipm

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.7 36.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.8 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.91 0.69 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,555 1,555 0.09 0.25 3.21 1,634 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 91.9 91.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.03 2.02 0.70 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,556 1,556 0.09 0.25 0.08 1,632 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 33.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.71 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 560 560 0.03 0.09 0.50 588 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 5.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.58 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 92.7 92.7 0.01 0.01 0.08 97.3 25 / 49
555
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

3.10. Trenching (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.13 3.26 4.27 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 615 615 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.05 1.17 1.54 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 222 222 0.01 < 0.005 — 222 26 / 49
556
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.21 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.7 36.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.8 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.6 97.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 99.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.91 0.69 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,555 1,555 0.09 0.25 3.21 1,634 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 91.9 91.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.03 2.02 0.70 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,556 1,556 0.09 0.25 0.08 1,632 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 33.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27 / 49
557
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.71 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 560 560 0.03 0.09 0.50 588 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 5.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.58 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 92.7 92.7 0.01 0.01 0.08 97.3

3.11. Trenching (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.28 0.23 2.32 4.03 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 615 615 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.28 0.23 2.32 4.03 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 615 615 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
28 / 49
558
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.69 1.20 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 184 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.4 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.8 95.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 97.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.03 1.85 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,524 1,524 0.08 0.25 3.02 1,603 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.1 90.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.2 29 / 49
559
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 0.03 1.95 0.67 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,525 1,525 0.08 0.25 0.08 1,600 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 27.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.57 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 453 453 0.02 0.07 0.39 476 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 4.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75.1 75.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 78.9

3.12. Trenching (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
30 / 49
560
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 31 / 49
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.14 0.13 3.26 4.27 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 615 615 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Movement
Movement
Movement
Dust
From
Material
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 0.97 1.27 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 183 183 0.01 < 0.005 — 184 Dust
From
Material
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.18 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.3 30.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.4 Dust
From
Material
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.8 95.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 97.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 561 Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Hauling 0.12 0.03 1.85 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,524 1,524 0.08 0.25 3.02 1,603 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.1 90.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 0.03 1.95 0.67 0.01 0.03 0.40 0.42 0.03 0.11 0.14 — 1,525 1,525 0.08 0.25 0.08 1,600 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 27.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.57 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 453 453 0.02 0.07 0.39 476 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 4.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75.1 75.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 78.9

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
32 / 49
562
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 33 / 49
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
563
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 34 / 49
564
-------------------
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 35 / 49
565
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
36 / 49
566
37 / 49
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Foundation/Concrete Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
7/1/2025 7/7/2025 5.00 5.00 Crane
Grading Linear, Grading &
Excavation
5/1/2025 6/25/2025 5.00 40.0 —
Pump Station Install Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
8/1/2025 8/4/2025 5.00 2.00 Crane
Asphalt Paving Linear, Paving 7/1/2025 9/22/2025 5.00 60.0 — Trenching Linear, Trenching 7/1/2025 6/1/2026 5.00 240 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Foundation/Concrete Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pump Station Install Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Asphalt Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Asphalt Paving Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
567
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Trenching Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Foundation/Concrete Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pump Station Install Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Asphalt Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Asphalt Paving Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.75 26.0 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 16.0 26.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Foundation/Concrete — — — —
38 / 49
568
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Foundation/Concrete Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Foundation/Concrete Vendor 0.00 6.03 HHDT,MHDT
Foundation/Concrete Hauling 11.4 26.0 HHDT
Foundation/Concrete Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pump Station Install — — — —
Pump Station Install Worker 3.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pump Station Install Vendor 0.75 26.0 HHDT,MHDT
Pump Station Install Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pump Station Install Onsite truck — — HHDT
Asphalt Paving — — — —
Asphalt Paving Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Asphalt Paving Vendor 0.00 6.03 HHDT,MHDT
Asphalt Paving Hauling 17.2 26.0 HHDT
Asphalt Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 6.03 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 16.8 26.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 0.75 26.0 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 16.0 26.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Foundation/Concrete — — — —
39 / 49
569
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Foundation/Concrete Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Foundation/Concrete Vendor 0.00 6.03 HHDT,MHDT
Foundation/Concrete Hauling 11.4 26.0 HHDT
Foundation/Concrete Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pump Station Install — — — —
Pump Station Install Worker 3.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pump Station Install Vendor 0.75 26.0 HHDT,MHDT
Pump Station Install Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pump Station Install Onsite truck — — HHDT
Asphalt Paving — — — —
Asphalt Paving Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Asphalt Paving Vendor 0.00 6.03 HHDT,MHDT
Asphalt Paving Hauling 17.2 26.0 HHDT
Asphalt Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 26.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 6.03 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 16.8 26.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
40 / 49
570
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Foundation/Concrete 238 211 0.00 0.00 —
Grading 2,585 2,530 4.32 0.00 —
Pump Station Install 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Asphalt Paving 4,378 3,879 0.00 0.00 —
Trenching 17,130 15,180 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
User Defined Linear 3.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
41 / 49
571
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. 42 / 49
572
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.30 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 27.9 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
43 / 49
573
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 24.9
AQ-PM 0.83
AQ-DPM 2.64
Drinking Water 56.3
Lead Risk Housing 79.4
44 / 49
574
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Pesticides 82.0
Toxic Releases 0.21
Traffic 4.83
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 39.8
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 38.0
Cardio-vascular 54.9
Low Birth Weights 74.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 99.0
Housing 45.0
Linguistic 90.7
Poverty 97.2
Unemployment 10.7

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 12.06210702
Employed 19.33786732
Median HI 19.44052355
Education —
45 / 49
575
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Bachelor's or higher 11.58732196
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 33.99204414
Transportation —
Auto Access 26.42114718
Active commuting 34.99294238
Social —
2-parent households 27.37071731
Voting 20.96753497
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 29.84729886
Park access 46.19530348
Retail density 2.027460542
Supermarket access 52.86795842
Tree canopy 11.4718337
Housing —
Homeownership 30.27075581
Housing habitability 33.94071603
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 55.24188374 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 59.54061337
Uncrowded housing 9.90632619
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 15.69357115
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 70.8
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
46 / 49
576
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 28.4
Cognitively Disabled 91.4
Physically Disabled 49.3
Heart Attack ER Admissions 55.4
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 2.5
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 1.9
Elderly 82.5
English Speaking 2.1
Foreign-born 89.9
Outdoor Workers 0.5
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 69.6
Traffic Density 5.7
47 / 49
577
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 91.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 27.2

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 50.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 17.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Based on provided construction phase schedule.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment based on provided equipment use for each phase 48 / 49
578
Soledad Recycled Water Facility (Construction and Opening Intensity Factors) Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 Construction: Dust From Material Movement import/export material based on total import/export multiplied by phase's percent of total truck trips.

Construction: Paving Based on provided total area of asphalt paving (acres) Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust travel will be on paved roads Construction: Trips and VMT worker, vendor trips based on provided information. all trip lengths based on provided information.
49 / 49
579
Offsite Worker Calculations
580

Phase
Annual MTCO2e Days
Offsite Scalar
(worker)
CalEEMod
Emissions1
Offsite Emissions (vendor
and haul)
Offsite Emissions
( worker)
Scaled Offsite Emissions
(worker)
Scaled Offsite Emissions
(vendor, haul, and worker) Scaled Emissions Phase Duration Equipment
Duration
Foundation/Concrete (2025) - Unmitigated 4.97 5.73
onsite 2.25 2.25
offsite 2.72 2.51 0.21 0.97 3.48 3.48 23 5 4.60
Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 62.06 62.15
onsite 31.00 31.00
offsite 31.06 29.36 1.70 1.79 31.15 31.15 42 40 1.05
Pump Station Install (2025) - Unmitigated 1.01 2.01
onsite 0.90 0.90
offsite 0.11 0.06 0.05 1.05 1.11 1.11 42 2 21.00
Asphalt Paving (2025) - Unmitigated 57.62 70.03
onsite 9.57 9.57
offsite 48.05 45.50 2.55 14.96 60.46 60.46 352 60 5.87
Trenching (2025) - Unmitigated 139.68 141.31
onsite 36.80 36.80
offsite 102.88 97.30 5.58 7.21 104.51 104.51 124 96 1.29 Trenching (2026) - Unmitigated 113.82 115.17
onsite 30.40 30.40
offsite 83.42 78.90 4.52 5.87 84.77 84.77 187 144 1.30

1. CalEEMod Emissions for offsite include vendor, haul and worker tips. 581
Turbine Pump
582

Provided Operational Pump Use
Month Total Days / Month Days / Month Pumps Run Hours / Day When the Pumps Run
Total Operating
Hours
Jan 31 5 8 40
Feb 28 9 8 72
Mar 31 10 8 80
Apr 30 15 8 120
May 31 16 8 128
Jun 30 30 8 240
Jul 31 31 8 248
Aug 31 31 8 248
Sep 30 30 8 240
Oct 31 16 8 128
Nov 30 10 8 80
Dec 31 5 8 40
Annual 1664
Pump Energy Use
Pumps Mechanical Horsepower (HP) Kilowatts (kW) Pump Operational Hours (annual)
Kilowatt-Hours
(kWh)
Megawatt-Hours
(MWh)
Pump 1 150 111.85 1,664 186,126.69 186.13
Pump 2 150 111.85 1,664 186,126.69 186.13
Pump 3 (backup) 150 111.85 0 0 0.00
Annual 372,253.38 372.25
Pump Emissions
GHG Pollutant CalEEMod Intensity Factor
(lb/MWh) Annual Operational (MWh) GWP Annual Emissions
(lb)
Annual Emissions
(MT)
CO2 203.983 372.25 1 75,933.36 34.44
CH4 0.033 372.25 25 12.28 5.57E-03
N2O 0.004 372.25 298 1.49 6.75E-04
CO2e NA NA NA 76,684.20 34.78
583
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
584
Appendix D. Biological Resources Report
585
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
586

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project
Biological Resources Report
November 2024
Prepared for
Jon Marshall, PE
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, California 94598
Prepared by
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
Contact: Matthew Johnson
587
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 1

2. METHODS............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Personnel and Survey Dates.......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2.1 Botany ...............................................................................................................................5

2.2.2 Wildlife.............................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Definitions..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 Special-Status Species....................................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Sensitive Habitats.............................................................................................................. 7

2.4 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.4.1 Federal Regulations.......................................................................................................... 7

2.4.2 State Regulations............................................................................................................... 7

3. RESULTS............................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Habitats......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Ruderal.............................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.2 Agricultural....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.3 Developed ......................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Sensitive Habitats........................................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Special-Status Species................................................................................................................. 12

4. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .......................................................................................................... 15

5. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figures
Figure 1. Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project - Project Vicinity.................................................. 3 Figure 2. Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project - Project Location................................................. 4 Figure 3. Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project - Habitat Map Agricultural................................. 10 Figure 4. Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project - Habitat Map Developed ................................... 11 Appendices
APPENDIX A. California Natural Diversity Database Report APPENDIX B. IPaC Resource List
APPENDIX C. Special-Status Species Table
Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project i Biological Resources Report 588

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) was contracted by Carollo Engineers, Inc. (“Carollo”) to prepare this Biological Resources Report for the City of Soledad (“City”) Recycled Water Conveyance Project (“Project”), located within the City and surrounding lands of unincorporated Monterey County (“County”), California (Figures 1 and 2). The Project is intended to provide Title 22 recycled water from the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (“WRF”) to 20 schools and parks throughout the City and is part of a larger multi-phase City water conveyance project (Figure 2). To satisfy the reporting criteria of the County and other regulatory agencies, Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (“DD&A”) completed a biological evaluation of the project area to determine if sensitive biological resources are present or have the potential to occur within and in the vicinity of the area.

The Project would disturb a total of approximately 189,320 square feet (4.35 acres) of previously developed or disturbed land; however, portions of the project (e.g., lateral connections, which would be unique to each park and school) have yet to be designed. Therefore, this report analyzes a larger Evaluation Area that includes all areas that could potentially be impacted by the Project (Figure 2). The Evaluation Area for this report includes:
• a 20 ft buffer around the new transmission pipeline locations, • the staging area,
• new pump station, and
• a 50 ft buffer (approximately 2.7 additional acres total) at the terminal end of each new transmission line to account for any possible locations for supply line connections.

This report describes the existing biological resources within the Evaluation Area, including any specialstatus species or sensitive habitats which occur or have the potential to occur in the area. This report also assesses the potential impacts to biological resources that may result from the Project, and recommends appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Project Description
The Project consists of installing and operating the infrastructure necessary to convey Title 22 recycled water from the City’s WRF to up to 20 parks and schools throughout the City. The Project includes construction of a booster pump facility at the existing WRF, a transmission main pipeline connecting the WRF to the existing transmission pipeline along Front Street, and distribution systems from existing transmission lines to schools and parks throughout the City (Figure 2) No increases in impervious surfaces are anticipated as a result of the Project. All surface conditions would be restored to pre-Project conditions following the completion of construction. Staging areas for the Project would be located at the existing WRF located on Morisoli Road. During construction, the Project area would be generally accessed by Morisoli Road, HWY 101 and SR 146, as well as local roadways where needed. Key components of the Project are described in further detail below:
• Recycled water pump station at the City’s WRF.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 1 Biological Resources Report 589

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
• Approximately 3,800 feet of 12-inch diameter recycled water transmission pipeline from the WRF to Front Street. The pipeline diameter may be upsized to approximately 16 inches in diameter during final design.
• Approximately 22,700 feet of recycled water distribution pipelines ranging from 4 to 8 inches in diameter.
• Conversion or replacement of existing on-site irrigation systems to meet recycled water standards.

Recycled Water Pump Station
The pump station would be located at the City’s WRF, as shown in Figure 2. The pump station would draw recycled water from existing WRF facilities to supply the recycled water to the City’s parks and schools.

The new pump station is proposed at the southeast corner of the sludge drying pond area west of the flocculation tanks. The pump station includes a below-ground wet well structure with vertical turbine pumps. The wet well feed pipe crosses several existing utilities and penetrates through two earthen berms.

The discharge header penetrates one earthen berm, extends north at the access road, and continues toward a connection to the existing 12-inch recycled water transmission main.

Recycled Water Transmission Pipeline - WRF to Front Street The existing transmission pipeline is composed of 8-inch and 12-inch diameter pipes, as shown in Figure 2.

The existing 8-inch transmission pipeline from the WRF to Front Street, which runs through farmland, is undersized. A new 12-inch pipeline would be constructed parallel to the existing 8-inch pipeline as part of the Project. This would be tied into the existing 12-inch transmission pipeline at the WRF on the south end and the existing 12-inch transmission pipeline on the north end before the railroad crossing. Additional easements may be required for the transmission pipeline through farmland.

Recycled Water Distribution Pipelines
The distribution system would be divided into two pipeline systems – to the northern and southern parts of the City. At the intersection of San Vicente Road and Front Street, the existing transmission main bifurcates with a pipeline continuing east along Front Street until it intersects West Street and terminates. At this location the distribution pipeline would connect to the existing transmission main to serve the City’s parks and schools located in the southern half of the City. The second segment of the existing transmission pipeline continues north along San Vicente Road then east and along Gabilan Drive until it intersects West Street and terminates. At this point, the distribution pipeline would tie into the existing transmission main to serve the City parks and schools located in the northern half of the City.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 2 Biological Resources Report 590
=
Santa Cruz
/
,
)
)
' /
-~, ,,'
~ \ _,
',
' ' ' ' ' '
Hollister 0
Hollister Hills
State Vehicular
Recreation Area
'\
San Luis State
Recreation Area
- WaJSonville - -- ....-\. ..... ,., .... ..., 1-~ I \' ~ /- I ~ \
I \ ,, \
Prunedale
' ' '
0 Castroville
0 Marina
0 Salinas 0
Fort Ord ~ ' National Ga bit,an Sa n Benito4004ft Monterey Monument 0 Ran}ge • "O r > co I "O Q) 1,
' 0 \ (/)
3551ft \ 3819 ft . (D
Gonzales ( • N )
0 '<I"' u - "~- -\ Pi nnacles N
National Par k 0
~ ' 2 Si erra De co
Sa .s: linas "O
Q)
~ u
Q)
0::

Greenfield
0 King City 0
Q)
u
C
co
>,
~
N (.)
C
2 L. A "O
0 m
i
~
Q)
* Q)
0::
0 10 20 Mi "O les co
"O
Q)
0 Fort Hunter (/) Project Location Liggett (D
N
;==========================================~=======~~===~= Date =~=================u>======================= Figure u5 ~ Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance 812912024 lliiiiit Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. § Project Vicinity 1---S-c-al_e_____ ~ Planning and Environmental Consulting 1 ~ 1 IN =8 MI «i _________________----1.,___...L...________________...1...___j a.. 591
0 ffi Staging Area
- Project Site ,. - - t __1 Parks and Schools to be serviced 1,000
N
A
~
0 V)
L..
0 :E
Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Project Location
r -
I
,. -I -
Date
8/29/2024 llilit
1 IN
Scale
=1,200 FT
~
r - ,- .,
L -
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Environmental Consulting
Figure
2 ~ 0.
(IJ
a5
i
"O
Q)
TI
>,
u
Q)
a:'.
"O
(IJ
"O
Q)
0 (/)
(D
N
'<I"'
N
0 ~ L.
2 (IJ
3:
"O
Q)
TI
>,
u
Q)
0::
"O
(IJ
"O
Q)
0 (/)
(D
N
'st
N
0 N
t5
Q)
"6'
a::

Q)
u
C
(IJ
>,
Q)
> C
0 (.)
2 L.
~ "O
Q)
TI
>,
u
Q)
0::
-0
(IJ
-0
Q)
0 (/)
(D
N
'st
N
0 N
u5
§
0 .c
«i
a.. 592

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

2. METHODS

2.1 Personnel and Survey Dates
DD&A Senior Environmental Scientist Matthew Johnson conducted surveys of the Evaluation Area on August 22, 2024. The surveys consisted of walking the Evaluation Area to identify general and sensitive habitat types and conducting a reconnaissance-level habitat survey to identify suitable habitat for or presence of any special-status plant or wildlife species. Data collected during the surveys were used to assess the environmental conditions of the Evaluation Area and its surroundings, evaluate environmental constraints at the site and within the local vicinity, and provide a basis for recommendations to minimize and avoid impacts.

2.2 Data Sources
Prior to the survey, DD&A conducted a desktop literature review to determine the occurrence or potential for occurrence of sensitive biological resources within the Evaluation Area. The primary literature and data sources reviewed are as follows:
• Current agency status information from the Service and CDFW for species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and those considered CDFW “species of special concern,” including:
− CNDDB occurrences reports from the Gonzales, Mount Johnson, Bickmore Canyon, Palo Escrito, Soledad, North Chalone Peak, Sycamore Flat, Paraiso Springs, and Greenfield, Quadrangles (CDFW, 2024a; Appendix A); and
− Service IPaC Resource List (Service, 2024a; Appendix B). • The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2024); • The National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (Service, 2024b), and • The National Hydrographic Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2024).

From these resources, a list of special-status plant and wildlife species known or with the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Evaluation Area was created (Appendix C). This list presents these species along with their legal status, habitat requirements, and a brief statement of their likelihood of occurring in the area.

2.2.1 Botany
Vegetation types identified in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009) were utilized to determine if vegetation types identified as sensitive on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (CDFW, 2024b) are present within the Evaluation Area. Information regarding the distribution and habitats of local and state vascular plants was also reviewed (Howitt and Howell, 1964 and 1973; Munz and Keck, 1973; Baldwin et al., 2012; Matthews and Mitchell, 2015; Jepson Flora Project, 2024). Plants observed within the Evaluation Area were identified to species or intraspecific taxon when possible given the timing of the survey effort using keys and descriptions in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Edition 2 (Baldwin et al., 2012) and The Plants of Monterey County an Illustrated Field Key (Matthews and Mitchell, 2015). Scientific nomenclature for plant species identified within this document follows Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 5 Biological Resources Report 593

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Baldwin, et. Al, (2012); common names follow Matthews and Mitchell (2015). A full botanical inventory was not recorded for the Evaluation Area but the dominant species within each habitat were noted.

Dominant plant species are those which are more numerous than their competitors in an ecological community or make up more of the biomass; generally, the species that are most abundant. Most ecological communities are defined by their dominant species.

2.2.2 Wildlife
The following literature and data sources were reviewed to determine potential presence of special-status wildlife within the Evaluation Area: CDFW reports on special-status wildlife (Remsen, 1978; Williams, 1986; Thelander, 1994;) and California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program species-habitat models (Zeiner et al., 1990).

2.3 Definitions

2.3.1 Special-Status Species
Special-status species are those plants and animals that have been formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or are candidates for such listing under the ESA or CESA. Listed species are afforded legal protection under the ESA and CESA. Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under the CEQA Section 15380 are also considered special-status species. Animals on the CDFW’s list of “species of special concern” (most of which are species whose breeding populations in California may face extirpation if current population trends continue) meet this definition and are typically provided management consideration through the CEQA process, although they are not legally protected under the ESA or CESA. Additionally, the CDFW also includes some animal species that are not assigned any of the other status designations on their “Special Animals” list; however, these species have no legal or protection status.

Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) or included in CNPS California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B are also treated as special-status species as they meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. In general, the CDFW requires that plant species on CRPR 1A (Plants presumed extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere), CRPR 1B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), CRPR 2A (Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere); and CRPR 2B (Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere) of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2024) be fully considered during the preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA. CRPR 3 (plants about which more information is needed) and CRPR 4 species (plants of limited distribution) may, but generally do not, meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CESA, and are not typically considered in environmental documents relating to CEQA. While other species (i.e., CRPR 3 or 4 species) are sometimes found in database searches or within the literature, these were not included within the analysis as they did not meet the definitions of Section 2062 and 2067 of the CESA.

Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected in California under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” In addition, fully protected species under Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 6 Biological Resources Report 594

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
the Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5515 (fish), and Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians) are also considered special-status animal species. Species with no formal special-status designation but thought by experts to be rare or in serious decline may also be considered special-status animal species in some cases, depending on project-specific analysis and relevant, localized conservation needs or precedence.

2.3.2 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats include riparian corridors, wetlands, habitats for legally protected species, areas of high biological diversity, areas supporting rare or special-status wildlife habitat, and unusual or regionally restricted vegetation types. Vegetation types considered sensitive include those listed on CDFW’s California Natural Communities List (i.e., those habitats that are rare or endangered within the borders of California) (CDFW, 2024), those that are occupied by species listed under the ESA or are critical habitat in accordance with the ESA, and those that are defined as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas under the California Coastal Act. Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. Sensitive habitats are regulated under federal regulations (such as the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands), state regulations (such as CEQA and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Program), or local ordinances or policies (such as city or county tree ordinances and general plan policies).

2.4 Regulatory Setting

2.4.1 Federal Regulations
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 prohibits killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds except in accordance with regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Most actions that result in permanent or temporary possession of a protected species constitute violations of the MBTA. The Service is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA and implements Conventions (treaties) between the United States and four countries—Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia—for the protection of migratory birds. The Service maintains a list of migratory bird species that are protected under the MBTA.

2.4.2 State Regulations
California Native Plant Protection Act
The CNPPA of 1977 directed CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and Endangered plants in the State.” The CNPPA prohibits importing rare and Endangered plants into California, taking rare and Endangered plants, and selling rare and Endangered plants. The CESA and CNPPA authorized the Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered, threatened, and rare species and to regulate the taking of these species (§2050-2098, Fish and Game Code). Plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA; however, these plants may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 7 Biological Resources Report 595

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

California Fish and Game Code
Birds. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3511 prohibits take or possession of fully protected birds. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame birds designated under the federal MBTA. Section 3800 prohibits the take of nongame birds.

Fully Protected Species. The classification of fully protected was the state’s initial effort in the 1960’s to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish (§5515), mammals (§4700), amphibians and reptiles (§5050), and birds (§3511). Most fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research, relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock, and for certain renewable energy and infrastructure projects.

Species of Special Concern. As noted above, the CDFW also maintains a list of wildlife “species of special concern.” Although these species have no legal status, the CDFW recommends considering these species during analysis of Project impacts to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them as endangered in the future.

3. RESULTS

3.1 Habitats
Approximately 23.4 acres of the Evaluation Area are developed consisting of paved roads, graded dirt lots, or landscaped properties (locations for new transmission and service lines throughout the City, and the WRF new pump station and staging ground) and approximately 3.6 acres of the Evaluation Area is ruderal or agricultural habitat (the segments of the Evaluation Area along Morisoli Road) which consist of actively cultivated agricultural fields (Figures 3 & 4). Access to the agricultural easement and WRF was limited during the August 22, 2024 biological survey. Most of the land surrounding the Evaluation Area is developed with single-family residences with the schools and city parks to be serviced by the new pipelines spread throughout. Due to the disturbed (mowed, sprayed, landscaped) nature of the Evaluation Area, no vegetation associations identified in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009) are present, and these areas are not considered sensitive by any regulatory agency. A description of each community is provided below.

3.1.1 Ruderal
Ruderal areas are those areas which have been developed or have been subject to historic and ongoing disturbance by human activities and are devoid of vegetation or dominated by non-native and/or invasive weed species. Within the Evaluation Area, ruderal land consisted primarily of mowed or graded dirt roads and access areas within the WRF. Ruderal habitat within the excavated drainage ponds (Figure 3) was dominated by invasive annuals and contained no emergent or riparian vegetation.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 8 Biological Resources Report 596

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Ruderal areas are considered to have low biological value as they are generally denuded of vegetation or are dominated by non-native plant species and consist of relatively low-quality habitat from a wildlife perspective. However, some common wildlife species that do well in urbanized areas, including European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and rock pigeon (Columba livia), may be found foraging within these areas.

3.1.2 Agricultural
Approximately 1.8 acres of the survey area are active agricultural consisting of the current location of the service pipeline connecting the WRF to the City (Figure 3). This area is continuously managed and cultivated for food crops, and is likely subject to frequent soil tilling, weeding, and treatment with insecticides and herbicides. As such, it provides poor habitat for most plant and wildlife species of concern; however, some special-status plants, including Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), have been known to occur in ditches and unmaintained edges of agricultural fields and roadways.

3.1.3 Developed
As identified above, developed areas within the Evaluation Area consist of paved roads, dirt roads, landscaped parks, and the WRF (Figure 3 and 4). Developed areas are considered to have low biological value as they are generally denuded of vegetation and consist of relatively low-quality habitat from a wildlife perspective. However, the common wildlife species identified above for ruderal communities may be found foraging within these areas. Landscaped plants within the park of the Evaluation Area lack the continuous flowers necessary to support insect species of concern, however they may provide nesting habitat for raptor and other avian species.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 9 Biological Resources Report 597
Project Area
~ Agricultural
D Ruderal/Developed
Wetlands
D WRF Artificial Ponds
m Excavated Seasonal Wetland
~
C.

C1l
<ri
0 750 1,500 Feet ~ "O
N Cl)
A
],
(,)
Cl)
0:::
"O
C1l
"O
Cl)
0 Cf)
<D
N
~ N
0 ~
2 ~ "O
Cl)
u
>.
(,)
Cl)
0:::
"O
C1l
"O
Cl)
0 Cf)
<D
N
~ N
0 ~ (,)
Cl)
·e
Q.

Cl)
(,)
C
Cl)
~ New Pump Station >
C
0 ~ (_)
Staging Area
Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Date
11/15/2024 Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. !! Planning and Environmental Consulting Figure
Habitat Map -Agricultural Scale 3
1 IN =600 FT
598
I
0 Survey Area
1111 Developed
I
1,000
I
2,000 Feet
A
Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Habitat Map - Developed
Date
9/12/2024
Scale
1 IN =1,000 FT
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Environmental Consulting
Figure
4 ~ Excavated Seasonal Pond N
~ 0.
(IJ
,_;
i
Q)
"O
Q)
TI
>,
u
Q)
a:'.
"O
(IJ
"O
Q)
0 (/)
(0
N
'<I"'
N
0 ~
2 '-
(IJ
3:
"O
Q)
TI
>,
u
Q)
a:'.
"O
(IJ
"O
Q)
0 (/)
(0
N
'st
N
0 N
t5
Q)
"6'
a::

Q)
u
C
(IJ
>,
Q)
> C
0 (.)
2 '-
~ "O
Q)
TI
>,
u
Q)
a:'.
"O
(IJ
"O
Q)
0 (/)
(0
N
'st
N
0 N
u5
§
0 .c
«i
a.. 599

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

3.2 Sensitive Habitats
A historic seasonal wetland feature is present approximately 20 ft south of the survey area located at the intersection of Gabilan Drive and Toledo St (Figure 4). The location is identified as a seasonal wetland feature on the Service’s National Wetlands Mapper, but it is noted as “excavated by humans” (Service, 2024b). The site also contains multiple drainage culverts and is unlikely to contain water outside of active rain storm events. Additionally, several excavated drainage ponds are located adjacent to the survey area as well as within the proposed location of the new storage reservoir and pump station at the WRF (Figure 3). These locations are identified by the Service as temporary wetlands that are artificially filled by pumps.

This habitat is not suitable breeding habitat for any wildlife species of concern.

No emergent hydrophytic vegetation or other wetland indicators were observed within any of these locations during the August 22, 2024 biological survey. None of the ponds show up in the USGS Hydrographic Dataset (USGS, 2024) nor do they meet the definition of waters of the U.S. as identified in CFR 328.3(a)(8), and, therefore, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

3.3 Special-Status Species
Published occurrence data within the Project area and surrounding USGS quadrangles were evaluated to compile a table of special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the Evaluation Area (see Section 2. Methods). Each of these species was evaluated for their likelihood to occur within and immediately adjacent to the Evaluation Area. No special-status plant species were observed within the Evaluation Area during biological surveys; however, based on the species-specific reasons presented in Appendix C, Congdon’s tarplant may occur within the survey area. Two special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the Evaluation Area: Salinas pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus psammophilus), San Joaquin whipsnake (Masticophis flagellum ruddocki) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In addition to the white-tailed kite, raptors and other nesting birds have the potential to occur in the area. These species are discussed below. All other species are assumed unlikely to occur or have a low potential to occur based on the species-specific reasons presented in Appendix C, are therefore unlikely to be impacted by the Project, and are not discussed further.

Congdon’s Tarplant
Congdon’s tarplant is an annual herb in the Asteraceae family that has a variable blooming period from May through November. It is found in valley and foothill grassland on heavy clay, saline or alkaline soils in low-lying disturbed areas that collect water. It is often found in disturbed areas with non-native annuals and grassland species, as well as ditches and vegetated spaces alongside roads and farmland. No individuals of this species were observed during the August 22, 2024 survey; however, the majority of the survey area that would be the most likely to have suitable habitat for Congdon’s tarplant was inaccessible for the survey, therefore its presence within the Evaluation Area cannot be entirely ruled out.

Salinas Pocket Mouse
Salinas pocket mouse is a CDFW Species of Concern. This sub-species of the San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) is found within chaparral, shrubland, blue oak woodland, and annual grassland Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 12 Biological Resources Report 600

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
habitats of the Salinas Valley. They are most abundant in uncultivated areas and often live in areas with sandy washes and finely textured soils. They are nocturnal, foraging in the night and spending most of the day in their burrows, which are typically dug at the base of shrubs. (Hafner et al., 1998) Burrows are additionally utilized for hibernating, which occurs 2-3 times a year, and rearing young during the breeding season (March – July). Within the Evaluation Area, Salinas pocket mouse are the most likely to occur within the agricultural easement along Morisoli Road and near the new service line hookups at Toledo Park (Figure 4). The nearest CNDDB occurrence of the species is from 2006 located 1.6 km north of the Evaluation Area. Therefore, Salinas pocket mouse has a moderate potential to be found within the Evaluation Area.

San Joaquin Whipsnake
The San Joaquin whipsnake is a CDFW species of special concern. Whipsnakes seek cover in rodent burrows, bushes, trees, and rock piles. This species hibernates in soil or sand approximately 0.3 m below the surface, sometimes at the bases of plants. Little is known about nest sites. In desert regions, whipsnakes may be attracted to water to drink or ambush prey. Open terrestrial habitats are preferred, but whipsnakes will occasionally climb trees and bushes to bask, seek prey, or take cover. Diet consists of rodents, lizards and their eggs, snakes (including rattlesnakes), birds and their eggs, young turtles, insects, and carrion.

Whipsnakes, a diurnal species, search actively for prey, with their heads elevated. This species inserts its head in burrows or climbs trees, using both vision and olfaction to detect prey (Stebbins 1985). Mating occurs in April and May, eggs are laid in June and July, and the first young appear in late August to early September.

The CNDDB reports 3 occurrences of San Joaquin whipsnake within the quadrangles evaluated. The nearest occurrence is 9.8 km miles from the survey area from 1987. Habitat quality for San Joaquin whipsnake within the survey area is relatively low. The entire site is ruderal, agriculture, or developed habitat that does not provide appropriate cover or habitat conditions for San Joaquin whipsnake; however, the staging area is approximately 100 m from the Salinas River floodplain and may provide dispersal habitat for San Joaquin whipsnake (Figure 3).

White-Tailed Kite
White-tailed kite is a California fully-protected species and is protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game code. This raptor species is a common to uncommon, year-long resident in coastal and valley lowlands.

WTK generally utilizes herbaceous lowlands with variable tree growth and an associated high population density of voles (Microtus californicus). Nests are made of loosely piled sticks and twigs and lined with grass, straw, or rootlets. Nests are generally placed near the top of dense oak (Quercus sp.), willow, or other tree stands (usually 6-20 meters above ground) and are often located near an open foraging area. Breeding occurs from February to October with peak activity occurring from May to August. This species preys predominantly on voles and other small mammals, but also takes birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians.

Foraging occurs in undisturbed open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands. Suitable nesting habitat is present within the trees directly adjacent to the Evaluation Area. Suitable hunting and foraging habitat are not present within the site; however, the nearby agricultural lands, vacant lots, and parks may provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Man-made structures have been observed being utilized for nesting white-tailed kite as well. The Evaluation Area is within the known breeding range of Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 13 Biological Resources Report 601

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
the white-tailed kite and the CNDDB reports 6 occurrences of the species within the quadrangles reviewed.

The nearest CNDDB occurrence is from 2006 located approximately 9.3 km northeast from the Evaluation Area. Therefore, WTK has moderate potential to nest directly adjacent to the Evaluation Area.

Protected Avian Species
Raptors and other nesting birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA.

While the life histories of these species vary, overlapping nesting and foraging similarities allow for their concurrent discussion. Most raptors are breeding residents throughout most of the wooded portions of the state. Stands of live oak, riparian deciduous, or other forest habitats, as well as open grasslands, are used most frequently for nesting. Smaller avian species may also nest in scrub habitats and urban areas. Breeding occurs February through September, with peak activity May through July. Various raptors and avian species, such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and sparrows (Zonotrichia sp.), have the potential to nest within the trees present within and directly adjacent to the Evaluation Area.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 14 Biological Resources Report 602

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

4. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The following section describes potential impacts that may result from the Project. For the purposes of this analysis, an impact is significant and requires mitigation if it would result in any of the following:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the Service;
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the Service; c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means;
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites;
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Criteria “b” and “c” were not evaluated for impacts to sensitive habitats or impacts to protected wetlands because these resources are not present within the Evaluation Area. Criterion “e” was not evaluated for conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance because the project will not require tree removal. Criterion “f” was not evaluated for conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, because the Evaluation Area is not located within any such plan area.

Impact BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the Service.

Congdon’s tarplant has the potential to occur within suitable habitat within the Evaluation Area. (Appendix C). Excavation and trenching activities associated with the Project along Morisoli Road and within the WRF and Toledo Park may result in damage or loss of any individuals growing within the Evaluation Area at the time of construction. This is a potentially significant impact that can be minimized to less-thansignificant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Salinas pocket mouse, a CDFW species of special concern, has the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Evaluation Area. Shrubs within the parks that will receive new service lines and updated irrigation may be utilized by burrowing Salinas pocket mouse. Direct impacts such as excavation and shrub removal, as well as indirect impacts from construction activities (e.g., noise, vibrations) could result in injury, den abandonment, and/or mortality of Salinas pocket mouse if burrowing within or directly adjacent to the Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 15 Biological Resources Report 603

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Evaluation Area during construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact that can be minimized to less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

San Joaquin whipsnake have the potential to occur adjacent to the Evaluation Area. Construction activities associated with the staging area could result in direct mortality of this species if they were to disperse from the adjacent habitat. This would be a potentially significant impact that can be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3.

The Project is not expected to result in tree removal or direct impacts to raptors or other nesting birds, including WTK. However, it is possible that the final Project design may require tree removal. In addition, indirect impacts from construction activities (e.g., noise, vibrations) could result in injury, nest abandonment, and/or mortality of raptors and other nesting birds, if nesting within or directly adjacent to the Evaluation Area during construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact that can be minimized to less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: A qualified biologist will conduct an Employee Education Program for the construction crew prior to any construction activities. The qualified biologist will meet with the construction crew at the onset of construction at the Evaluation Area to educate the construction crew on the following: 1) the appropriate access route(s) in and out of the construction area and review Project boundaries; 2) how a biological monitor will examine the area and agree upon a method which will ensure the safety of the monitor during such activities, 3) the identification of special status species that may be present; 4) the specific mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the construction effort; 5) the general provisions and protections afforded; and 6) the proper procedures if a special status species is encountered within the Evaluation Area to avoid impacts.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: A qualified biologist will conduct protocol-level surveys for Congdon’s tarplant within the Project boundaries within the WRF and agricultural/ruderal habitat prior to construction. Protocol-level surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at the appropriate time of year for species with the potential to occur within the site. A report describing the results of the surveys shall be provided to the project proponents prior to any ground disturbing activities. The report shall include but is not limited to 1) a description of the species observed, if any; 2) map of the location, if observed; and 3) recommended avoidance and minimization measures, if applicable.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to construction activities in the staging area, a qualified biologist will conduct a clearance survey in suitable habitat within the Survey Area for San Joaquin whipsnake. If San Joaquin whipsnake is observed during construction, measures will be taken to avoid the individual(s) and the species will be allowed to leave on its own volition or will be relocated outside of the survey area by the qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Project activities that may affect protected nesting avian species (e.g., tree removal, noise, vibrations) shall be scheduled after September 15 and before February 1 to avoid the avian breeding and nesting season. Alternatively, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the Project applicant to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 16 Biological Resources Report 604

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
avian species within 300 feet of proposed Project activities if work occurs between February 1 and September 15. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of Project activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through September). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, and because some species breed multiple times in a season, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during Project activities to address new arrivals. If Project activities are halted for more than 14 days during the avian nesting season, additional surveys shall be conducted.

The necessity and timing of these continued surveys shall be determined by the qualified biologist.

If raptors or other protected avian species nests are identified during the pre-construction surveys, the qualified biologist shall notify the Project applicant and an appropriate no-disturbance buffer shall be imposed within which no disturbance should take place (generally 300 feet in all directions for raptors; other avian species may have species-specific requirements) until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Impact BIO-2: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites.

The Evaluation Area lies within an existing residential community and active agricultural land and is not located within a migratory wildlife corridor. The Project consists of the replacement of existing infrastructure and alterations to already developed land and would not result in the construction of any new development or impervious surfaces. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 17 Biological Resources Report 605

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

5. REFERENCES
Baldwin, B. G, et. al. 2012. The Jepson Manual – Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1600 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database Rare Find Report. Accessed July 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024b. California Natural Communities List.

Available online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/List California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.

Available online at http://www.rareplants.cnps.org
Hafner, D.J., Yensen, E., and Kirkland G.L. Jr. (1998). North American Rodents. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pp. 82-84.

Howitt, B.F. and J.T. Howell. 1964. The vascular plants of Monterey County, California.

Howitt, B.F. and J.T. Howell. 1973. Supplement to the vascular plants of Monterey County, California.

Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Association, Pacific Grove, CA. 60 pp.

Jepson Flora Project. 2024. Jepson Online Interchange for California floristics. Available online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html
Matthews, M.A. and M. Mitchell. 2015. The Plants of Monterey County, an Illustrated Field Key; Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. 446 pp.

Munz, P. A. and D. D. Keck. 1973. A California flora and supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1681 pp., + 224 pp. supplement.

Remsen, J.V. Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 78-1.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation 2nd Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. Western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 336 pp Thelander, C. (ed.). 1994. Life on the edge: A guide to California’s endangered natural resources:
wildlife. BioSystems Books, Santa Cruz, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resources List for the Project Site.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.

Accessed July 2024. Available Online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 18 Biological Resources Report 606
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. National Hydrography Dataset.

Williams, D. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Report 86-1. 112 pp.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California.731 pp.

Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance Project 19 Biological Resources Report 607

APPENDIX A
California Natural Diversity Database Report
608
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Query Criteria: Quad IS (Gonzales (3612154) OR Mount Johnson (3612153) OR Bickmore Canyon (3612152) OR Palo Escrito Peak (3612144) OR Soledad (3612143) OR North Chalone Peak (3612142) OR Sycamore Flat (3612134) OR Paraiso Springs (3612133) OR Greenfield (3612132)) AND Taxonomic Group IS (Dune OR Scrub OR Herbaceous OR Marsh OR Riparian OR Woodland OR Forest OR Alpine OR Inland Waters OR Marine OR Estuarine OR Riverine OR Palustrine OR Fish OR Amphibians OR Reptiles OR Birds OR Mammals OR Mollusks OR Arachnids OR Crustaceans OR Insects OR Ferns OR Gymnosperms OR Monocots OR Dicots OR Lichens OR Bryophytes) Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Abies bracteata
bristlecone fir
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
Accipiter striatus
sharp-shinned hawk
Actinemys marmorata
northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys pallida
southwestern pond turtle
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
Arctostaphylos gabilanensis
Gabilan Mountains manzanita
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
Asio otus
long-eared owl
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
PGPIN01030 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.3
ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL
ABNKC12020 None None G5 S4 WL
ARAAD02031 Proposed None G2 SNR SSC
Threatened
ARAAD02032 Proposed None G2G3 SNR SSC
Threatened
ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
AAAAA01181 Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
ARACC01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP
PDERI042X0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4
ABNSB13010 None None G5 S3? SSC
ABNSB10010 None None G4 S2 SSC
IIHYM24380 None None G2G3 S1S2
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, August 08, 2024 Information Expires 2/2/2025 609 Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Bombus crotchii IIHYM24480 None Candidate G2 S2
Crotch's bumble bee Endangered
Bombus occidentalis IIHYM24252 None Candidate G3 S1
western bumble bee Endangered
Caulanthus lemmonii PDBRA0M0E0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Lemmon's jewelflower
Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 Congdon's tarplant
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens PDPGN040M2 Threatened None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Monterey spineflower
Clarkia jolonensis PDONA050L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Jolon clarkia
Corynorhinus townsendii AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Townsend's big-eared bat
Delphinium californicum ssp. interius PDRAN0B0A2 None None G3T3 S3 1B.2 Hospital Canyon larkspur
Dipodomys venustus elephantinus AMAFD03041 None None G4T2 S3 big-eared kangaroo rat
Elanus leucurus ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP
white-tailed kite
Eriogonum heermannii var. occidentale PDPGN082P6 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 western Heermann's buckwheat
Eriogonum nortonii PDPGN08470 None None G2 S2 1B.3
Pinnacles buckwheat
Eumops perotis californicus AMACD02011 None None G4G5T4 S3S4 SSC western mastiff bat
Falco mexicanus ABNKD06090 None None G5 S4 WL
prairie falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 American peregrine falcon
Gymnogyps californianus ABNKA03010 Endangered Endangered G1 S2 FP California condor
Idiostatus kathleenae IIORT31020 None None G1G2 S1S2
Pinnacles shieldback katydid
Juncus luciensis PMJUN013J0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
Lasiurus cinereus AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
hoary bat
Lasiurus frantzii AMACC05080 None None G4 S3 SSC
western red bat
Lavinia exilicauda harengus AFCJB19013 None None G4T3 S3 SSC Monterey hitch
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, August 08, 2024 Information Expires 2/2/2025 610 Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Layia heterotricha
pale-yellow layia
Malacothamnus aboriginum
Indian Valley bushmallow
Malacothamnus davidsonii
Davidson's bushmallow
Malacothrix saxatilis var. arachnoidea
Carmel Valley malacothrix
Masticophis flagellum ruddocki
San Joaquin coachwhip
Myotis ciliolabrum
western small-footed myotis
Myotis evotis
long-eared myotis
Myotis thysanodes
fringed myotis
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians
shining navarretia
Nemacladus secundiflorus var. robbinsii
Robbins' nemacladus
North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento
Sucker/Roach River
North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento
Sucker/Roach River
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9
steelhead - south-central California coast DPS
Optioservus canus
Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle
Perognathus inornatus psammophilus
Salinas pocket mouse
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
Plagiobothrys uncinatus
hooked popcornflower
Rana boylii pop. 4
foothill yellow-legged frog - central coast DPS
Rana boylii pop. 6
foothill yellow-legged frog - south coast DPS
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
PDAST5N070 None None G2 S2 1B.1
PDMAL0Q020 None None G3 S3 1B.2
PDMAL0Q040 None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDAST660C2 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
ARADB21021 None None G5T2T3 S3 SSC
AMACC01230 None None G5 S3
AMACC01070 None None G5 S3
AMACC01090 None None G4 S3
AMACC01020 None None G5 S4
PDPLM0C0J2 None None G4T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
PDCAM0F0B2 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
CARA2623CA None None GNR SNR
AFCHA0209H Threatened None G5T2Q S2 SSC
IICOL5E020 None None G2 S1
AMAFD01062 None None G2G3T2? S1 SSC
ARACF12100 None None G4 S4 SSC
PDBOR0V170 None None G2 S2 1B.2
AAABH01054 Threatened Endangered G3T2 S2
AAABH01056 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1
AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S3
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, August 08, 2024 Information Expires 2/2/2025 611 Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Senecio aphanactis PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2
chaparral ragwort
Spea hammondii AAABF02020 Proposed None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
western spadefoot Threatened
Taricha torosa AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC
Coast Range newt
Taxidea taxus AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
American badger
Texosporium sancti-jacobi NLTEST7980 None None G3 S2 3
woven-spored lichen
Valley Oak Woodland CTT71130CA None None G3 S2.1
Valley Oak Woodland
Vireo bellii pusillus ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3 least Bell's vireo
Vulpes macrotis mutica AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S3 San Joaquin kit fox
Record Count: 65
Commercial Version -- Dated August, 2 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, August 08, 2024 Information Expires 2/2/2025 612

APPENDIX B
IPaC Resource List
613

8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly a ected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of e ects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-speci c (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-speci c (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS o ce(s) with jurisdiction in the de ned project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Monterey County, California
Local o�ce
Ventura Fish And Wildlife O ce
 (805) 644-1766
 (805) 644-3958
 [email protected]
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 1/18 614

8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
2493 Portola Road, Suite B
Ventura, CA 93003-7726
https://www.fws.gov/Ventura
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 2/18 615

8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of in uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly a ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential e ects to species, additional site-speci c and project-speci c information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local o ce and a species list which ful lls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o cial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld o ce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an o cial species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
1 Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic 2 and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 3/18 616
----------
-------------
-------------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o ce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially a ected by activities in this location:

Mammals

NAME STATUS
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Birds

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus Endangered
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Reptiles

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 4/18 617
-------------
-------------
-------------
------------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Southwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys pallida Proposed Threatened Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4768
Amphibians

NAME STATUS
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii Threatened
Wherever found
Insects
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butter y Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Flowering Plants
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 5/18 618
•
•
-------------
------------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources

NAME STATUS
Marsh Sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2229
Monterey Spine ower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Threatened Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Critical habitats
Potential e ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have e ects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/396
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to 1 2
3 bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Speci cally, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 6/18 619
•
•
■
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/ les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-andgolden-eagles-may-occur-project-action There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
"Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", speci cally the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 7/18 620

■ ■
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
e ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con dence in the presence score. One can have higher con dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e ort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey E�ort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey e ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 8/18 621
---++--- + ... -........ - ++ ..... + ..... - - +
-- 1 I
---·----
------------------------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my speci ed location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my speci ed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to o shore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field O ce if you have questions.

Migratory birds
1 Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden 2 Eagle Protection Act .
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 9/18 622
•
•
•
•
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and 3 consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Speci cally, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/ les/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-andgolden-eagles-may-occur-project-action measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 10/18 623
-----------
-------------
-------------
-------------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Lawrence's Gold nch Spinus lawrencei Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8350
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 11/18 624
- ---
- ---
- ---
- ---
- ---
■
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Santa Barbara Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia graminea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5513
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 5
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Screech-owl Megascops kennicottii cardonensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 1 to Jun 30
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", speci cally the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 12/18 625

■ ■
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey e ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con dence in the presence score. One can have higher con dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e ort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

To see a bar's survey e ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. probability of presence breeding season survey e ort no data https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 13/18 626
-++-.. +..,__,_..,_ ++-+ -+- - - +
I I ++ I ..,__,_..,_ - + +
+ --- --++ _ _,__,_..,_ + --- - - --
+ --- --++ _ __, _ _,__,_ + ---
+-+--- --++ --t--+- -t- + - t---t- -+- - --
. . - - +-+--- --I + - --- -+---- + -... ---- _..,_ _ _ _ - 11 + 1•1 -+- I --- --I + _ __, _ _,__,_ I - . - - - -- I + I + + I _,__,_ I _,_ _ _._ -+- - - .
- - - - + --- --++ _ _,__,_..,_ + --- - - --
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Lawrence's
Gold�nch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Northern
Harrier

BCC - BCR
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Santa Barbara
Song Sparrow

BCC - BCR

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western
Screech-owl

BCC - BCR
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 14/18 627
+ --- . - 1 +
--------------------------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my speci ed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 15/18 628

8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the pro les provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speci ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. o shore energy development or longline shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e orts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially a ected by o shore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also o ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 16/18 629
------- --------
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.

On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey e ort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e ort is the key component. If the survey e ort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e ort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to con rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con rmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no sh hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 17/18 630

--
8/8/24, 8:59 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi cation established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri cation work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional di erences in polygon boundaries or classi cations between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber cid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de ne and describe wetlands in a di erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to de ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a ect such activities. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/VZ4AXISAD5DENAGLB3TDCZRI4Y/resources 18/18 631

APPENDIX C
Special-Status Species Table
632

Special-Status Species Database
(Gonzales, Mount Johnson, Bickmmore Canyon, Palo Escrito Peak, Soledad, North Chalone Peak, Sycamore Flat, Paraiso Springs, Greenfield Quadrangles ) Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity

MAMMALS
Antrozous pallidus -- / CSC / -- Occurs in a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, Low Pallid bat shrublands, arid desert areas, oak savanna, coastal forested areas, and coniferous forests of the mountain regions of California. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Day roosts include caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally hollow trees and buildings. Seems to prefer rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to open habitats for foraging. Similar structures are used for night roosting and will also use more open sites such as eaves, awnings, and open areas under bridges for feeding roosts.

No suitable roost habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. CNDDB reports 2 occurrences
within the reviewed quadrangles, with the
closest located 5 km south from the Evaluation
Area from 1936.

Corynorhinus townsendii -- / CSC / -- Found primarily in rural settings from inland deserts to Low Townsend’s big-eared bat coastal redwoods, oak woodland of the inner Coast Ranges and Sierra foothills, and low to mid-elevation mixed
coniferous-deciduous forests. Typically roost during the day in limestone caves, lava tubes, and mines, but can
roost in buildings that offer suitable conditions. Night roosts are in more open settings and include bridges, rock crevices, and trees.

No suitable roost habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. CNDDB reports 2 occurrences
within the reviewed quadrangles, with the
closest located 500 m south from the Evaluation
Area from 1937.

Eumops perotis californicus -- / CSC / -- Many open habitats including conifer and deciduous Low Western mastiff bat woodlands, coastal scrub, grassland, and chaparral. Roost in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees, and tunnels.

No suitable roost habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 4
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 2.5 km northeast of the
Evaluation Area from 1938.

Lasiurus frantzii -- / CSC / -- Roosting habitat includes trees and sometimes shrubs in Low Western red bat forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Roost sites are often in edge habitats adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas. Feeds over a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests, and croplands.

No suitable roost habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 1
occurrence from 2002 located 13 km northeast
from the Evaluation Area.

Perognathus inornatus -- / CSC / -- Typically found in grasslands and blue oak savanna, needs Moderate psammophilus friable soils. Suitable habitat is present within the Evaluation Salinas pocket mouse Area. The CNDDB reports 2 occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles, with the closest
located 1.5 km north from the Evaluation Area.
633

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Taxidea taxus -- / CSC / -- Dry, open grasslands, fields, pastures savannas, and Unlikely American badger mountain meadows near timberline are preferred. The principal requirements seem to be sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated grounds.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 2
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 1 km north from the
Evaluation Area.

Vulpes macrotis mutica FE / ST / -- Open, level areas with loose-textured soils supporting Low San Joaquin Kit fox scattered, shrubby vegetation with little human disturbance. Live in annual grasslands or grassy open
stages dominated by scattered brush, shrubs, and scrub.

The survey area is within the known range of
this species. Marginally suitable dispersal
habitat may be present within the WRF and
staging area; however, most documented
occurrences within the quadrangles evaluated
are from between 1972 and 1975 and are located
within the foothills east of the Salinas River,
including the two occurrences within 5km of the
survey area.

BIRDS
Agelaius tricolor -- / ST / -- Nest in colonies in dense riparian vegetation, along rivers, Low Tricolored blackbird lagoons, lakes, and ponds. Forages over grassland or No suitable nesting habitat is present within the (nesting colony) aquatic habitats. Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports only one occurrence within the reviewed quadrangles,
located 400 m east of the Evaluation Area.

Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle (nesting & wintering)
-- / CFP / -- Use rolling foot-hills, mountain terrain, wide arid plateaus deeply cut by streams and canyons, open mountain slopes, cliffs, and rocky outcrops. Nest in secluded cliffs with overhanging ledges as well as large trees.

Low
No suitable nesting habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 5
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 4 km east of the
Evaluation Area.

Asio otus
Long-eared owl (nesting)
-- / CSC / -- Frequents dense, riparian and live oak thickets near meadow edges, and nearby woodland and forest habitats.

Also found in dense conifer stands at higher elevations.

Unlikely
No suitable nesting habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 8
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closes located 11 km northeast of the
Evaluation Area.

Athene cunicularia
Burrowing owl (burrow sites &
some wintering sites)
-- / CSC / -- Year round resident of open, dry grassland and desert habitats, and in grass, forb and open shrub stages of
pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. Frequent open grasslands and shrublands with perches and burrows. Use rodent burrows (often California ground squirrel) for
roosting and nesting cover. Pipes, culverts, and nest boxes may be substituted for burrows in areas where burrows are not available.

Not Present
No suitable nesting or foraging habitat is present
within the Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports
4 occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 480 m northeast of the
Evaluation Area.
634

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT / SE / -- Inhabits extensive deciduous riparian thickets or forests Not Present Western yellow-billed cuckoo with dense, low-level or understory foliage, slow-moving watercourses, backwaters, or seeps. Willow almost always a dominant component of the vegetation.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. No occurrences were of this
species were recorded for the reviewed
quadrangles in the CNDDB.

Elanus leucurus -- / CFP / -- Open groves, river valleys, marshes, and grasslands. Prefer Moderate White-tailed kite such area with low roosts (fences etc.). Nest in shrubs and trees adjacent to grasslands.

Suitable nesting habitat may be present within
several of the parks and schools within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 6
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 9.3 km northeast from
the Evaluation Area.

Gymnogyps californianus FE / SE / -- Roosting sites in isolated rocky cliffs, rugged chaparral, Unlikely California condor and pine covered mountains 2000-6000 feet above sea level. Foraging area removed from nesting/roosting site (includes rangeland and coastal area - up to 19 mile
commute one way). Nest sites in cliffs, crevices, potholes.

No nesting habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports one
occurrence within the reviewed quadrangles
within Pinnacles National Park east of the
project site.

Riparia riparia -- / ST / -- Nest colonially in sand banks. Found near water; fields, Unlikely Bank swallow (nesting) marshes, streams, and lakes. No suitable nesting habitat is present within the Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports two
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located approximately 6 km
south from the Evaluation Area.

Vireo bellii pusillus FE / SE / -- Riparian areas and drainages. Breed in willow riparian Not Present Least Bell’s vireo (nesting) forest supporting a dense, shrubby understory. Oak woodland with a willow riparian understory is also used in some areas, and individuals sometimes enter adjacent
chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or desert scrub habitats to forage.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports one
occurrence within the reviewed quadrangles
located 15 km east of the Evaluation Area.

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
Actinemys marmorata FC / CSC / -- Associated with permanent or nearly permanent water in a Not Present Northwestern pond turtle wide variety of habitats including streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, etc. Require basking sites such as
partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of vegetation, or open banks. The range for this species is from Washington south to approximately Castroville, the foothills of the Salinas Valley from Salinas to Soledad, and into the
central valley and eastern foothills to Lancaster,
California.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports two
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 16 km northeast of the
Evaluation Area.
635

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Actinemys pallida FC / CSC / -- Associated with permanent or nearly permanent water in a Not Present Southwestern pond turtle wide variety of habitats including streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, etc. Require basking sites such as
partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of vegetation, or open banks. The range for this species is along the coast from Castroville to Baja California in Mexico, including the Salinas Valley to Soledad, the foothills west of the Central Valley to Lancaster, and the southern California mountain ranges.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports two
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 15.4 km south of the
Evaluation Area.

Ambystoma californiense FT / ST / -- Annual grassland and grassy understory of valley-foothill Low California tiger salamander hardwood habitats in central and northern California.

Need underground refuges and vernal pools or other
seasonal water sources.

No suitable breeding habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports a
breeding location 1.4 km north of the Evaluation
Area, which is within the known dispersal
distance of the species; however, the land
between the breeding location and evaluation
area is developed and therefore unlikely to allow
for dispersal.

Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
-- / CSC /-- Requires moist, warm habitats with loose soil for burrowing and prostrate plant cover, often forages in leaf litter at plant bases; may be found on beaches, sandy
washes, and in woodland, chaparral, and riparian areas.

Low
Suitable habitat may be present in the Salinas
River floodplain adjacent to the project staging
area; however no suitable dispersal habitat is
present within the Evaluation Area. The
CNDDB reports 16 occurrences within the
reviewed quadrangles, with the closest located

9.5 km east from the Evaluation Area.

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki -- / CSC / -- Variety of habitats-deserts, scrub land, juniper-grassland, Moderate San Joaquin whipsnake woodland, thorn forest, and farmland. Generally avoids dense vegetation. Ranges from Arbuckle in the
Sacramento southward to the Grapevine in the Kern
County portion of the San Joaquin Valley and westward
into the inner South Coast Ranges. An isolated population also occurs in the Sutter Buttes.

Marginally suitable dispersal habitat is present
within the Evaluation Area. The Salinas River
floodplain is adjacent to the Evaluation Area and
provides high quality habitat. The CNDDB
reports 7 occurrences within the reviewed
quadrangles, with the closest located 9.8 km
south from the Evaluation Area.

Phrynosoma blainvillii -- / CSC / -- Associated with open patches of sandy soils in washes, Low Coast horned lizard chaparral, scrub, and grasslands. Marginally suitable habitat may be present in the Salinas River floodplain adjacent to the project
staging area; however no suitable dispersal
habitat is present within the Evaluation Area.

The CNDDB reports 5 occurrences within the
reviewed quadrangles, with the closest located

4.5 km east from the Evaluation Area.
636

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Rana boylii
Foothill yellow-legged frog
FE / SE / -- Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats, including hardwood, pine, and riparian forests, scrub, chaparral, and wet
meadows. Rarely encountered far from permanent water.

Not Present
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 68
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 12 km east of the
Evaluation Area.

Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT / CSC / -- Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent or late-season sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or emergent
riparian vegetation. During late summer or fall adults are known to utilize a variety of upland habitats with leaf litter or mammal burrows.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 8
occurrences within the reviewed quadrangles,
with the closest located 14.5 km east of the
Evaluation Area.

Spea hammondii FT / CSC / -- Grasslands with shallow temporary pools are optimal Low Western spadefoot habitats for the western spadefoot. Occur primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley and foothill woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg laying.

No suitable breeding habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area, and dispersal from nearby
breeding areas is heavily restricted by active
agricultural fields and urban development. The
CNDDB reports 8 occurrences within the
reviewed quadrangles, with the closest located
about 2 km south from the Evaluation Area.

Taricha torosa torosa --/ CSC / -- Occurs mainly in valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill Unlikely Coast Range newt hardwood-conifer, coastal scrub, and mixed chaparral but is known to occur in grasslands and mixed conifer types.

Seek cover under rocks and logs, in mammal burrows,
rock fissures, or man-made structures such as wells. Breed in intermittent ponds, streams, lakes, and reservoirs.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The CNDDB reports 1
occurrence within the reviewed quadrangles,
located 17 km west from the Evaluation Area.

FISH
Lavinia exilicauda harengus
Monterey hitch
(Pajaro/Salinas hitch)
-- / CSC / -- Found only within the Pajaro and Salinas River systems.

Can occupy a wide variety of habitats, however, they are most abundant in lowland areas with large pools or small reservoirs that mimic such conditions. May be found in
brackish water conditions within the Salinas River lagoon during the early summer months when the sandbar forms
at the mouth of the river.

Not Present
No suitable habitat is located within the
Evaluation Area.

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Steelhead
(south/central California coast
DPS)
FT / -- / -- Cold headwaters, creeks, and small to large rivers and lakes; anadromous in coastal streams. Found in streams
and rivers from the Pajaro River in Santa Cruz County to (but not including) the Santa Maria River in San Luis
Obispo County.

Not Present
No suitable habitat is located within the
Evaluation Area.

INVERTEBRATES
637

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Bombus crotchii -- / SC / -- Occurs in open grassland and scrub at relatively warm and Unlikely Crotch bumble bee dry sites. Requires plants that bloom and provide adequate nectar and pollen throughout the colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late October. Generally nests underground, often in abandoned mammal burrows.

Within California this species is known to occur in the Mediterranean, Pacific Coast, Western Desert, as well as Great Valley and adjacent foothill regions.

The Evaluation Area is within the historic range
of this species; however, it is outside of the
currently known range as shown on CDFW’s
Biogeographic Information and Observation
System. The majority of the Evaluation Area is
developed and/or subject to frequent human
disturbance that precludes vegetation. Park and
school properties within the Evaluation Area are
dominated by large expanses of turf bordered by
scattered trees. The very limited number of
flowering plants that may occur within the
Evaluation Area are unlikely to provide
sufficient nectar/pollen resources for this
species.

Bombus occidentalis -- / SC / -- Occurs in open grassy areas, urban parks, urban gardens, Unlikely Western bumble bee chaparral, and meadows. Requires plants that bloom and provide adequate nectar and pollen throughout the
colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late November. Generally nests underground, often in
abandoned mammal burrows. Populations are currently
largely restricted to high elevation sites in the Sierra Nevada; however, the historic range includes the northern California coast.

Branchinecta lynchi FE / -- / -- Associated with vernal pool/grasslands from near Red Not Present Vernal pool fairy shrimp Bluff (Shasta County), through the central valley, and into the South Coast Mountains Region. Require ephemeral
pools with no flow.

No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area.

PLANTS
Abies bracteata -- / -- / 1B Endemic to Santa Lucia Mountains. Broadleaved upland Not Present Bristlecone fir forest, chaparral, and lower montane coniferous forest on rocky soils at elevations of 183-1600 meters. Evergreen tree in the Pinaceae family.

Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
range of this species.
638

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Arctostaphylos gabilanensis
Gabilan Mountains manzanita
-- / -- / 1B Endemic to chaparral and chaparral/pine cismontane woodland habitats of the Gabilan Mountains of California, along the borders of San Benito and Monterey counties at elevations of 300-700 meters. Evergreen shrub in the
Ericaceae family; blooms in January.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Caulanthus lemmonii
Lemmon’s jewel flower
-- / -- / 1B Open, grassy areas on hillside slopes and in fields, canyons, and arroyos. Soils include alkaline soils, shaley clay, sandstone talus, and decomposed serpentine.

Predominantly found within valley and foothill grassland and occasionally in pinyon and juniper woodland at
elevations of 80 - 12200 meters. Annual herb in the
Brassicaceae family; blooms March-May.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is 14 km southeast from the
Evaluation Area.

Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
-- / -- / 1B Valley and foothill grassland on heavy clay, saline, or alkaline soils at elevations of 0-230 meters. Annual herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms May-November.

Moderate
Suitable habitat is present within the Evaluation
Area. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is located
about 6 km northwest from the Evaluation Area
along Highway 101.

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
Monterey spineflower
FT / -- / 1B Maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland on sandy soils at elevations of 3-450 meters. Annual herb in the Polygonaceae family; blooms April-July.

Unlikely
Suitable habitat may be present within the
Evaluation Area. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is located 800 m south from the
Evaluation Area.

Clarkia jolonensis
Jolon clarkia
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland, chaparral, riparian woodland, and coastal scrub at elevations of 20-660 meters. Annual herb in the Onagraceae family; blooms April-June.

Low
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is located 2 km east from the
Evaluation Area.

Delphinium californicum ssp.
interius
Hospital Canyon California
larkspur
-- / -- / 1B Openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, and mesic areas of cismontane woodland at elevations of 230-1095 meters.

Perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family; blooms AprilJune.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Eriogonum heermannii var.
occidentale
Western Heermann’s buckwheat
-- / -- / 1B Often serpentinite; usually roadsides or alluvium floodplains, rarely clay or shale slopes. Cismontane
woodland (openings). 102-986 meters, blooms JulyOctober.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Eriogonum nortonii
Pinnacles buckwheat
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral and valley and foothill grassland on sandy soils, often on recent burns, at elevations of 300-975 meters.

Annual herb in the Polygonaceae family; blooms MaySeptember.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows, seeps, and vernal pools at elevations of 300-2040 meters. Annual herb in the Juncaceae family;
blooms April-July.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.
639

Species
Status
(USFWS/

CDFW/CNPS)
General Habitat Potential Occurrence within Project Vicinity Layia heterotricha
Pale-yellow layia
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, pinyon and juniper woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands on alkaline or clay soils at elevations of 300-1705 meters. Annual
herb in the Asteraceae family blooms March-June.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Malacothamnus aboriginum
Indian Valley bush-mallow
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral and cismontane woodland on rocky or granitic soils, often in burned areas, at elevations of 150-1700.

Deciduous shrub in the Malvaceae family; blooms AprilOctober.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Malacothamnus davidsonii
Davidson’s bush-mallow
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian woodland; 185-855 meters. Deciduous shrub. Blooms: June-January.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Malacothrix saxatilis var.
arachnoidea
Carmel Valley malacothrix
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral and coastal scrub on rocky soils at elevations of 25-1036 meters. Perennial rhizomatous herb in the
Asteraceae family; blooms June-December.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is located 20 km southwest from the
Evaluation Area.

Navarretia nigelliformis ssp.
radians
Shining navarretia
-- / -- / 1B Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools at elevations of 76-1000 meters. Annual herb in the Polemoniaceae family; blooms April-July.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is located 20 km northeast from the
Evaluation Area.

Nemacladus secundiflorus var.
robbinsii
Robbins’ nemacladus
-- / -- / 1B Openings in chaparral and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations of 350-1700 meters. Annual herb in the
Campanulaceae family; blooms April- June.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Plagiobothrys uncinatus
Hooked popcorn-flower
-- / -- / 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands on sandy soils at elevations of 300-760 meters.

Annual herb in the Boraginaceae family; blooms AprilMay.

Unlikely
Evaluation Area is located outside of the known
elevation range of this species.

Senecio aphanactis
Chaparral ragwort
-- / -- / 2B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub, sometimes on alkaline soils, at elevations of 15-800
meters. Annual herb in the Asteraceae family; blooms
January-April.

Unlikely
No suitable habitat is present within the
Evaluation Area. The nearest CNDDB
occurrence is located 10 km east from the
Evaluation Area.
640

STATUS DEFINITIONS
Federal
FE = listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act FT = listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act FC = Candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act -- = no listing
State
SE = listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ST = listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act SR = listed as Rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act SC = Candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act CSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Concern CFP = California Fully Protected Animal
WL = CDFW Watch List
CNDDB= This designation is being assigned to animal species with no other status designation defined in this table. These animal species are included in the Department’s CNDDB “Special Animals” list (2018), which includes all taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special-status species.” The Department considers the taxa on this list to be those of the greatest conservation need. -- = no listing
California Native Plant Society
1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B = California Rare Plant Rank 2B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = California Rare Plant Rank 3species; CNPS review list 4 = California Rare Plant Rank 4 Limited distribution (CNPS Watch List) -- = no listing

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Present = known occurrence of species within the site and presence of suitable habitat conditions; or observed during field surveys High = known occurrence of species in the immediate vicinity; presence of suitable habitat conditions Moderate = known occurrence of species in the vicinity; presence of suitable habitat conditions within the site Low = species known to occur in the vicinity; presence of marginal habitat conditions Unlikely = species not known to occur in the vicinity; no suitable habitat conditions Not Present = species was not observed during surveys; or site lacks specialize habitat features to support the species 641
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
642
Appendix E Geotechnical Report
643
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
644

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering. Design
and construction services
Engineers ... Working ondels

DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Recycle Water Conveyance Project
City of Soledad, California
Prepared by:

Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95822
July 26, 2024
Prepared for:

Carollo Engineers, Inc.
2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
645

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering. Design and Construct1on Services Sacramento
Eureka
Modesto
Pleasanton
Santa Rosa
Seattle
Uki ah
July 26, 2024
Crawford File No. 24-1057.1
Jonathan Marshall, PE
Chief of Infrastructure Design / Vice President
Carollo Engineers Inc.
2795 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Subject: DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Recycled Water Conveyance Project
City of Soledad, California
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Attached is our draft Geotechnical Report for the Recycled Water Conveyance Project in Soledad, California. We prepared this report to provide geotechnical data, conclusions, and recommendations for use in the design. Crawford & Associates, Inc. (Crawford) completed this report in accordance with our Master Agreement and Task Order #1, dated November 4, 2019 and March 6, 2024, respectively.

This report provides geotechnical and geologic data for the new distribution pipeline and provides conclusions and recommendations to support the new pump station, wetwell, and hydropneumatics tanks. We will issue a final report after receiving your comments on this draft.

Please call if you have questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,
Crawford & Associates, Inc.,
Reviewed By,
Ellen Tiedemann, PE Benjamin D. Crawford, PE, GE
Project Manager Principal
Maria Ayala, EIT
Project Engineer II
646

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................. 1 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................... 1 3 SITE GEOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 2 4 FIELD EXPLORATION........................................................................................................... 2

4.1 PREVOUS EXPLORATIONS ........................................................................................ 3

4.2 CRAWFORD EXPLORATIONS .................................................................................... 3 5 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................... 4

5.1 EXISTING PAVEMENT THICKNESSES....................................................................... 4

5.2 SOIL CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 5

5.2.1 PUMP STATION, WETWELL, AND TANKS ...................................................... 5

5.2.2 TRENCHLESS CROSSING BORING................................................................ 5

5.2.3 DISTRIBUTION PIPING SYSTEM BORINGS ................................................... 5

5.3 GROUNDWATER.......................................................................................................... 5 6 LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................... 6 7 CORROSION EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 7 8 SITE SEISMICITY................................................................................................................... 7

8.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL....................................................................................... 7

8.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................... 9 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 9

9.1 WETWELL ................................................................................................................... 10

9.2 SKID PAD AND TANKS.............................................................................................. 11

9.3 BUOYANCY FORCES................................................................................................. 11

9.4 TRENCHLESS CROSSING......................................................................................... 11

9.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AT WRF SITE........................................................ 12

9.6 GRADING .................................................................................................................... 13

9.6.1 CLEARING....................................................................................................... 13

9.6.2 SCARIFICATION AND COMPACTION............................................................ 13

9.6.3 IMPORT MATERIAL ........................................................................................ 13

9.6.4 FILL PLACEMENT ........................................................................................... 13

9.6.5 SLOPE GEOMETRY AND STABILITY ............................................................ 13

9.6.6 WAITING PERIOD ........................................................................................... 14

9.6.7 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE................................................................ 14

9.6.8 OVER EXVACATION AND SUBGRADE STABILIZATION AT WETWELL ..... 14

9.7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................... 15

9.7.1 TRENCH STABILITY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES.......... 15

9.7.2 SHORING......................................................................................................... 15

9.7.3 SOIL EXCAVATABILITY.................................................................................. 15

9.7.4 DEWATERING ................................................................................................. 15 10 RISK MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 15 11 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX I................................................................................................................................... I 647

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
APPENDIX II................................................................................................................................. II APPENDIX III............................................................................................................................... III APPENDIX IV ..............................................................................................................................IV APPENDIX V ................................................................................................................................V

REPORT TABLES
Table 1: Previous Boring Subsurface Exploration Summary................................................. 3 Table 2: Crawford Subsurface Exploration Summary............................................................. 4 Table 3: Existing Pavement Section Thicknesses................................................................... 5 Table 4: Groundwater Data ........................................................................................................ 6 Table 5: Soil Corrosivity Test Results ...................................................................................... 7 Table 6: Potentially Liquefiable Soil Zones/Layers ................................................................. 8 Table 7: Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................. 9 Table 8: Static Equivalent Fluid Weights................................................................................ 12 Table 9: Additional Seismic Equivalent Fluid Weights ......................................................... 12

APPENDIX I
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Exploration Map Overall Site
Figure 2a: Exploration Map
Figure 2b: Exploration Map
Figure 2c: Exploration Map
Figure 3a: Geologic Map
Figure 3b: Geologic Map Legend
Figure 4: Fault Map

APPENDIX II
Boring Log Legend
2024 Crawford Boring Logs

APPENDIX III
Previous Boring Logs and Associated Lab

APPENDIX IV
2024 Laboratory Test Results

APPENDIX V
Site Specific Analysis
648

1.1 PURPOSE
Crawford & Associates, Inc. (Crawford) prepared this draft Geotechnical Report for Phase III of the Soledad Water Recycling/Reclamation Project in Soledad, California. Based on our discussions with Carollo Engineers Inc. (Carollo), we prepared this report to provide geotechnical data, conclusions, and recommendations based on the current understanding of the proposed project elements.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
To prepare this report, Crawford:
• Reviewed geologic, soils, and seismic maps pertaining to the site; • Discussed the project with Mr. Jonathan Marshall and Ms. Susan Fox with Carollo; • Reviewed As-built sheets for “Reclaimed Wastewater Transmission Pipeline Project” prepared by Harris & Associates dated September 30, 2016; • Reviewed the “Geotechnical Engineering Report Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine” prepared by Earth Systems Pacific dated October 17, 2013; • Reviewed Appendix B from “Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion” by Black & Veatch dated October 2007;
• Reviewed the 30% design submittal plan sheets ‘Recycled Water Conveyance Project’ (PP-S00 to PP-S13) by Carollo dated June 2024;
• Drilled, logged, and sampled four exploratory borings along the proposed distributing piping system and two borings at the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) between May 13th and 15th, 2024;
• Performed laboratory testing on soil samples recovered from the test borings; and • Developed conclusions and recommendations based on the data and test results. 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The project is located in various areas of Soledad, CA. As part of Phase III of the Soledad Water Recycling/Reclamation Project, the City of Soledad (City) is planning to construct a new pump station, hydropneumatics tanks, and distribution piping system to provide recycled water to about 20 parks and schools within the City. The WRF site is located within a floodplain immediately north of the convergence of the Salinas River and Arroyo Seco River. The approximate site coordinates of the pump station are 36.4205°, -121.3402°.

The new pump station will be located at the Soledad WRF, south of the wind turbine at the abandoned aerated pond No.2. The pump station will have an at-grade skid pad (about 16 ft by 7 ft by 1 ft) above a 11ft outer diameter circular wetwell. The wetwell will be about 16 ft deep with the bottom invert around elevation 156.5 ft. Two, 5 ft diameter at-grade hydropneumatics tanks 1 649

Based on conversations with Carollo, we understand the southeast corner of the pond berm (about 40 ft by 50 ft) will be raised to elev. 173 ft and require about 4 to 13 ft of fill. The south and east sections of the fill will grade at a 3:1 toward the access road (elev. 169 to 170 ft). The west section of the fill will grade to the pond at a 2:1 slope. New access ramps will be located at the north and south sections of the fill limits.

New distribution piping is planned from the WRF site to Front Street, and then to 20 parks and schools. The new distribution piping is generally within the City streets, extending north to Terraza Street, slightly east of Orchard Lane, and south to State St. The piping will include about 29,500 linear ft of 4 to 8-inch pipe, all located about 6 ft below ground surface. We understand the pipe will be installed in an open trench. A trenchless crossing may be required at the Union Pacific Railroad by Front Street. If required, the trenchless crossing would parallel an existing jack and bore trenchless crossing about 8 to 10 ft below ground surface. The project also includes replacing about 1,000 linear ft of sewer pipe via pipe bursting on Main Street.

Elevations are based on the project datum provided by Carollo. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1 in Appendix I.
3 SITE GEOLOGY
The site is located within the Coastal Ranges geomorphic province of California, which is characterized by a series of discontinuous northwest-trending mountain ranges extending from the Klamath Mountains on the north coast of California to the Transverse Ranges to the south.

The Coast Ranges are composed of thick Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary strata with a complex structure due to intense folding and faulting. Our site is located in the Salinas Valley between the Klamath Mountains and the Transverse Ranges.

Regional geologic mapping shows the project site underlain by Holocene to Pleistocene aged, alluvium deposits. At the WRF, the site is underlain by Holocene aged young alluvium (Qya), consisting of unconsolidated gravel, silt, and sand deposited by active or recently active floodplains. The trenchless crossing is underlain by Holocene aged young alluvium (Qya1s), consisting of pebbly, medium to fine grained sand and silt deposited from standing to slow moving water in extreme flood events such as 1968 to 1969. The distribution pipeline is mapped within multiple alluvial deposits including Qya, Qya1s, older alluvial fan deposits (Qof4), and very old alluvial fan deposits (Qvof). Qof4 consists of Pleistocene aged, weakly consolidated moderately to poorly-graded gravel, sand, and silt alluvial fans deposits from the Salinas Valley and along Arroyo Seco. Qvof consists of moderately to poorly-graded gravel, sand, and silt from alluvial fans along the sides of the Salinas Valley north of the town of Greenfield.

The geologic map and legend are shown in Figures 3a and 3b in Appendix I. 4 FIELD EXPLORATION
Crawford completed six borings in May 2024. Additionally, Earth Systems Pacific performed one boring in October 2013, and Black & Veatch hired Fugro to perform five boring and eight cone penetration tests (CPTs) at the WRF. Details for each exploration program are provided below. 2 650

4.1 PREVOUS EXPLORATIONS
Black & Veatch hired Fugro to complete five borings and eight CPTs in the Soledad wastewater treatment facility in November 2006 for the planned facility expansion. Explorations B-3, B-4, and CPT-2 are located on the access road adjacent to the aeration pond and secondary pond, near the proposed pump station and hydropneumatics tanks. These borings were drilled using a truckmounted drill rig equipped with rotary wash drill equipment. The CPT was advanced with a 20- ton truck-mounted rig with a 15 cm2 tip.

Earth Systems Pacific completed one boring (Boring 1) to 61.5 ft below ground surface (bgs) in 2013 to address the wind turbine. The boring was drilled using a truck-mounted Mobile B-53 drill rig with an automatic hammer and 6-inch hollow stem auger. Boring 1 was completed at the bottom of the abandoned aerated pond No.2.

Table 1 provides a subsurface exploration summary of the previous relevant nearby explorations.

The details of the borings are shown in Appendix III. Figure 2a shows the approximate boring locations of B-3, B-4, CPT-2, and Boring 1.

Table 1: Previous Boring Subsurface Exploration Summary Boring
Number
Completion
Date
Approx.

Ground
Surface
Elev. (ft)
Boring
Depth (ft)
B-3 11/17/06 168.9 40.5
B-4 11/8/06 169.0 40.5
CPT-2 11/21/06 169.3 40.3
Boring 1 8/13/13 9671 61.5

1. Elevation noted on Boring 1 used a different datum than the 2006 and 2024 borings.

The boring was completed at the bottom of the pond and the top of boring elevation is estimated as elev. 160 ft based on current topography.

4.2 CRAWFORD EXPLORATIONS
Crawford completed six explorations in May 2024. Crawford retained Geo-Ex Subsurface Exploration (GeoEx) to drill and sample the borings to a maximum depth of about 61.5 ft bgs.

GeoEx used a D70 Track mounted drill rig to complete the borings with 4-inch solid-stem auger.

Mud-rotary drilling equipment was utilized at borings A-24-001 and R-24-002. At the time of the 2024 explorations, GeoEx reported the last energy calibration performed on the hammer used in the field for this project has an average efficiency of 92.2% Table 2 provides a subsurface exploration summary of the Crawford explorations. 3 651

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
Table 2: Crawford Subsurface Exploration Summary
Project
Feature
Boring
Number
Completion
Date
Approx.

Ground
Surface
Elev. (ft)
Boring
Depth (ft)
WRF – Pump A-24-001 5/13/24 167 36.5
Station R-24-002 5/14/24 162 61.5
Trenchless
Crossing A-24-003 5/14/24 182 36.5
Distribution
Pipeline
A-24-004 5/15/24 190 16.5
A-24-005 5/14/24 258 16.5
A-24-006 5/15/24 224 18
Soil samples were recovered by means of a 2.0-inch O.D. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) splitspoon sampler without liners and a 3.0-inch O.D. “Modified California” split-spoon sampler with liners. Both samplers were advanced with standard 350 ft-lb striking force using an auto-hammer.

Sampler penetration resistance was recorded to provide a field measure of relative densities and can be correlated to a soil’s strength and bearing characteristics. Consistency of cohesive soils were obtained in the field by means of pocket penetrometer. The boring logs attached in Appendix II show the field-recorded (uncorrected) blow counts.

Crawford’s project engineer logged the test borings consistent with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the Caltrans Logging Manual1
. Selected portions of recovered soil drive
samples were retained in sealed containers for laboratory testing and reference. Bulk soil samples were retained in sealed bags for laboratory testing and reference. Groundwater observations were recorded during drilling operations when encountered. At completion, the test borings were backfilled with cement grout at the completion of the field study and capped with cement and dyed black in asphalt areas.

The boring locations were measured in the field with respect to existing site features. The boring elevations were estimated based on the 30% plans provided by Carollo. The boring locations are shown in Figures 2 through 2c in Appendix I. Boring details are shown on the boring logs in Appendix II.
5 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 EXISTING PAVEMENT THICKNESSES
Crawford measured the pavement sections along the distribution pipeline alignment at three boring locations. We present existing pavement section thickness data in Table 3 below. 1 Caltrans, Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual, 2022 Edition 4 652

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
Table 3: Existing Pavement Section Thicknesses
Boring
Number
Street
Name
Asphalt
Concrete
Thickness (in)
Aggregate Base
Thickness (in)
A-24-003 Front Street 4.0 6.0
A-24-004 Main Street 5.0 5.0
A-24-006 3rd Street 4.5 4.0

5.2 SOIL CONDITIONS
Soil descriptions for the trenchless crossing, distribution piping system, and new pump and tank are summarized below. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix II for more detailed soil conditions.

5.2.1 PUMP STATION, WETWELL, AND TANKS
Crawford borings A-24-001 and R-24-002 were drilled at the WRF. Based on our subsurface exploration, they are consistent with published geologic maps with near surface materials consisting of loose, alluvial fan deposits. In general, the soils at the WRF site consist of very loose to medium dense silty sand to poorly-graded sand to elev. 140 ft. The sand layer was underlain by 20 ft of stiff fat clay to about elev. 120 ft and then stiff lean clay and medium plastic silt to about elev. 108 ft.

Below the clay and silt, we encountered dense to very dense silty to poorly-graded sand until boring termination (61.5 ft bgs; elev. 100.5 ft).

5.2.2 TRENCHLESS CROSSING BORING
Crawford borings A-24-003 was drilled along the potential trenchless crossing. Based on our subsurface explorations, the soils were generally more clayey than published geologic maps.

In general, the soils consist of hard, lean clay to about 11 ft bgs (elev. 171 ft), underlain by interchanging layers of dense to very dense silty sand, poorly-graded sand with silt, and poorlygraded sand to a depth of about 36.5 ft bgs (elev. 145.5 ft).

5.2.3 DISTRIBUTION PIPING SYSTEM BORINGS
Crawford borings A-24-004 through A-24-006 were drilled along the proposed distribution piping system. Based on our subsurface explorations, the soils were generally more clayey than published geologic maps. In these borings, the soils consist of very stiff to hard lean clay and loose to medium dense clayey sand in the upper 8 to 13 ft bgs. Below the lean clay to clayey sand layer, we encountered interchanging layers of medium dense to very dense poorly-graded sand, poorly-graded sand with silt, silty sand, and clayey sand to about 16.5 ft bgs. In boring A-24-006, we encountered stiff sandy clay to very stiff lean clay with sand until the terminal depth of 18 ft bgs.

5.3 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in borings A-24-001, R-24-002, and A-24-003 at about 9.5 ft, 4.0 ft, and 27.0 ft bgs, respectively. The borings were backfilled before reliable “static” groundwater level measurements could be taken (24 hours or more is commonly needed to define “static” groundwater level).
5 653

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services

DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Recycled Water Conveyance Project
City of Soledad, California
Crawford
File: 24-1057.1
July 26, 2024
Crawford also reviewed the Department of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Data Viewer2 for nearby well groundwater levels. The recent groundwater levels encountered/recorded in the nearby well, previous boring, and our 2024 borings are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Groundwater Data
Consultant/
Source
Boring/
Well Number
Date
Measured
Groundwater
Depth (ft)
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
Crawford A-24-001 5/13/24 9.5 157.5
Crawford R-24-002 5/13/24 4.0 158.0
Crawford A-24-003 5/14/24 27.0 155.0
Earth System
Pacific Boring No.1 8/13/13 4.5 155.51
DWR 364306N1213457W001 11/21/23 29.40 150.9 1 Based on an estimated top of boring elevation of 160 ft.

DWR well 364306N1213457W001 is located about 0.75 mi northwest of the WRF site.

Groundwater levels can fluctuate due to changes in precipitation, river levels, seasonal variations, local irrigation, and possibly other factors.
6 LABORATORY TESTING
We completed the following laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings:
• Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318);
• Chloride Content (CTM 422);
• Consolidation Test (ASTM D2435);
• Hydrometer (ASTM D422);
• Moisture Content (ASTM D2216);
• No. 200 Sieve Wash (ASTM D1140);
• pH/Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643);
• Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D6913);
• Redox Potential (ASTM G200-m);
• Sulfate Content (CTM 417);
• Unit Weight (ASTM D7263).

Refer to Appendix IV for the laboratory results.
2 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels (Date accessed June 18, 2024) 6 654

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
7 CORROSION EVALUATION
A soils corrosivity analysis is important for estimating and mitigating the deterioration of buried ferrous metals and concrete. Mapping from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey 3 indicates the project site is low to moderately corrosive to cementitious elements and low to highly corrosive to ferrous elements.

The results of corrosivity tests on a soil samples obtained from the borings completed for this project are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Soil Corrosivity Test Results
Boring /
Sample No.

Depth
(ft) pH
Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
Redox
Potential
(mv)
Sulfides
Presence
R-24-002 / 7B 15.5-16.0 7.10 540 62.5 177.5 223 Negative A-24-003 / 3B 4.5-5.0 8.12 600 131.0 196.7 261 Negative A-24-005 / 3B 3.5-4.0 7.61 3,750 6.2 18.9 290 Negative
A-24-006 3B 4.5-5.0 7.02 910 22.5 80.3 28 Negative
Crawford used the 10-point system in C105/A21.5 (ANSI/AWWA1999) to evaluate the potential for external correction potential on ductile-iron pipe from the soil. Results with 10 points and greater indicate the soil is corrosive to ductile-iron pipe and protection is needed (AWWA 2005).

Based on the corrosivity test results and the 10-point system, our site is considered corrosive to ferrous metals.

According ACI 318, a sulfate concentration less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) is considered negligible. A chloride content of less than 600 ppm is non-corrosive to reinforced concrete. Based on the corrosivity test results and ACI, the site is non-corrosive to concrete.

The tests results are only an indicator of soil corrosivity and the designer should consult with a corrosion engineer if these values are considered significant. 8 SITE SEISMICITY

8.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Soil liquefaction can occur when saturated, relatively loose sand and specific soft, fine-grained saturated soils (typically within the upper 50 feet) are subject to ground shaking strong enough to create soil particle separation that results from increased pore pressure. This separation and subsequent pore pressure dissipation can lead to decreased soil shear strength and settlement.

Liquefaction is known to occur in soils ranging from low-plasticity silts to gravels. However, soil most susceptible to liquefaction are clean sands to silty sands and non-plastic silts. Granular soils with SPT blow count (N1)60 ≥ 30, rock, and most clay soil are not liquefiable. Liquefaction susceptibility of a soil deposit is a function of the soil grain size, relative density, percent fines, plasticity of fines, degree of saturation, age of deposit, and earthquake ground motion. 3 https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, access June 6, 2024 7 655

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
To evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction to occur at the site, Crawford used the simplified procedure outlined by Youd et. al.4 with exploration and lab data Borings A-24-001 and R-24-002, a design groundwater elevation 158 feet, a site-to-fault distance5 of 9.76 miles, a Maximum Moment Magnitude of 7.6 and PGAm of 0.83 from the site-specific hazard analysis.

Based on the analysis, potentially liquefiable granular soils are present at this site. Table 6 summarizes the potentially critical liquefiable soil zones (Factor of Safety < 1.0) based on the results of our analysis.

Table 6: Potentially Liquefiable Soil Zones/Layers
Boring
ID
Potentially
Liquefiable Soil
Zones/Layers
Layer
Thickness
(ft)
Generalized
Soil
Description
Liquefaction
Factor of
Safety
Residual
Soil
Strength1
(psf)
Liquefaction
(Seismic)
Settlement
(in) Depth
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
A-24-
001
9 to
19 158 to
148 10
Poorlygraded
Sand

0.24 to 0.61 192 to
649
3 23 to
27 144 to
140 4
Poorlygraded
Sand

0.89 851
R-24-
002
4 to
13 158 to
149 9
Poorlygraded
Sand

0.22 to 0.47 134 to
398 2.3
1 Kramer, S. and Wang, C.H., (2015), "Empirical Model for Estimation of the Residual Strength of Liquefied Soil," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE as cited in Caltrans (2017), Memo To Designers (MTD) 20-15, Lateral Spreading Analysis for New and Existing Bridges.

The potential for seismically induced settlement is identified at this site from the boring data generated for this study. The calculated settlements from the boring data indicate both variability across the site and in the magnitude of settlement.

During a seismic event, ground shaking can cause densification of granular soils that can result in settlement of the ground surface. For foundation design, we consider the potentially liquefiable soil layers identified in Table 6 to be subjected to reduction to residual shear strength values and seismically induced (vertical) settlement under conditions of strong ground shaking form a design earthquake event.

Based on our analysis, the magnitude of potential post-liquefaction ground settlement associated with the susceptible soil layers identified at this site is on the order of 2 to 3 inches (to lowest elev. 140).
4 Youd et.al. (2001), Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. 5 United States Geologic Survey, Unified Hazard Tool, Deaggregation, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
8 656

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
The methods outlined by Idriss and Boulanger (2008)6 were used to estimate post-liquefaction settlement. The method follows the approach developed by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) that relates volumetric strain, SPT (N1)60cs [i.e., (N1)60 values corrected for fines content], and the factor of safety against liquefaction (FSL) to estimate the post-liquefaction settlement of a liquefied layer.

8.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The encountered subsurface soils during Crawford’s 2024 exploration indicate a Site Class D; however, the results of our liquefaction analysis show potentially liquefiable soils layers present at the project site. Liquefiable soils are considered Site Class F per Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-16 and a site-specific site response is required, unless the structures have fundamental periods of vibration equal or less than 0.5s. We assume the proposed pump station will have a fundamental period of 0.5 seconds or less. According to the Exception in Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-16, “a site class is permitted to be determined in accordance with Section 20.3 and the corresponding values of Fa and Fv are determined from Table 11.4-1 and 11.4-2.”; therefore, the soils are considered Site Class D for the site-specific ground motion hazard analysis.

The following site-specific seismic design parameters provided in Table 7 should be used for seismic design of the project. If the structure periods are larger than 0.5s, then the site-specific analysis will need to be revised.

Table 7: Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
Design Parameter Value (g)
Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Period (SDS) 1.24 Design Spectral Acceleration for 1 sec Period (SD1) 1.67 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration for short Period (SMS) 1.86 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter for 1 sec Period (S )

2.50 See Appendix V for the detailed site-specific ground motion hazard analysis. 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We conclude that the site conditions are suitable for construction of the proposed pipeline, pump station, and tanks provided the recommendations presented below are included in design and construction documents. However, the improvements at the WRF site will experience gross static and seismic settlement. Key geotechnical considerations associated with design and construction of this project include:
• the presence of a clay layer about 30 ft thick that is susceptible to consolidation settlement;
• the presence of liquefiable, loose sandy soils above and below the pump station foundation that are susceptible to seismic settlement;
• the presence of saturated, loose sandy soils at the pump station that will be unstable during excavation/construction;
6 Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W., 2008, "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pages 140-142 and 152-158.
9 657

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
• the presence of loose to medium dense sandy soils above the planned pipe zone within the alignment which will cave during excavation (near borings A-24-005 to about 13 ft and A-24-006 to about 16 ft);
• differential settlement between the pump station and piping; and • high groundwater at the WRF site.

We recommend the WRF improvements (pipeline connections, pump station, tanks, and wetwell excavation) be constructed after the fill is placed to reduce static settlement of the structure and pipeline.

We understand shallow/mat foundations will be utilized for the structures. If structures cannot tolerate the estimated static and seismic settlements, we recommend supporting the structures on deep foundations such as drilled piers.

9.1 WETWELL
The 11 ft outer diameter (10 ft inner diameter) wetwell will be about 16 ft deep with the bottom invert around elevation 156.5 ft. The wetwell foundation will be located within saturated, loose to medium dense poorly graded sand that is susceptible to liquefaction, therefore we have provided an overexcavation recommendation in Section 9.6.7 to both improve the foundation material and improved the constructability of the wetwell.

For a minimum 18-inches thick mat foundation founded at elev. 156 ft constructed following Section 9.6.8, provided the mat foundation is designed to evenly distribute the load across the foundation without deflection, an allowable gross bearing capacity of 1,200 psf can be used for design. The bearing capacity can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads such as wind or seismic.

For the above bearing capacity, we estimated the total and differential settlement as 2.5-inches and 1-inch, respectively. Of that settlement, we estimated 0.75-inches will be immediate and will occur during construction and 1.75-inches will occur as primary consolidation settlement (occur over 2 to 3 years). An additional 1-inch of secondary settlement is estimated to occur beyond 3 years.

In addition, during a seismic event, we anticipate up to an additional 3-inches of liquefaction settlement could occur.

We recommend the use of flexible connections between the piping and wetwell to mitigate the differential settlement at the site. We estimated about 2.5-inches of settlement will occur near the pipe connection to the wetwell. Of the 2.5-inches of settlement, we estimated 1.5-inches is immediate and will occur during construction and 1-inch is primary consolidation settlement. An additional 1-inch of secondary settlement is estimated to occur at the connection to the wetwell.

We anticipate minimal static settlement (< 0.25 inches) will occur at the pipe section within the existing access road.

Resistance to lateral loads (including those due to wind or seismic forces) may be determined using a coefficient of friction of 0.43 between the bottom of the precast foundation and native soils.

Lateral resistance for foundations is also available from passive soil pressure acting against the vertical face of the footing, use the static passive pressure of 240 psf/ft. These two modes of 10 658

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
resistance can be combined; however, since horizontal movements is required to mobilize passive resistance, decrease the passive pressure by ½ if both friction and passive pressures are used. During a seismic event, reduce the passive pressure to 194 psf/ft.

9.2 SKID PAD AND TANKS
The 16 ft x 7 ft x 1 ft skid pad and 5 ft diameter hydropneumatics tanks will be founded within the new fill. For a mat foundation or a 12-inches wide square footing founded a minimum 12-inches deep into bearing material, use an allowable gross bearing capacity of 500 psf. The bearing capacity can be increased by 1/3 for transient loads such as wind or seismic. For the above bearing capacity, we estimated the total and differential settlement as 3-inches and 1-inch at the skid pad, and 2.5-inches and <0.25-inches at the tanks, respectively. Of the total static settlement, we estimated 2-inches is immediate and will occur during construction. An additional 1-inch of secondary settlement is estimated to occur. During a seismic event, we anticipate an additional 3-inches of liquefaction settlement.

Resistance to lateral loads (including those due to wind or seismic forces) may be determined using a coefficient of friction of 0.43 between the bottom of the precast foundation and native soils.

Lateral resistance for foundations is also available from passive soil pressure acting against the vertical face of the footing, use the static passive pressure of 264 pcf. These two modes of resistance can be combined; however, since horizontal movements is required to mobilize passive resistance, decrease the passive pressure by ½ if both friction and passive pressures are used. During a seismic event, reduce the passive pressure to 207 pcf.

9.3 BUOYANCY FORCES
We expect buoyancy uplift to be a design consideration at the wetwell. Buoyancy forces can be counterbalanced using thickened slabs, base extensions, and skin friction. If base extensions are used, uplift resistance is provided by the effective unit weight of the soil column directly above the base extension and wedge of soil extending outward and upward at a rate of 1H:2V from the edge of the base extension. Assume an effective unit weight of 50 pcf for base extension uplift resistance below groundwater.

9.4 TRENCHLESS CROSSING
The contractor is responsible for selecting appropriate trenchless installation methods that do not cause detrimental settlement, surface heave, damage to existing facilities, and that maintain the designed horizontal and vertical pipe alignments and tolerances. Issues that may affect operations include the depth of soil cover, existing surface facilities, existing underground utilities, and dissimilar types of earth materials along the pipe alignment.

Generally, the upper 11 ft at the trenchless crossing location consisted of hard clay and was underlain by dense sands. The soil conditions at the other receiving pit are unknown but will likely consist of clays and sands.

The soil conditions encountered at the trenchless crossings appear capable of supporting various trenchless installation methods such as jack and bore, mirotunneling, and horizontal directional drilling.
11 659

9.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AT WRF SITE
Design the structures using the equivalent fluid weights (EFWs) shown on Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8: Static Equivalent Fluid Weights
Above
Groundwater
(pcf)
Below
Groundwater (pcf)
Below Groundwater
Buoyant +
Hydrostatic
(pcf)
At-Rest 54 28 91
Active 35 19 82
Passive 264 96 159
Table 9: Additional Seismic Equivalent Fluid Weights
Above Below
Groundwater Groundwater
(pcf) (pcf)
At-Rest 61 28
Active 34 16
The passive fluid weight is only applicable if the retained earth is allowed to strain at least 0.02H.

For static design, apply the resultant of the static earth pressure at a depth of 0.33H from the base of the wall where H equals the wall height. Include full hydrostatic pressure (i.e., buoyant + hydrostatic) for walls designed to be in service below the water table. At-rest and active earth pressures do not include a factor of safety; the passive earth pressures have been reduced by a factor of safety of 1.5.

For seismic design, the incremental active and at-rest seismic pressure was estimated using guidance from the University of California at Berkeley7,8 and the site PGA of 0.83g. For either case, a triangular pressure distribution should be used, and the magnitude of the controlling resultant should be applied at H/3 from the base of the wall. Add the resultant of the seismic earth pressure to the resultant of the static active or “at-rest” earth pressure. 7 Mikola, R.G. & Sitar,N., Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures in Cohesionless Soils, March 30, 2013 8 Agusti, G.C. & Sitar, N., Seismic Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures with Cohesive Backfills, August 14, 2013 12 660

Surcharge loading applies to the upper 20 ft of the retaining structure or shoring system.

9.6 GRADING
Where reference, use ASTM D1557 test methods to determine relative compaction and optimum moisture. Compacted soil should not be considered suitable (even if it meets relative compaction requirements) if it is unstable and pumps or flexes excessively under construction equipment loads, as determined by Crawford.

9.6.1 CLEARING
Prior to grading, clear to the site to remove structures, fences, vegetation, roots, debris, abandoned utilities, soft or unstable areas, and other deleterious materials. At the pond bottom, clearing should extend a minimum of 1.5 ft bgs (elev. 158.5 ft). The site clearing should extend laterally a minimum of 3 ft beyond the fill limits.

9.6.2 SCARIFICATION AND COMPACTION
Process and compact the exposed subgrade in fill areas as follows:
• Scarify the subgrade to a depth of approximately 10-inches • Moisture condition the subgrade soil to within 2% of optimum moisture content and compact it to a minimum 90% relative compaction.

9.6.3 IMPORT MATERIAL
Import fill shall be granular soil, free of organic material and debris, have an Expansion Index (per ASTM D4829) or less than 25, and confirm to the following gradation:

Sieve Size Percentage Passing
2-inch 100
No. 4 35-100
No. 30 20-100
No. 200 10-45
Import fill must be observed and tested prior to its approval.

9.6.4 FILL PLACEMENT
Where new fill is placed against an existing slope, bench the fill into the slope at regular vertical intervals of 2 to 3 ft to lock the materials together and reduce failure planes. The bench width should be a minimum of 3 ft wide.

Place the fill in maximum 8-inch lifts, moisture condition to within 2% of optimum moisture content and compact to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Increase to 95% relative compaction within 18 inches of pavement, access roads, or structure foundations.

Trench backfill should meet 95% relative compaction following the City’s Design Standards & Standard Specifications (2007).

9.6.5 SLOPE GEOMETRY AND STABILITY
13 661

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
We expect that new embankment constructed as above, and with exterior side slopes at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), or flatter, will be stable.

9.6.6 WAITING PERIOD
The settlement of newly constructed fill is expected to occur due to compression of the underlying soils and compression of the fill itself. We anticipate about 90% of the primary consolidation settlement would occur after 18 months. An 18-month waiting period is likely not an economical alternative for this project. If the design would like to decrease the amount of primary consolidation settlement at the improvements, a 60 day waiting period would allow for about 30% of the consolidation settlement to occur (about 0.5-inches at the wetwell). The waiting period would start at the end of the fill placement prior to construction of the improvements.

If the potential consolidation settlement is determined to be excessive, then mitigation measures may be needed. Potential options for mitigating excessive long-term primary consolidation settlement may include the following:
• Establish a waiting period with or without prefabricated vertical wick drains • Apply a surcharge fill to the site
• Utilize lightweight fill
If desired, Crawford can provide additional details on various lengths of waiting periods and expected settlement that will occur.

9.6.7 OVER-OPTIMUM SOIL MOISTURE
Excessively over-optimum (wet) soil conditions can make proper compaction difficult or impossible. In general, wet soil can be mitigated by:
• Discing the soil during prolonged periods of dry weather, • Over-excavating and replacing with drier material,
• Stabilization using aggregate and stabilization fabric or grid.

Due to the groundwater level, wet soil conditions may be encountered during excavation within the pond.

9.6.8 OVER EXVACATION AND SUBGRADE STABILIZATION AT WETWELL The exposed native soils at the wetwell foundation elevation consist of saturated, very loose to loose poorly graded sand. Therefore, the soils encountered at the bottom of this excavation will likely be unable to provide uniform and unyielding support for the wetwell and during construction.

We recommended overexcavating 3 feet (below bottom of foundation) and backfilling with crushed rock (wrapped in fabric). Scarification and compaction will likely not improve the exposed soil condition and will be ineffective.

Controlled low-strength material (CLSM) can be placed below the wetwell foundation as an alternative to aggregate base.
14 662

9.7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

9.7.1 TRENCH STABILITY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES Due to the presence of loose sands within the planned excavation limits of the planned project improvements, trench walls and temporary construction slopes will experience caving during construction. For preliminary design, use OSHA slopping requirements for Type A soils at the trenchless crossing (upper 11 ft) and Type C soils at the remaining locations. The contractor is responsible for the safety of all temporary excavations and must provide sloping and shoring in accordance with current Cal OSHA requirements.

9.7.2 SHORING
The shoring design should consider the chances of boiling or bottom heave during construction.

Our borings encountered plastic, fine-grained soils at about elev. 140 ft that may help reduce seepage pressure and corresponding pressures on the bottom of the excavations.

Ultimately the contractor is responsible for designing the shoring and dewatering system to work in concert to allow for a stable excavation bottom.

9.7.3 SOIL EXCAVATABILITY
Based on the conditions observed in our subsurface explorations and our experience, the on-site soil should be excavatable with typical grading equipment such as scrapers, dozers, backhoes and excavators.

9.7.4 DEWATERING
In order for the excavations and foundations to be installed in the dry at the WRF site, the contractor must lower the groundwater to a minimum of 3 ft below bottom of excavation to reduce the chances of pumping-soils and unstable foundation support during construction. A well point dewatering system outside the excavations to draw down water as the excavations progress should be considered. The contractor should balance the groundwater head pressure within the excavation and outside of the shoring. A “rat slab” or seal course could be constructed at the bottom of the excavation, which may provide the contractor the ability to adjust the dewatering system. The contractor is responsible for designing the dewatering system.

Groundwater was not encountered in the pipeline borings and was encountered at a depth of 27 ft bgs at the trenchless crossing; dewatering is likely not required along the distribution pipeline. 10 RISK MANAGEMENT
Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicates that the risks of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the geotechnical engineer of record to provide additional services. For this project, Crawford should be retained to:
• Review and provide written comments on the (civil) plans and specifications prior to construction.
15 663

Crawford
& Associates, 1nc_----------------------------------- Geatechnics1 Ei:,gineeri17g, Design end construcaon services DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Crawford
Recycled Water Conveyance Project File: 24-1057.1
City of Soledad, California July 26, 2024
• Monitor construction to check and document our report assumptions. At a minimum, Crawford should monitor trench bedding/backfill operations for the pipeline, fill placement, and underground excavations.
• Update this report if design changes occur, 2 years lapse between this report and construction, or site conditions change.

If Crawford is not retained to perform the above applicable services, we are not responsible for any other parties’ interpretation of our report, and subsequent addendums, letters, and discussions.
11 LIMITATIONS
Crawford performed services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices currently used in this area. This report is intended to assist Carollo for the Recycled Water Conveyance Project in Soledad, CA. Do not use this report for different locations and/or projects without the written consent of Crawford. Where referenced, we used ASTM and Caltrans as a general (not strict) guideline only.

Crawford based this report on the current site conditions. We assume the soil and groundwater conditions are representative of the subsurface conditions on the site. Actual conditions between explorations will vary along the project alignment segments.

Our scope did not include evaluation of on-site hazardous materials.

Logs of our explorations are found in Appendix II. The lines designating the interface between soil types are approximate. The transition between soil types may be abrupt or gradual. Our recommendations are based on the final logs, which represent our interpretation of the field logs and general knowledge of the site and geological conditions.

Modern design and construction are complex, with many regulatory sources/restrictions, involved parties, construction alternatives, etc. It is common to experience changes and delays. The owner should set aside a reasonable contingency fund based on complexities and cost estimates to cover changes and delays.
16 664

Geotechnrcal Engrnaer rng. Des gn and construction servicag 0 r
I_J Bryant
- - - - -
-'< Q.I
Q.I
r...
(.J
0 17
Miles
0 4,000
Feet
New Distribution
Piping (Green)

1. Base Map: USGS Topographic Map Layer,
ArcGIS Pro, ESRI

2. Insert Base Map: National Geographic Style,
ArcGIS Pro, ESRI
References
Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date: 06/24/2024
Soledad, CA
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Project
Location
Water
Reclamation
Facility
Trenchless Crossing
666
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TomTom Crawf &Ass . ord
~~oochnic.;\~lates, Inc c on5tructio~~~rvm lg, Desig,; oes - , .
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation
0 800'
A-24-004
A-24-001
R-24-002
A-24-003
A-24-005
A-24-006
APPROX. BORING

LOCATION
APPROX.

PREVIOUS BORING

LOCATION BY
OTHERS

WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
Legend
SHEET 2b
SHEET 2c
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TomTom NORTH
1"=800'
Source: Figure 2 Basemap: AutoCAD Civil3D Geolocation Tool, using Exploration Bing Maps MapOverall Site 06/24/2024
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Soledad, CA Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date:

SHEET 2a
667
SEE SHEET 2B

WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
R-24-002
BORING 1 B-4
A-24-001
CPT-2
B-3
Legend
APPROX. BORING

LOCATION
APPROX.

PREVIOUS BORING 0 200'

LOCATION BY
OTHERS
NORTH
1"=200'
Source: Figure 2a Basemap: AutoCAD Civil3D Geolocation Tool, using Exploration Bing Maps MapSheet 1 of 3 06/24/2024
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Soledad, CA Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date: 668
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TomTom I
Crawford - -~--& Associates, Inc. Geocecmcel s:,gineering, Design and constructJOO services 0 400'
SEE SHEET 2a
MATCHLINE- SEE SHEET 2c
A-24-003
A-24-004
Legend
APPROX. BORING

LOCATION
NORTH
1"=400'
Source: Figure 2b Basemap: AutoCAD Civil3D Geolocation Tool, using Exploration Bing Maps MapSheet 2 of 3 06/24/2024
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Soledad, CA Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date: 669
© 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TomTom w,
.:.l' ... ~f!iu
,..,~~·
... ,1 • . jtf.ljlill:''illl!ti:@_r:l:tt~
... -
cl
. • "' . ... ...... . .. ~ .
. . . I I ' , ,= - -- ' • ;
~ ~~~ -~
• .• rJ-':"' ·f ~r.$-
• ,~('.if I
'.
0 600'
MATCHLINE- SEE SHEET 2b
A-24-005
A-24-006
SEE SHEET 2aWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
Legend
APPROX. BORING

LOCATION
NORTH
1"=600'
Source: Figure 2c Basemap: AutoCAD Civil3D Geolocation Tool, using Exploration Bing Maps MapSheet 3 of 3 06/24/2024
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Soledad, CA Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date: 670
Qyf /"
Qya1s
I
/) Q
I/
Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geocechnlcel englneenr,g, Design end construct1on Services Kgdg
Kqdj
Qya
Qof4
Qof1
Qp0p
Qof1
Qya2m Qya2m
Qya3 Qya1s
____
Qya2m Qof4
See Geologic Map Legend Sheet 3b
for Identifying Layers

LOCATION

PROJECT
1"=4,000'
Source: Figure 3a Rosenberg, L.I., Wills, C.J.; 2016, California Geologic Map Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Point Sur 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California; Version

1.0; scale 1:100,000.

NORTH 06/24/2024
0 4,000'
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Soledad, CA Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date:
671
l i{
r
Nacimient> Block
--
--
A88REIMTEO EXPLANATION
~·~_.,.009')(
_......,.bf-~~
~~--
~a.-- ~~-- ~ Aloli',t-fjn
--
l u,,,,_ u~• ...... - "~"" [B) vouro~• UM> Urilt• Olil.-..,....,_,.h (81 ~ ..... ;- Oo« OlddCIIIIIII\ ...,._~ -· ~ -UM> -· -· ,..,.,,._ -· "'" .. u- [E] v.z:.---
0-,
~--------Sallnlan Block--------~
~--
-
_...,_
11111
---
U'WWMCl~IMds
1111! a..,.;,,..-1.
-
Ch.off:flCrr.-f<n'NIIOJI
-·-
fttaC.,,Cl'lfcmwtbn
-
~
-
JunptlOWldtb't
-
~.,....,_,..,...
"- ~lfllWIM-
""""-~~-
IPlWiiclf'.-dlteloM ~·==--
~-It«·---
---
""All·PIW/WIOt--tJl
..... = ~-«--ll• ..
"'Al"·N¥••~ ...
l4prt-N,)'Oll,~b
~-~---.itle --· _ ..
---
Salin Ian Complex Granitic Rocks
~....,..".._,anl,,.,... ~ ~('ll'l(ldioohof ~ ~ofCld'wlgu,I ~~,.rz(liorl• ~~----of~Cl'I,,.... ~ ~~oo,11111u
~~===~~ ~~-=- rs::] ~:-J;.,.dio!U CEo:=~ ~C:-:::·°' KA ~ofOOtlli~ a::~~... o:::..rc:d
[B:I~~ ~ ~-dlof.._,.. ~~n::•~
Kd ion.a•
Metamorphic Rocks of the Salinian Comp!ex
1111m a-.,Nti:w,.;,..o,.,.
~,....,--
-
-
Oiablo Range Block
tE) sw.ua'Qlllb-.ab't
(3 ";'.::r~
~=,aCrawford
& Associates, Inc.

Geocechnlcel englneenr,g_ Design end Construct1on Services Source: Figure 3b Rosenberg, L.I., Wills, C.J.; 2016, California Geologic Map Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Point Sur 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California; Version Legend

1.0; scale 1:100,000.

NORTH 06/24/2024
Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
Soledad, CA Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date:
672
"::. J 446~ ft
...... .... ,.._
-
-
-
-
-
ti)
NORTH
....
~ r tpim~ re,Flat
11/rs Ranch
',I
3461 ft
[:;

GABILAN RANGE
I
\
Monterey
Crawford
& Associates, Inc Geotechn,cal E1191neer 1ng, es gn end construction services Pinnacles
National Park
3295 ft
ts,
Elsa
King
- - - - -
San Benito
fault zone
Pine Rock fault zone
Calaveras
fault zone
Bradford
fault
Reliz
fault zone
Church
Creek fault
Rinconada
fault zone
Sec
Arroyo
o fault
San Andreas fault zone
Reliz fault zone
Legend
Quaternary Fault (Age)
<150 Years Ago
<15,000 Years Ago
<130,000 Years Ago
<750,000 Years Ago
<1.6 Million Years Ago
Fault Location
Inferred
Moderately Constrained
Well Constrained
0 4
Miles
Project
Location

1. Fault Data: USGS GIS Data

2. Base Map: National Geographic Style, ArcGIS
Pro, ESRI
References
Prj. No: 24-1057.1
Date: 06-24-2024
Soledad, CA
Soledad
Recycled Water Conveyance
Figure 4
Fault Map
673

APPENDIX II
Boring Log Legend
2022 Crawford Boring Logs
674
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D 2487)

MATERIAL
TYPES
COARSEGRAINED
SOILS
>50%

RETAINED ON
NO. 200
SIEVE

CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES

GRAVELS CLEAN

GRAVELS
Cu > 4 AND 1 < Cc < 3 - - -
<5% FINES Cu< 4 AND/OR 1 >Cc> 3
>50% OF COARSE

FRACTION RETAINED GRAVELS
WITH FINES ON NO. 4 SIEVE >12% FINES

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

CLEAN SANDS SANDS
Cu > 6 AND 1 < Cc < 3 - - -
<5% FINES Cu < 6 AND/OR 1 > Cc > 3
<50% OF COARSE SANDS FRACTION RETAINED FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR MH

GRAPHIC GROUP

SYMBOL SYMBOL
GW
GP
GM
GC
·.· SW •.•.· .· ·.- -.·.

SP
SM

SOIL GROUP
NAMES

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

SIL TY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED SAND

POORLY-GRADED SAND

SILTY SAND
WITH FINES ON NO. 4 SIEVE >12% FINES FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH V//) SC CLAYEY SAND FINE- SIL TS AND CLAYS Pl>7 AND PLOTS ON OR ABOVE "A" LINE ~ INORGANIC

CL LEAN CLAY
GRAINED PI>4 AND PLOTS BELOW "A" LINE ML SILT
SOILS LIQUID LIMIT <50 ORGANIC LL (oven dried)<0.75/LL (not dried) : -=-=-=-=-= OL ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT - - - - - >50%

PASSING SIL TS AND CLAYS
NO. 200 INORGANIC
Pl PLOTS ON OR ABOVE "A" LINE~ CH FAT CLAY
SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT >50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: Cu=0 50/010
Pl PLOTS BELOW "A" LINE
ORGANIC LL (oven dried)<0.75/LL (not dried)

PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER,

DARK COLOR, ORGANIC ODOR
~I,,, ~f,,, ~I,,, ~I,,,
~~~~ ~
~~~
MH
OH
PT

SAMPLE TYPES

ELASTIC SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
PEAT
Cc=(030)2/ 010 x050 [I]
[I]
Auger or backhoe cuttings BModified California 2.5"
BLOW COUNT Shelby tube
The number of blows of a 140-lb. hammer falling
30-inches required to drive the sampler the last
12-inches of an 18-inch drive. The notation 50/4
indicates 4-inches of penetration achieved in 50 blows. ~ Standard Penetration (SPT)
II] California Standard 2"
[I Rock core
Bulk Sample

PLASTICITY CHART
60-----------------------------
For classification of fine-grained soils and /] / / V"' fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained //
50 ~ soils. __ & / ~
Equation of "A"-line / ~ ~ /
~ Horizon~al at PI=4_ to LL=25.5, ,,~')r>'I 0~ ,, \,~1/" X 40 ~ then PI-0.73 (LL 20) / o'{__,, ~--/~-+------+---------,r------tl ~ Equ~tion of "U"-line / / (j~ //
Z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, /
~ 30 ,_ then PI=0.9 (LL - 8) 1----+,,--//---+---------+---+-----+---+------1 B / // o\... /
(/) 20 ,_ / 0'{;--~~-------l---+-----+---+-----+----1
~ / /// v\, /
// ./
1Q e- / / /
; ~ ///VvcL+ML r////4!' ML or OL
MH or OH

ADDITIONAL TESTS
C - Consolidation
CP - Compaction Curve
CR - Corrosivity Testing
CU - Consolidated Undrained Triaxial
OS - Direct Shear
El - Expansion Index
P - Permeability
PA - Partical Size Analysis
Pl - Plasticity Index
PP - Pocket Penetrometer
R - R-Value
SE - Sand Equivalent
SG - Specific Gravity
SL - Shrinkage Limit
SW - Swell Potential
TV - Pocket Torvane Shear Test
V UC - Unconfined Compression I I 0
o 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 UU - Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) GROUND WATER LEVELS
:sJ- First Water Level Reading (during drilling) -5!-- Static Water Level Reading (short-term) Crawford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Er:,gineeri~g. Design and construct1on services ~ Static Water Level Reading (long-term)

BORING LOG / TEST PIT

LEGEND AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
675
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
166
165
164
163
162
161
160
159
158
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
DEPTH (ft)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
7 5
7 5
5 4
2 7
8 10
7 7
5 2
6 9
11 9
8 5
2 BLOWS

PER FOOT
13 17
21 16
15 10
4 POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

TORVANE
(TSF)

GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown;
moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; some
non-plastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM);
medium dense; brown; moist; mostly fine to
medium SAND; few non-plastic fines.

Medium dense.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); medium dense;
brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND;
trace fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM);
medium dense; brown; moist; mostly fine to
medium SAND; few non-plastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); medium dense;
brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND;
trace fines.

SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown;
moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; little
non to low plastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); medium dense;
brown; wet; mostly fine to medium SAND;
4% non-plastic fines.
loose
RECOVERY(%)
83 78
100
78 100
56 RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

MOISTURE
(%)

7.7 13.6

20.6 23.2
D. DENSITY
(PCF)
102.7
102.7
% PASSING
200 SIEVE
4 4

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
LOG OF BORING A-24-001
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
LOCATION: Soledad, CA
COUNTY: Monterey
CLIENT: Carollo
LOGGED BY: EAH
DEPTH OF BORING: 36.5 (ft)
BEGIN DATE: 05/13/2024
COMPLETION DATE: 05/13/2024
SURFACE ELEVATION: 167.0 (ft)
SURFACE CONDITION: Soil
WATER DEPTH: 9.5 ft
READING TAKEN: 05/13/24
HAMMER EFFICIENCY: 92.2 (%)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Geo-Ex
DRILLING METHOD: 4" SS and 4" Rotary
DRILL RIG: D 70 Track
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic; 140 (lbs); 30 (in) drop
SAMPLER TYPE & SIZE: SPT (1.4" ID), MCAL (2.4" ID)
BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 (in)
BACKFILL METHOD: Neat Cement Grout
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: A-24-001
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 1 of 2
LI
~ l ••• 1J i h- 1J •• I I l,,j
L
... \ I l,,j
~ •••
. r I
l,,j
I
i ••
~
------------------------- l
~ .
l,,j
.
l,,j
i I
l,,j
! .
l,,j
••
I I
~ I
i
i
i ••
••
~ ·. I
E Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services 676
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
150
149
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
141
140
139
138
137
136
135
134
133
132
131
DEPTH (ft)
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
8 9
10 11
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
4 4
6 5
12 6
11 7
17 5
13 8
BLOWS

PER FOOT
29 11
24 15
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

2.75 TORVANE
(TSF)

0.88 GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); medium dense;
brown; wet; mostly fine to medium SAND;
4% non-plastic fines.
6" lense of CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND
(GC)
Medium dense
Fat CLAY (CH); (stiff); tan; moist; mostly
medium to high plastic fines; trace fine
SAND.

SANDY Fat CLAY (CH); (very stiff); tan;
moist; mostly medium to high plastic fines;
some fine SAND.

Fat CLAY (CH); stiff to very stiff; tan; moist;
mostly medium to high plastic fines; trace
fine to medium SAND.

Dry to moist; few fine SAND.

Bottom of borehole at 36.5 ft bgs
RECOVERY(%)
100
100
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
65 LIQUID
LIMIT
101

MOISTURE
(%)

26.3 39.2
D. DENSITY
(PCF)
102.0

82.4 % PASSING
200 SIEVE

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
UC Strength: 1,742psf
Strain at Failure: 6.2%
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: A-24-001
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 2 of 2
~ ..
t--+-lf-----t-+---+--+--+ •·
I
I
I
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services I
677
~ ..
+-+-+--+--+----1----+----t: ••
i
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services I
LI
>-----+---+----+----+----+----+----nl
1J
1J
l,,j
l,,j
.
l,,j
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: Conveyance
LOCATION: Soledad, CA
COUNTY: Monterey
CLIENT: Carollo
LOGGED BY: EAH
DEPTH OF BORING: 61.5 (ft)
LOG OF BORING R-24-002
BEGIN DATE: 05/13/2024 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Geo-Ex
COMPLETION DATE: 05/14/2024 DRILLING METHOD: 4" SS and 4" Rotary SURFACE ELEVATION: 162.0 (ft) DRILL RIG: D 70 Track
SURFACE CONDITION: Grass HAMMER TYPE: Automatic; 140 (lbs); 30 (in) drop WATER DEPTH: 4.0 ft SAMPLER TYPE & SIZE: MCAL (2.4" ID), ST, SPT (1.4" ID) READING TAKEN: 05/13/24 BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 (in)
HAMMER EFFICIENCY: 92.2 (%) BACKFILL METHOD: Neat Cement Grout FIELD

GRAPHIC LOG
pastic fines.
few non-plastic fines.

Very dense.
trace fines.

DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND (SM); dense; brown; dry;
mostly fine to medium SAND; little nonPoorly-Graded SAND with SILT (SP); dense; brown; dry; mostly fine to medium SAND;
Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); very dense;
brown; dry; mostly fine to medium SAND;
Poorly-Graded SAND with SILT and
GRAVEL (SP-SM); medium dense; tan;
moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; little
fine to medium GRAVEL, 6% fines.
6" lense of Silty Sand (SM)
Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); loose; tan; wet;
92% coarse to fine SAND; 5% fine GRAVEL;
67 83
78 23.6 87.4 6
100RECOVERY(%)
61 22.9 2
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
Organics present from 0
to 1 ft

ELEVATION
(ft)
11 161
22 160
14 31
159 3 3 8
14 29
158 4
15 4 4
157 5
3 7
4 156 6
155 7
3% fines..
5 2
154 8 Very loose; tan; wet. 1 3
2 153 9
152 10 6 Medium Dense 2
3 7
151 11 DEPTH (ft)
1 1
2 2
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
6 33
10 45BLOWS PER FOOT
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

TORVANE
(TSF)

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

10.6MOISTURE (%)110.1 D. DENSITY (PCF)
% PASSING
200 SIEVE
4 3 7
4 1.00 0.50
3 pH: 7.100, Min
Resistivity: .54ohm-cm,
Chloride: 62.5ppm,
Sulfate: 177.5ppm,
Redox Potential: 223mv 52.5 70.9 UC Strength: 2,390psf
Strain at Failure: 6.7%
4 150 12
149 13
148 14
147 15 7
146 16
72 20.0
Fat CLAY (CH); stiff; tan; moist to wet;
mostly high plastic fines; few fine to medium
SAND.
100
48 80
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: Conveyance
BORING: R-24-002
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 1 of 4
678
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
145
144
143
142
141
140
139
138
137
136
135
134
133
132
131
130
129
128
127
126
DEPTH (ft)
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
S 7
8 9
10 BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
7 8
9 9
10 13
13 16
18 BLOWS

PER FOOT
22 26
31 POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

2.75 3.50

TORVANE
(TSF)

0.68 1.25

0.88 GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
Fat CLAY (CH); stiff; tan; moist to wet;
mostly high plastic fines; few fine to medium
SAND.

Very Stiff
Fat CLAY with SAND (CH); very stiff to stiff;
tan; moist to wet; mostly high plastic Fines;
little fine to medium SAND.

Fat CLAY (CH); very stiff; tan; moist; mostly
high plastic fines; few fine SAND.

Grayish brown.

RECOVERY(%)
100
94 100
100
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
77 55
LIQUID
LIMIT
113
88 MOISTURE
(%)

41.4 40.8
D. DENSITY
(PCF)

78.9 79.2
% PASSING
200 SIEVE

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
Shelby hydraulic push:
500 PSI
UC Strength: 4,046psi
Strain at Failure: 5%
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: R-24-002
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 2 of 4
I I/
I
H---+-----+----1 ----+----+-----~ /
~
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services I
679
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
125
124
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
106
DEPTH (ft)
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
S 11
12 13
S 14
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
7 7
9 9
12 16
BLOWS

PER FOOT
21 25
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

2.50 1.75

TORVANE
(TSF)

0.35 GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
Fat CLAY (CH); very stiff; tan; moist; mostly
high plastic fines; few fine SAND.

Medium plastic fines.; trace fine SAND
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); stiff; tan; moist;
mostly medium plastic fines; little fine to
medium SAND.

SILT (ML); medium dense; gray; moist;
mostly medium plastic fines; few fine SAND.

Gray; moist; trace fine SAND.

SILTY SAND (SM); (dense); brown; wet;
mostly fine to medium SAND; little nonplastic fines.

RECOVERY(%)
100
100
100
100
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
14 LIQUID
LIMIT
42 MOISTURE
(%)

32.7 35.1

39.7 D. DENSITY
(PCF)

89.5 84.9

80.0 % PASSING
200 SIEVE

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
Shelby hydraulic push:
100 PSI
consolidation test
UC Strength: 2,578psf
Strain at Failure: 6.6%
Shelby hydraulic push:
1000 PSI
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: R-24-002
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 3 of 4
I
I
H-+-+--+I ----+----+-----lij
~
=
~ -----------------<
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services I
C
680
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
104
103
102
101
100
99 98
97 96
95 94
93 92
91 90
89 88
87 86
DEPTH (ft)
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
15 BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
25 38
38 BLOWS

PER FOOT
76 POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

TORVANE
(TSF)

GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND (SM); (dense); brown; wet;
mostly fine to medium SAND; little nonplastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); very dense; tan;
wet; mostly fine to medium SAND; trace
non-plastic fines.

Bottom of borehole at 61.5 ft bgs
RECOVERY(%)
83 RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

MOISTURE
(%)

17.8 D. DENSITY
(PCF)
% PASSING
200 SIEVE
5 DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: R-24-002
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 4 of 4
-------------------------
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services 681
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
181
180
179
178
177
176
175
174
173
172
171
170
169
168
167
166
DEPTH (ft)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
Bulk 1
2 3
4 5
6 BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
8 4
7 7
13 13
11 4
21 8
14 14
12 6
29 7
17 14
BLOWS

PER FOOT
23 10
50 15
31 28
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)
+4.5
+4.5

2.00 TORVANE
(TSF)

GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
ASPHALT CONCRETE(4")
AGGREGATE BASE(6")
CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense;
brown; moist; mostly fine to coarse SAND;
little medium plastic fines.

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); hard; dark
brown; moist; mostly medium plastic fines;
little fine to medium SAND.

Lean CLAY (CL); (hard); dark brown; moist;
mostly medium plastic fines; few fine to
medium GRVEL; trace fine SAND.

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); hard; tan; dry;
82% fines; little fine to medium SAND.

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); (stiff); tan; dry; 53%
low to medium plastic fines; some fine to
medium SAND.
very stiff; brown; moist; 60% fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); dense; tan;
moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; trace
fines.

SILTY SAND (SM); dense; tan; dry; mostly
fine to coarse SAND; little non-plastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); dense; tan; dry
to moist; most fine to coarse SAND; trace
fines.

RECOVERY(%)
100 72
67 67
78 100
100
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

MOISTURE
(%)

9.1 22.6

18.9 2.8
D. DENSITY
(PCF)
118.4
101.8
107.5
% PASSING
200 SIEVE
82 53
60 3

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
LOG OF BORING A-24-003
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
LOCATION: Soledad, CA
COUNTY: Monterey
CLIENT: Carollo
LOGGED BY: EAH
DEPTH OF BORING: 36.5 (ft)
BEGIN DATE: 05/14/2024
COMPLETION DATE: 05/14/2024
SURFACE ELEVATION: 182.0 (ft)
SURFACE CONDITION: Asphalt
WATER DEPTH: 27.0 ft
READING TAKEN: 05/14/24
HAMMER EFFICIENCY: 92.2 (%)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Geo-Ex
DRILLING METHOD: 4" SS and 4" Rotary
DRILL RIG: D 70 Track
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic; 140 (lbs); 30 (in) drop
SAMPLER TYPE & SIZE: SPT (1.4" ID), MCAL (2.4" ID), Bulk BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 (in)
BACKFILL METHOD: Neat Cement Grout
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: A-24-003
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 1 of 2
- LI
- ~~r;:: '
·: :1: · II ••:. ~
l
~
I \
1J
1J
I l,,j
i l,,j
l,,j
I
~ ~
i l
l,,j
.
l,,j
i I
l,,j
i .
l,,j
I
~
~ u _________________________
i ••
l,,j
.
i ------------------------- l,,j
I
l,,j
i .
l,,j
I
~
~ ~
', •I I
E Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services 682
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
165
164
163
162
161
160
159
158
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
150
149
148
147
146
DEPTH (ft)
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
7 8
9 10
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
15 9
13 17
19 10
14 19
28 21
13 25
BLOWS

PER FOOT
47 31
27 44
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

TORVANE
(TSF)

GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); dense; tan; dry
to moist; most fine to coarse SAND; trace
fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM);
very dense; tan; moist; mostly fine to coarse
SAND; few non-plastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); very dense; tan;
moist; mostly fine to coarse SAND; trace
fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND with GRAVEL (SP);
very dense; tan; moist; mostly fine to coarse
SAND; little fine to medium GRAVEL; trace
non-plastic fines.

SILTY SAND (SM); dense; tan; moist; mostly
fine to coarse SAND; little non-plastic fines.

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM); dense;
tan; moist; mostly fine to coarse; little nonplastic fines.

SILTY SAND (SM); dense; tan; moist to wet;
mostly fine to coarse SAND; little nonplastic fines; little fine to medium GRAVEL.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); very dense; tan;
wet; mostly fine to medium SAND; trace
fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM);
very dense; tan; wet; mostly fine to medium
SAND; few non-plastic fines.

Bottom of borehole at 36.5 ft bgs
RECOVERY(%)
100
100
100
100
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

MOISTURE
(%)

9.1 D. DENSITY
(PCF)
% PASSING
200 SIEVE

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
Could not continue
sampling, auger hole
was collapsing.
1" SILTY SAND pockets
present.
-------------------------
~ ..
t-+-+---+--+-+-----t-----1 •· '~-------------~'
I •• I
I
I
I
I
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services I
J.I
11,J
l,J
l,J
l,J
l,J
1 l,J
l,J
l,J
J
I
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1 Crawford & Associates, Inc. Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: 4701 Freeport Blvd Conveyance BORING: A-24-003 Sacramento, CA 95822 ENTRY BY: EAH (916) 455-4225 CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 2 of 2 683
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
189
188
187
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
179
178
177
176
175
174
DEPTH (ft)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
Bulk 1
2 3
4 5
6 BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
6 4
9 5
5 10
10 7
7 5
7 12
11 9
22 4
8 18
BLOWS

PER FOOT
21 16
29 9
15 30
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

3.25 2.82
+4.5
+4.5

TORVANE
(TSF)

GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
ASPHALT CONCRETE(5")
AGGREGATE BASE(5")
CLAYEY SAND (SC); Medium dense;
brown; moist; mostly fine to coarse SAND;
little low to medium plastic fines.

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); very stiff;
brown; moist; mostly medium plastic fines;
little fine to medium SAND.

Lean CLAY (CL); very stiff; brown; moist;
mostly medium plastic fines; trace fine to
medium SAND.

Few fine to medium SAND.

Hard.

Lean CLAY with SAND (CL); (stiff); tan; dry;
mostly low to medium plastic fines; little fine
to medium SAND.
<6" Lense of SILT (ML)
Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); medium dense;
tan; moist; mostly medium to coarse SAND;
3% fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND with SILT and
GRAVEL (SP-SM); dense; tan; dry; mostly
fine to medium SAND; little fine to medium
GRAVEL; few non-plastic fines.

Poorly-Graded SAND (SP); dense; tan; dry;
mostly fine to medium SAND; trace fines.

Bottom of borehole at 16.5 ft bgs
RECOVERY(%)
100 78
100
89 94
83 RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

MOISTURE
(%)

20.9 2.1
D. DENSITY
(PCF)
105.6
% PASSING
200 SIEVE
3 DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
pH: 8.12, Min
Resistivity: .6ohm-cm,
Chloride: 131ppm,
Sulfate: 196.7ppm,
Redox Potential: 261mv
Finished drilling for the
day 5-14-24, continued
on 5-15-24.

LOG OF BORING A-24-004
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
LOCATION: Soledad, CA
COUNTY: Monterey
CLIENT: Carollo
LOGGED BY: EAH
DEPTH OF BORING: 16.5 (ft)
BEGIN DATE: 05/14/2024
COMPLETION DATE: 05/15/2024
SURFACE ELEVATION: 190.0 (ft)
SURFACE CONDITION: Asphalt
WATER DEPTH: Not Encountered
READING TAKEN: N/A
HAMMER EFFICIENCY: 92.2 (%)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Geo-Ex
DRILLING METHOD: 4" SS
DRILL RIG: D 70 Track
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic; 140 (lbs); 30 (in) drop
SAMPLER TYPE & SIZE: MCAL (2.4" ID), SPT (1.4" ID), Bulk BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 16.5 (in)
BACKFILL METHOD: Neat Cement Grout
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: A-24-004
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 1 of 1
I LI
- !· •: . :I:.
~
\ I l
~ 1J
1J
\ I l,,j
i l,,j
l,,j
I
~ ~
i l
l,,j
.
l,,j
i I
l,,j
i ------------------------- .
l,,j
••
I
~
~
i l,,j .
i ------------------------- l,,j
I
l,,j
i .
l,,j
I
~
E Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services 684
LOG OF BORING A-24-005
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: Conveyance
LOCATION: Soledad, CA
BEGIN DATE: 05/14/2024
COMPLETION DATE: 05/14/2024
SURFACE ELEVATION: 258.0 (ft)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Geo-EX
DRILLING METHOD: 4" SS
DRILL RIG: D 70 Track
COUNTY: Monterey SURFACE CONDITION: Soil HAMMER TYPE: Automatic; 140 (lbs); 30 (in) drop CLIENT: Carollo WATER DEPTH: Not Encountered SAMPLER TYPE & SIZE: SPT (1.4" ID), Bulk, MCAL (2.4" ID) LOGGED BY: EAH READING TAKEN: N/A BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 (in) DEPTH OF BORING: 16.5 (ft) HAMMER EFFICIENCY: 92.2 (%) BACKFILL METHOD: Neat Cement Grout SAMPLE NO GRAPHIC LOG ~- +---llli9---+--+-+----!---II,,/,. •
i
LI
>-----+---+----+----+----+----+----nl
1J
1J
l,,j
l,,j
.
l,,j
+---Ml- ~ -+--+---+--+--IV; / /fi i -------------------, // ________________________ _
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services l
l,,j
.
l,,j
I
l,,j
.
l,,j
I
l,,j
.
l,,j
I
l,,j
.
l,,j
I

DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND (SM); dense; brown; dry;
mostly fine to coarse SAND; little non-plastic
fines.

CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; dark
brown; dry; mostly fine to coarse SAND;
29% low to medium plastic fines.

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); (hard); dark brown;
dry; mostly medium plastic fines; some fine
to coarse SAND.

CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense;
brown; moist; mostly fine to coarse SAND;
43% medium to low plastic fines.

SILTY SAND (SM); very dense; brown;
moist; mostly fine to coarse SAND; little non
to low plastic fines.

Bottom of borehole at 16.5 ft bgs
FIELD
RECOVERY(%)
RQD (%)

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LABORATORY LIQUID LIMIT MOISTURE (%) DENSITY D. (PCF)
% PASSING
200 SIEVE
100 67

6.3 135.1
78 5.2 29

8.0 127.3

8.4 43
83 8.4
100

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

ELEVATION
(ft)
DEPTH (ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

BLOWS

PER FOOT
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

TORVANE
(TSF)
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
244
243
242
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
Bulk 1
2 3
4 5
6 20
16 20
14 9
4 5
12 10
4 5
5 11
8 5
20 31
35 36
13 22
10 4.00
+4.5
13 66

REMARKS
pH: 7.61, Min Resistivity:

3.75ohm-cm, Chloride:

6.2ppm, Sulfate:

18.9ppm, Redox
Potential: 290mv
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1 Crawford & Associates, Inc. Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: 4701 Freeport Blvd Conveyance BORING: A-24-005 Sacramento, CA 95822 ENTRY BY: EAH (916) 455-4225 CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 1 of 1 685
LOG OF BORING A-24-006
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1 BEGIN DATE: 05/15/2024 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Geo-Ex Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: COMPLETION DATE: 05/14/2024 DRILLING METHOD: 4" SS Conveyance LOCATION: Soledad, CA SURFACE ELEVATION: 224.0 (ft) DRILL RIG: D70 Track COUNTY: Monterey SURFACE CONDITION: Asphalt HAMMER TYPE: Automatic; 140 (lbs); 30 (in) drop CLIENT: Carollo WATER DEPTH: Not Encountered SAMPLER TYPE & SIZE: SPT (1.4" ID), MCAL (2.4" ID), Bulk LOGGED BY: EAH READING TAKEN: N/A BOREHOLE DIAMETER: 4.0 (in) DEPTH OF BORING: 18.0 (ft) HAMMER EFFICIENCY: 92.2 (%) BACKFILL METHOD: Neat Cement Grout SAMPLE NO FIELD

GRAPHIC LOG
LI
- ,ur; :
- 1( ::: ~
l
~ ~ l,,j
i l,,j
l,,j
I
~ ~
i l
II l,,j
l,,j
i I
-------------------------
••• •• ••
l,,j
i ·•·0·•· l,,j
0%:

I
~
••• • • •
~ ••• i/
I
i l,,j
i l,,j
I
l,,j
i l,,j
I
II ~
~ I/// ~
E Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services

DESCRIPTION
ASPHALT CONCRETE(4")
AGGREGATE BASE(4")
CLAYEY SAND (SC); loose; dark brown;
dry; mostly fine to medium SAND; 24% low
to medium plastic fines.

Moist
Medium Dense
Fine to coarse SAND.

Some low to medium plastic fines, few fine
GRAVEL.

No GRAVEL.

Poorly-Graded SAND with CLAY (SP-SC);
medium dense; dark brown; moist; mostly
fine to medium SAND; few low to medium
plastic fines.

CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; dark
brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND;
little low to medium plastic fines.

SANDY CLAY (CL); (stiff); brown; moist;
mostly low to medium plastic fines; some
fine to medium SAND.

RECOVERY(%)
RQD (%)

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LABORATORY LIQUID LIMIT MOISTURE (%) DENSITY D. (PCF)
% PASSING
200 SIEVE

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
100
61 8.3 119.2
89 pH: 7.02, Min 78 Resistivity: .91ohm-cm,
Chloride: 22.5ppm,
Sulfate: 80.3ppm, Redox
Potential: 28mv 6.7 24
83 78

12.9 89
100

ELEVATION
(ft)
DEPTH (ft)
SAMPLE
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.

BLOWS

PER FOOT
POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

TORVANE
(TSF)
223
222
221
220
219
218
217
216
215
214
213
212
211
210
209
208
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
Bulk
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 6
3 5
4 4
6 7
8 11
5 5
5 6
5 5
4 6
7 8
10 19
10 10
13 PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1 Crawford & Associates, Inc. Soledad Recycled Water PROJECT: 4701 Freeport Blvd Conveyance BORING: A-24-006 Sacramento, CA 95822 ENTRY BY: EAH (916) 455-4225 CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 1 of 2 686
FIELD

ELEVATION
(ft)
207
206
205
204
203
202
201
200
199
198
197
196
195
194
193
192
191
190
189
188
DEPTH (ft)
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
SAMPLE

SAMPLE NO
BLOWS
PER 6 IN.
13 15
21 BLOWS

PER FOOT
36 POCKET
PEN. (TSF)

2.75 TORVANE
(TSF)

1.62 GRAPHIC LOG

DESCRIPTION
SANDY CLAY (CL); (stiff); brown; moist;
mostly low to medium plastic fines; some
fine to medium SAND.

Lean CLAY wih SAND (CL); very stiff;
brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND;
little fine to coarse SAND.

Bottom of borehole at 18.0 ft bgs
RECOVERY(%)
RQD (%)

LABORATORY

PLASTICITY
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT

MOISTURE
(%)
D. DENSITY
(PCF)
% PASSING
200 SIEVE

DRILL METHOD

CASING DEPTH

REMARKS
Crawford & Associates, Inc.
4701 Freeport Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 455-4225
PROJECT NO: 24-1057.1
PROJECT: Soledad Recycled Water
Conveyance
BORING: A-24-006
ENTRY BY: EAH
CHECKED BY: ETT SHEET # 2 of 2
Cravvford
& Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering, Design and construction services 687

APPENDIX III
Previous Boring Logs and Associated Lab
688
__
_ .l~{~~-'!1 l(J,
l.i .f . 4§ ~~ •-- ' ,.- rt '
-~ 1-,~ :Jf?: . ,
Black & Vealdl
2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
1//J 1/, V /. ~ -.. ~ -
@; ,Ii·. "l/V'I - ·.:11r A,~~~-.__,. -.
,/1~,r• !J 0 ~ ~ '
I
~.
'~~
~ ~ · ~ I-;~
- - _,. r~
,,.,.., ~ '
TN/EN• - ll • ' • ' ii I C. $ • '
Ill II(• i <: inl~ SE<:Oll{V,A\
CU,/t./llElf
....' f 'c.~, i r 11 l
:::
:ii
6 r:;1
s 1,J/l{MR'l rmn ND /
e
~
r
"' o,
~
s;,_ t ....... --- ~ .,, LEGEND ""°" I ; ~":~~ (t.£~-- ~ 8- 4 1',PPROXIMATELOCATION l ' SYSTfV OF BORING l'li.flltS I ND N0,2 § J IN OI SINrCCTIOII ,JI,., CPT-8 APPROXIMATE LOCATION ¥ OFCPT ~!) ! 1;(1t,/l SLUDGE
DRYING U<ISf AficM1 AREA nCICCSArION
~ POND NO ,.,.. .._, D r- ·1 j41l l" i... SITE PLAN .stl.CIOe: OltY!MJ IN,\ ...., • ..- srMION Soledad WWTP Upgrade Expansion
Soledad, California " (n
///, I I' ,rll ,J, 100 200 BASE M/.P SOURCE: Baaomop .,.,, p,o,,lc!ed by Black Md Voald>, 2007 0 PLATE 2 FEET
689

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GRAVELS
Cleangravels less than 5%
fines
GW
GP
~ MOOE nwf50%0f ·•• •.~.:•
~ j =,%~~~ Gravets with GM ~ • a•:r;:;
••••
• • • • • • •
0 •- f SIEVE more than
w i-! 12% fines ~i'...•M,•

GROUP NAMES
Well-Graded Gravel
Poorly Graded Gravel
Silty Gravel
Clayey Gravel

GENERAL NOTES
Classification of Scils in general accordance
with ASTM D2487 or D2488 ( based on the
Unified Soil Classification System)
Geologic F onmation noted in bold font at the top
of interpreted interval
Sloped line in break column indicates
transitional boundary
Blow counts for modified California Liner
Sampler shown in ( )
~ *~ GC ~y.~- ffi ~~ 1------4----------!------l:J.. : -1-•_:.. ,1-- ~_...:•-~..•111 ,1--------------- -I UJ ;;;l Clean sand SW i\._L( Well-Graded Sand
Length ofsample symbol approximates
recovery length

SAMPLER DRIVING RESISTANCE
Number of blows with 140 lb. hammer, falling
30-in. to drive sampler 1-ft. after seating
sampler 6--in.; for example,
(/)a: ~ g less than 5%
:I SANDS fines c§
u
~
MOR::Tl-fAN50"4~
COAA$E: FRACTOi
PASSl-lGNO.•SlM Sands with more than
12% ~nes

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit Lesslhan 50%
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
~ I' O :1·!! OL
Poorty Graded Sand
V/; Clayey Sand
1 1 Silt
~ Lean Clay
Organic Silt
Blows/ft Description
25 25 blows drove sampler 12· after
initial 6' of seating
50(7" 50 blows drove sampler 7" after
initial 6" ofseating
Ref/3" 50 blows drove sampler 3• during
initial 6" seating interval
(Ref=Refusal)

STRENGTH TEST METHOD
U = Unconfined Compression
a = Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
T = Torvane W es !J. \\11 \\
z i~l-- ----------+----!=w-1.,;::;,J,;.1+------------4
~ 0 l MH I II P =Pocket Penetrometer
M = Miniature Vane
Elastic Slit
~ ~: SILTS AND CLAYS
~ CH ~
F = Field Vane

OTHER TESTS
Liquid Limit Greater than 50%

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Fat Clay
OH
,'{_1//1/,
1//.h1 Organic Clay
PT '-A.JV'--'-"-' Peat or Highly Organic Soils
FILL Debris or Mixed Fill
!!ii-=-o--0-,. Asphalt Concrete Pavement with
AC 1-n ,,.,o...,. Aggregate Base
k =Permeability
Consol = Consolidation
Gs =Specific Gravity
El = Expansion Index
OVM = Organic Vapor
Meter
MA = Particle Size Analysis

WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS
~ Initial or perched water level
t. Final ground water level
,... Seepages encountered

SOIL STRUCTURE
Fissured: Containing shrinkage or relief cracks, often filled wilh line sand or silt, usually more orless vertical.

Pocket: Inclusion of material ofdifferent texture that is smaller than the diameter ofthe sample.

SPT MC CA SH BB HA LS PS VS NR RC DP ES Parting: Inclusion less lhan 118 inch thick exlending lhrough the sample.

Samplers and sampler dimensions (unless otherwise noted in report text) are as follows: Seam: Inclusion 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick extending through the sample.

Layer: Inclusion greater than 3 inche-s thick extending through the sampfe.

Laminated: Soil sample composed of alternating partings or seams of different 1 SPT Sampler, driven 7 Lexan Sample
2 3
4 1 3/8" ID, 2" OD 8 Pitcher Sample
MOD CA Liner Sampler g 2 3/8" ID, 3" OD Vibracore Sample CA Liner Sampler 10 No Sample Recovered
1 7/8" ID, 2.5" OD
Thin-walled Tube, pushed 11 Rock Core
2 7/8" ID, 3" OD 12 Direct Push
Bulk Bag Sample (from cuttings) 13 Enviromental Sample
soil lypes.
lnlerlayered: Soil sample composed ofalternating layersofdifferenl soil type. lnlermixed: Soil sample composed ofpockelSof ditferenl soil type. and layered or laminated structure is not evident.

H~"" A•-nrc~m-ln Retained samcles listed in samcle No. column Clays
Very Soft
Soft
Finn
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
CONSISTENCY (1} RELATIVE DENSITY (11
Blows/Foot Undrained Shear Sands and Gravels Bl~foot CDT Strenath lksll 0-2 0 -0.25 Very Loose 0-4
2-4 0.25-0.5 Loose 4 -10
4 -8 0.5 -1 Medium Dense 10 • 30 8 -15 1 -2
15-30 2-4 Dense 30 - 50
Over 30 Over4 Very Dense Over 50

INCREASING VISUAL

MOISTURE CONTENT
l Dry
Moist
Wet
lnfonmation on each bonng log 1s a compilation of subsurface conditions and so11or rock classificat10ns obtained from the field as well as from laboratory testing of samples. Strate hctve been interµr~t~d by curnniurlly accepted procedures. The stratum lines on the logs may be transitional t.ind approximate in n,l!lllure.

Water level measurements refer only to those observed at the time and places indicated, and can vary wtth time, geologic condition, or construction activity. (1) Terzaghl and Peck 1967

TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS
690
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 1 of 3
LOCAT oc .... ION: Soledad City Plant w N 2,044,503 E 5,873,492 iii~ CJ) = 0. ~ -[ (:)W :i:: ; I- z ;;!...J !:= 8. * ~ <fl(/) en z z . oc 1-· 0 = -o ;?; Gi o c;e w d ~ ffi ~ui :i w wz en- §~ O:i " ....10!1:: I- ::::,~ ii "m ....I w 0.0:::) SURFACE EL: 169.1 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum) <l)C/l si-: WI- o- 1-0 ~ Z (:) oc ti: l!!:i. 0. ....I :i.;:en ~\,2 ~8 w w <>- :l!: 0. ::J~ ~;?; Gi 0 :i. en ...J ~ :t <offl C/l...JCI:: 0~ 0
0 ~ffi ~ w < *~ 0. mo. a~ 0 en MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5Cll (47) Fine to Medium SAND (SP): medium dense,
brown, dry, trace fine gravel
- layer of dark brown clay with organics, at 1'
28 Clayey Fine SAND (SC): medium dense, dark
gray
(49)
- black, with organics, below 6'
20 39
18 23
. - ,-.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • - ·· ·· · · --Corrosivity 24 Fine to Coarse SAND (SW): medium dense, gray, with clay pockets, trace gravel
3 11 Medium to Coarse SAND with Fine Gravel (SW):
loose to medium dense, gray
~--------------------4•............................. . 14 Fat CLAY (CH): stiff, light brown a
1b ....
....
....
2 165
160
155
150
145
Continued
BORING DEPTH: 50.5 ft DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and BACKFILL: Grout Cathead, 140 lb
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006 DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1 . LOGGED BY: M. Paquette LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:\ENGINEE.R\GINnPROJECTS'3040.009SOLEDAO.GPJ UBRARY_1208050AK.GlB 712.'J/07 05:01 p 691
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 2 of 3
LOCATION: Soledad Ci~ Plant o::-
w N 2,044,503 E 5,873,4 2 ;fj.:! = Q. i=:'[ 0 C)W J: ; ~ z a:Z - !::: g_ ~ (J)(J) (J) 0 = <i....J z ~ w::lW z - -o et:..: * :1:;G'.j o* :i:: ...JOO: wz Q~ 0 J: a: ID w a: en- I!:! i ..J Q. (.):) SURFACE EL: 169.1 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum) :) ~ 1-W (J)(/) s.-· w..- li: UJ :::. Q. w _J >-(.') a- li;O Z(.') a: w I->- :::. ;:Cl) o::- <g w :::. Q. <{QC/l OW ~~ Q.N ::;~ :5:1!; □ ~Cl) J: ;Ji 0 ~~ ! Cl) _J~ ;: u Q. I- u:l Ill Q. *"" □~ 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~Cl)
140 (31)
30 135 (7819")
35 - mottled brown, below 35'
130 (19)
40 - with coarse gravel and rock fragments, at 40'
125 300 psi
45 - fine sand in tip of sampler, at 46'
120 (24)
Continued BORING DEPTH: 50.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1 .

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
' .. ............... ,... .................
37 70 51 0.6 Q
DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and
Cathead, 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:\ENGINEE.R\GNT\PROJECTS\3040.009 SOLEDA0,3PJ LIBRARY _1206050AK.GLB 7aJJ07 05:01 p 692
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 3 of 3
=
z
0 ~
ci'.i
..J
w
= ~cl ::i O::m ~

0. I:!::. w
0 ~~
~
0 z
w
..J

0. ::::. <(
ff)
w

0. ~
a::
w
..J

0. ::::.
<(
ff)
L.
j::'[
ffi~w
.... oa:: 0.0::l
::::, 3; Cll
<offl
ff) ...I 0:: mo.

LOCATION: Soledad City Plant
N 2,044,503 E 5,873,492
SURFACE EL: 169.1 ft +/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- brownish gray, mottle brown, with sand r\ pockets, at 50' r - End of Boring at 50.5' t::: 8.
~i
>-C> a::- 0~
* (!)W
a::,-: z> wz -
Cllwig Cl)Cll
0 (.) ~~
a*
St: Q::::,
..J:::;
~
~~ ~a Cllz :5- 0.
a::- ~.l2
J: • ool/J
::i w~
Z(!)
~ffi
aa::
z~ ::,ffl
Cll
~ Cll
w
~
a::
w
iE
0 115
55 11 0
60-
105
65 100
70 95
BORING DEPTH: 50.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1.

DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and
Cathead, 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:\ENGINEER\GINT\PROJECTS\3040..009 SOLEDAO.GPJ UBRARY_ 1208050AK.Gl.B 7l2'J/07 05:01 p 693
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 1 of 2
¢::
z·
0 i=
...J
~ w
~
:I:

IQ.
w
□
i-'
a:o
Wal
I-::; < >- :i;(/)
w
Q. ~! ci
z ~ ffi ~u.i w a: ...JO<l: ...J w Q.(.)::> Q. ...J ::; ;:(/) ::; Q. <oU> ;,i i (/) ...J~ CD Q.
23 LOCATION: Soledad City Plant
N 2,044,930 E 5,873,605
SURFACE EL: 171.9 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense, brown, dry
!::8.
~~ >-c.,
a:-
0~
";F.
a: ...... w z 1-W
~~ 0
u
(.?W
~G'.i U>- (J)(/)
t8
~~
o"$.
s....- Q~
...J:::;
~
Q~
1-Q Cllz :5- Q.
~]
:c ; (/)(/)
a :c· w I- ZC.,
~ffi
a~
~(/)
C/J
~ a:
w
:c
5 19
Clayey SAND (SC): medium dense, dark gray to
black
18 - with organics, at 9' 44
(1 1)
(19)
1---,----,--...,..,--,--,----,---,----------i ' . .. . .... ' ....

Silty Fine SAND (SM): medium dense, gray,
trace mica
' . . ' . . .
150
.· : ·.•
..· .·. :-'. ··: :_'
·:.:. ...
.' ... ·.. 6 -
IX 12 . ... .... , ..... ··18 ········
Continued BORING DEPTH: 30.5 ft DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and BACKFILL: Grout Cathead, 140 lb
COMPLETION DATE: November 18, 2006 DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1. LOGGED BY: M. Paquette LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:IENGINEERIGIN"I\PROJECTS\304-0.009 SOlEDAD.GPJ LIBRARY_12080SOAK.GLB 7123/07 05,01 p 694
Project No. 3040.009
"" z
0 i=
~ ul
145
0 z "" ~5 J: oc al w ... W :::;; ..J a. a.
w ... >- □ ~(I) !
: ·.
..
..
...
~;
7a
30 ~ 7b
w -·iii a. ... Q.
~ ffi~w a: ..JOO:
w a..u:::, ..J :::O;::Ul a. ~offl ..J oc ! al a.

L
-··· (23) ....
~
LOCATION: Soledad City Plant
N 2,044.930 E 5,873.605 if. (!)W t:'R a: ..... ~~ wz SURFACE EL: 171 .9 ft +/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum) ~i ~iii >-Cl ~~ a:- ;::z ~8 0~ 0 6'~ u

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1---,---,,-,...,...,...,...,...,,.,...,.--,..,,....--,--,------,--,----1 · ............. . . ..

Lean CLAY (CL): stiff, grayish brown, mottled
brown
80 42
- End of Bering at 30.5'
oif.

5.,..- Q~
-' :J
~
§1;'.i
..-o Ulz :s- a.
a: ...
itj¾!
U) J: " (I)
o::c·
w..- ZC)
~~ of!:
~U)
Sheet 2 of 2
@
a:
w
J:
t5
.. .. .. ..... .. . .. ..... . .
140
35 135
40-
130
45 125
BORING DEPTH: 30.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 18, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1.

DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and
Cathead, 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:IENGINEERIGINT\PROJECTS\3040.009 SOI.EDAO.GPJ ll6RARY_ 1208050AK.GlB 7/2J/07 05<>1 p 695
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 1 of 2
LOCATION: Soledad City Plant oc-
= z·
0 ~
~ w...
=
:i
IQ.
w
Cl
...J _,
~o
0::ai
W::::;;
I->-
~(/)
w
Cl. ~ ·[ 0
z ~ ffi~w w_, 0:: -JOO::
w Cl.(.):> Cl. _, ::::;; ;: Cl)
! Cl.
! ifo~ ..JO,:

N 2,044,352 E 5,873,250
SURFACE EL: 168.9 ft +/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum)
!::'R z · ::,~
il:~
a~
'i1
o::~
wz
1-W
~~ 0
(.)
C)W
~Gi C/l- (/)C/l
<o
~~
o'i1
51-"
o-
:J !
~
Ql;S
1-Q Cllz :5- Q.
i5 ~ J: ; U) Cl)
O:i
w IZC>
~ffi
Cl)
IC/)
w
lo::
w
w al Q. 0~ 5
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~(/)
Fine SAND with silt (SP-SM): dense, brown, dry
1 ~ 43
X
165
5 2 39 - light gray, moist, with gravel, below 5'
~
160 7
10-
155 . ... 3 .... ...... .............. " " ' ......... ......... . 14 Fine to Coarse SAND with Gravel (SW):
medium dense, brown
150
30 145
14 BORING DEPTH: 40.5 ft
Continued DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer • Rope and BACKFILL: Grout Cathead, 140 lb
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006 DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1. LOGGED BY: M. Paquette LOG OF BORING NO. 8 -3
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:IENGINEER\GIN'N'ROJECtS\3040.009SOLEDADGPJ LISRARY_1208050AK.GLB 7/2'JJ07 05<lt p 696
Project No. 3040.009 7-~ •
~
::::...w
Sheet 2 of 2
LOCATION: sgIedad Ci~ Plant
= w j:: '& N 2,044,352 .. 5,873,2 0 ci Q.
z· = -;t ...J z ~ ffi~u.i 0 :i - 0
f'.= a:m w a: ...JOa: SURFACE EL: 168.9 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum) I- I!! :. ...J w Q.(.):;) ~ Q. Q. ...J w :::.;::"' ~iii ~ Q. □
~ <o"' ....I
w "' .... ~ a!Q.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
:·~/~.':'· ~~ ~ ~
~{'.(\~( 6 t8 22
~ I
-
140 7
~ 12 Lean CLAY (CL): stiff to very stiff, grayish
30 ~ i brown, mottled brown
135
~ ~ -.-,-
~ Sa T (17) - with grave I, at 34'
35 Sb
~ 130
~ 9 -
X
18 40
- - End of Boring at 40.5'
125
45-
120
a: ... i1i~ (/)
!::: 8. ;f. C)W ~ J: ; Ia:i-" ~Gi oi!. "'"' (/)
~~ §ri:) o:i:· wz I!! ~iii si-: ~I!! o- 1-Q WI- >-c, a: ~8 _ :::;; "'z zc, a:- ;::z -'::; :s- ~ffi w 0~ 0 ~~ J:
u a. 0 g: b ~II)
............ .............. ....... ... ...... .................. .... .. ... .. ....... ............ . ..... .. .. .. .. . .
······ •" ······ ·······
....... ....... .. ..... . , .. .. .... .... . ... .. .. ··· · ···" '·"'''" ' ' " ••••••• ...... ............. . ....... .... .. ·· ·· · ··· ·· ·· · ··· ·••·· · ··· 86 38
.. ... ....... • · ·• ... ...... ....... .......... ,,,.. , ..., ..... ....... ..... .. ....... ....... .... .. .. . ... .. .......... ............. .... •••••• . . ·· · • ·· · • ..' ..' .. ...... .... ...... , ,,,.. ,, .. , ....... ..... •··· ·...... ........ ....... ................................ •· ·· ··........ .. . . . .. .. . .. ....... ......... , ................... , . ...... ...... .. ...... ...... .. .. . . . . . . .. . . · ·· ·· · • •·· • • ··•• • ·· · •· BORING DEPTH: 40.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Nol Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1.

DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safely Hammer - Rope and
Cathead, 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G'.\ENGINEER\GINT\PROJECTS\3040.009 SOLEDAD.GPJ LIBRARY_12080SOAJ<.Gl.B 712.'J/07 05:01 p 697
Project No. 3040.009 ~~ ■
~
S-..W
Sheet 1 of 2
LOCATION: Soledad City Plant a:::-
= z
0 i=
<(
Gi
..J
w
= :i
t
w
0 ..J ..J
~o
a:m
W:::i;
~>- ::,(I)
d
z
w
..J

0..
:::i;
~
w

0.. j::'~
cr:Z . ~ w::lW er: ..JOtr
UJ 0..(.);:)
..J :::i; 3:"' 0.. <Coen
~ (I) ..J~
C/) mo.

N 2,044,749 E 5,873,260
SURFACE EL: 169.0 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum)
!:: &.
~~ >-e> a:-
0~
.ft
a: .... wz i~0
(.)
(!)~
~w
enCl)(/)
~~ ;i{!u,
o*
Si-:
o-
:::;!
~
§1;'.j
t-o Vlz :5- 0..
uS~
iB cd
O:i
W I- Z(!)
~ffi
0~
C/)
!ii
w
la:
w
J:
b
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~(/)
Find SAND with Silt (SP-SM): very dense,
~ brown, dry
83 (high blowcount from cold cathead)
X
~
- gray, moist, below 2'
165
5 2 X 56
i..
90 8 Lean CLAY (CL): firm, gray, trace organics
(8)
Fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM): loose, gray Corrosivity
160
155
21 - Fine to Coarse SAND with Gravel (SW): • -
medium dense, gray
145 6 -
lX - very dense, at 24'
5 DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and
Cathead. 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
Continued BORING DEPTH: 40.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 18, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BOR1NG LOG OAK G:\ENGINEER\GlflffiPROJECTS\3040.009SOLEDAD.3PJ LIBRARY_1206050AK.GL8 7f2'JJ07 OS:01 p 698
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 2 of 2
C:
z·
0 i==
<
GJ
...J
w
¢::

J:
t
w
C
~5
a: al w ::::i; I->-
~(/)
0 z
w
...J
Q.
!
w
Q.
~ a:
w
...J
Q.

J
~[
ffi~w
...JQ!l:

0.U::>
::; ;:(/)
~o~ ..J a: al Q.

LOCATION: Soledad City Plant
N 2,044,749 E 5,873,260
SURFACE EL: 169.0 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
!:: 8. z · ::>~
>-(!) a:-
0~
'#- a:,.:
w z
i~
0 u
(!)W
~cf'j
(/)- (I)(/)
~8
~~
o'#- 5,..:
o-
:J ~
~
1:;i~
1-Q
~~ Q.
a:- u) ~ :c ; (l)C/)
o:c· WI- Z(!)
~ffi oil'.
z I- ::>(/)
(/)
I-
(/)
w
Ia:
w
i::
0 140
135
130
125
120
I
30 35
40 45
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
7a
7b
8 9
~
....
....
~
riri 1111 1111 1111
l!6
-
X
-
(42)
psi
16 .......
.. .....
113
. . .. . .
......
17 ··-·· · ·
. ......
· ·· -·· ·
.......
. . .... .
.. . . . . .
••• •• · ·
.... .... ,
· ··· -- • • · · •• •· · · • · · · ••
, ............ .........

Lean CLAY (CL): stiff, grayish brown, mottled
brown
- with sand, at 34'
- trace gravel, at 39'
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
. . -39. .
.......
.......
.......
.... , ..
.......
.. .....
.......
..48..
.......
•• •••••
.......
. . 32 ..
.......
.......
.. .. .' . . ' .
· ·1·.80· ·
. .. .....,
........ . .
. ' .. .. .. ... . . . ' .' . . ' .'
' .. ' . . . . ' .. . . . . . . . . . . .
... ' . . . .' .. . .. . . . , . . ..
.......... ............
...... ,
.......
..... ..
.. .. . ..
.......
..... . ,
.......
.... . .
.. , ...
..... .
...... "
.. . ..
.... ..
... . .. .
''""
.. .... .
. ..... .
.... · ·
, .. ....
.......
.. . .... ·
•· •· · · · ...
..........
......... .
······ · · ····· · · ••· ·· ··
.. . .. . . . . ' ' . . .. . . ' .. ..
......................
.................... . ,
• End of Boring at 40.5'
BORING DEPTH: 40.5 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 18, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1 .

DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and
Cathead, 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORING LOG OAK G:IENGINEERIGINTIPROJECTS\3040.009 SOI.EOAD.GPJ LIBRARY_1208050>\K.GLB 7123/07 06:01 p 699
-fiJDRD
Project No. 3040.009 .
=
~
•~....

C:
z C:
0 x
f--
D.
~ w
□ ...J w
...J ...J
~o
O:ai I:! ::;: <>- ::;:U>
d
z
w
...J
D.
(/)
~
w
D. j:::"[
o:Z . ~ w=>w 0: ..JOO:
w o..o:i ...J ~(/) D.
::;: ~ offl <( ..JO:
(/) al D.
~
Sheet 1 of 2
LOCATION: Soledad City Plant o:-
N 2,045,173 E 5,873,505 u'.jll ;I. (!)W :I: ; ~ !::: &. ~ (/) Cl) rJ) 0:...... z - ~G'.i c* w wz 1/l- §~ c:c· SURFACE EL: 172.8 ft+/- 0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum) ::,~ ~w (l)rJl si-: ~o w I- >-(!) o _::;: - <llz ZC!l a: o:- ~~ t8 ...J :::; w :5- □~ (.)
0 D. ~~ °'~ ca:: 0 z I- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ::,CJ)
Fine SAND (SP): very dense, light brown, dry,
with clay pockets
170
1 X 68
'--
42 1-- --~~,--- --------------1· ' ....,...... . .. ' ...... ....................' ....... ,.... ........ ..

Clayey SAND with Fine Gravel (SC): dense.
dark brown
165
12 - medium dense, brown, with clay pockets,
below 9'
160
" • · " • • • " • .. • • • • • " • • • • • • • • ·" • • • • • • • • • • " •Corf05iYlty- • • • • 13 155
23 Fine to Coarse GRAVEL with Sand (GW):
medium dense, subrounded
150
35 11
Fine to Medium SAND with Gravel /SP): dense
Continued
BORING DEPTH: 35.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and BACKFILL: Grout Cathead, 140 lb
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006 DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1. LOGGED BY: M. Paquette LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORtNG LOG OAK G:\ENGlNEER\GNnPROJECTS\3040.009SOLEDAO.3PJ LIBRARY_120805OAKGlB 7/23J07 05;0-1 p 700
Project No. 3040.009
Sheet 2 of 2
w = a. i=:'[ z· 0 = ~B z ffi~w ::i 0:: al w 0:: ...JOO:: I- W::::; ...J w a.u::i a. a. I->- ...J ::;;:!:(/) w ! ~ a. <(0(/) □ ~(I) ...J ::!: (/)...J~ w ~ al a. .• ~
.
.. . . 145 •
.
. . 7 • 1::8 34 .. 30- • . I
~
.-
• .
•
. 140 • .
•
• 8 32
35 t2 .. . ' ~
L.

LOCATION: Soledad Ci~ Plant
N 2,045,173 E 5,873,5 5
SURFACE EL: 172.8 ft +/-0.5 (rel. NAVD88 datum)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
brown
Clayey SAND (SC): dense, brown, mottled red
- End of Boring at 35'
!:: 8. z · ::i~
>-C> o::- 0~
0:: ... i'.5~
(!)W :r ; ~ If> (JJ 0:: *
i-: ?; Gi o;;.t wz (/)- (I)(/) si-: §~ 0 :r· t-o wt- o- <g CJ)z Z(!) i~ a.N ::::;~ 0 .fl.'lt :s- ~ffi (.) a. 0~ ~(JJ
... . . ..42 .. . . .. .. •· · ·••· ·
(I)
I-
(I)
w
I0::
w
:r
l5
135
40 130
45-
125
BORING DEPTH: 35.0 ft
DEPTH TO WATER: Not Measured
BACKFILL: Grout
COMPLETION DATE: November 17, 2006
NOTES: 1. Terms and symbols defined on Plate A-1.

DRILLING METHOD: 5-in. dia. Mud Rotary Wash
HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer - Rope and
Cathead, 140 lb
DRILLED BY: Gregg Drilling
LOGGED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF BORING NO. 8 -5
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
BORrNG LOO OAK G:\E.NGINEER\GINT\PROJECTS\3040,009 SOlEOAO.GPJ LIBRARY_1208050AK.Gl8 7/23J07 05:01 P 701
100
10 100
10 Black & Veatch rGRD
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
Cl)
(,)
C
J!
.!!
Cl)
Cl)
~
CL
i=
"ti
-~-;
..

E
0 z
i
I
E
Zone Soil Behavior Type
1 Sensitive Fine-grained
2 Organic Material
3 Clay to Silty Clay
4 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay
5 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
6 Clean Sands to Silty Sands
7 Gravelly Sand to Sand
8 Very Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
9 Very Stiff Fine-grained •
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California

0.2 0.4 0.6 2 4 6 8
Normalized Friction Ratio
•overconsolidated orcemented

CPT CORRELATION CHART
(Modified from Robertson, 1990)

KEY TO CPT LOGS
702
Black & Veatch
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
.,;
I
TIP RESISTANCE (l$1)
80 ,so 240 320 lt-------------~---------l
SLEEVE FRICTION (t,I)
4 6
l FRICTION RATIO(%)
1 2345 6789

MEASURED
PORE PRESSLRE (tsf)
10 15

ESTIIIATED
SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGrH (tnte,pnlled from CPT Tip Resistance.

Nk • 12lo 15) (ks!)
170
165
160
155
145
140
135
tJO
125
120
tt5
110
100
":... :.. ' ....... . . . . .
.-~---i-.·~-. ~- ..;' .·... • . .•.....
··········-······· ··:·•.---.--·=··•.· ...... : ..• :• .t...

LOCATION: E5873404 N2045226 (State Plane, NAD83, California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 172. 7ft (NAVD88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Sttu COMPLETION DEPTH: 13.1233ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Situ
TEST DATE: 11/21/2006 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF CPT-1
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
G;jobdocs\3040\3040.000 SoledadiGIS\t.lXD\CPT_mdb.mxd, 24/07/07 10:00. ..tong 703
Black & Veatch -r-GRU
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
LOCATION: E5873310 N2044533 (State Plane, NAD83, California Zone 4) Exploration Type; CPT SURFACE EL: 169.3ft (NAVD88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Situ COMPLETION DEPTH: 40.3ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Siju
TEST DATE; 11/21/2006 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
SLEEVEFRICTION (Isl)
2 6 1 2 3 -i 5 8 7 8 9 10 15
Nk • 121015)("")
LOG OF CPT-2
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
TIP RESISTANCE (tsn ESTIMATED
80 160 240 320 MEASlllED SOIL UN ORAiNEO SHEAR STRENGTH <1 11------------------~------<1 FRICTION RATIO("') PORE PRESSlRE(tsn (tnletpreted from CPT r., Resistance. 166
160
155
150
145
0 135
130
125
115
110
105
100
G:\joodocs\3040\3040.000 Solodad\GISIMXOICPT_m!b.mxd. 24ill7/07 10:01. w,ng 704
Black & Veatch
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
TIP RESISTANCE (ISi) ESTIMA.TED
80 180 240 320 MEASURED SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH "' f----.:.:...___......_c___.....::...:.....__-'.:,.----ll FRICTION RATIO ('I) PORE PRESSI.FlE (tsl) '
(lnlMpreted from CPT rip Resistance,
Nk = 12 to 15)(ksf)
SLEEVE FRICTION (151)
123458789 0 10 15
... .' .... L..i...
170 '-~···1--·:··! ... .. .. (·
·········--....,
. .
...····-····
166 ·-1---; ... :... f ...
180
--+·-----~--- ....:.....
• l:::T:"
150 ...... --1··--:----· l :
••...;. ...! ..

I ' • ! ,• . . . . . '.: •.>-:: • :;:' ....: ....i . ...:
-,It + + I ' ' - ' ' T ' ' ' ' : ' ::' : : :
20 t----0· - ····"----
+ -:·-1··-+· · "t·:t::::::::;: .....; .... t · · ··· --~·-····- . . . . . . ...:""" i · -- · ;···· ····<. 145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
.. .
. : ......., .... ......, ... .
-···i····i ·••)"•· · · ·-->... · ···-~---- ----~--
. • n . . .. . l. .. j____ •••••~• •• •• -•~,., • • ; . :

LOCATION: E5873685 N2044211 (State Plane, NAD83, California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 171.9ft (NAVO88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Situ COMPLETION DEPTH: 40.3ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Situ
TEST DATE: ·1112212006 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF CPT-3
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
G:\jobdocs\3040\J040.009 Sd<dod\GIS\MXD\CPT_trdb.m>Od, 24107/07 10:01. '1ong 705
Black & Veatch -r-GRD
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
166
160
155
160
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
TIP RESISTANCE (I.SI)
BO 160 240 320 .,11-------------~--------u FRICTION RATIO (%) SLEEVE FRICTION (lsf) f
0 123 .:1 56789

MEASURED
PORE PRESSLRE (IS~
10 15
ESTIW\TEO
SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (tnle,pretad fr'On\ CPTTip Resistance, Nk • 12 lo 15){W)
LOCATION: E5873258 N2044221 (State Plane, NAD83, California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 169.7ft (NAVD88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Situ COMPLETION DEPTH: 40.3ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Situ
TEST DATE: 11/21/2006
LOG OF CPT-4 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
G:lJObd<><s\3040\3040.009 Sol&dad\GIS1MXDICPT_rrdb.mlUI, 24/07107 10:01. '1ong 706
Black & Veatch -r-GRD
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
TIP RESISTANCE (t•Q ESTIMATED
MEASURED S()L UNDRAINEDSHEAR STRENGTH <! ll-----'IIO;::...___;._;t60"---_.::2:.;. 40:__ _ __:; l20...:....___ ~I FRICTION RATIO(%) PORE PRESSl.RE (!SQ (lnt6f'P{der:I from CPT Tip Re.si:stance, 170
160
155
150
145
140
l-135
130
125
120
115
110
106
100
LOCATION: E5873366 N2045136 (State Plane, NAD83, California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 172.8ft (NAVD88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Situ COMPLETION DEPTH: 50ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Situ
TEST DATE: 11/21/2D06 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
SLEEVEFRICTION (ts/)
20 : : : : : : : :.:
.....) __ ; ___: __ :_,.:_ __: ! ...

Nk = 12 to 15)(ksl)
·· ····7···•!.-~
··:::::::i:::+:J::T.:: :::::;:::::::::L::
...

LOG OF CPT-5
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
G;ljobdoc,\3040\3040.000 SOledad\GIS\MXD\CPT_rrdb.m,o, 24/07/07 10:02. '1ong 707
•
Black & Veatch -,..liR D ~ October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009) TIP RESISTANCE (l,l)
00 160 24-0 32() -,11-------------~----------il
[ SLEEVE FRICTION (1,l)
~
165
160
155
150
145
135
130
125
45 115
110
FRICTION RATIO ('l,)
123456789

MEASUREO
PORE PRESSU1E (ISQ
10 15
ESTIMsTED

SOILUNDRAINEDSHEARSTRENGTH
(lnterpr816d from CPT r., Resistance,
Nk:c12lo t 5) {ksf)
•• •••••'.••·•• ••h ; ••••
.....:..... ·---~---·· ~
:::::::: :::..~~: }:~: ~.
100
105
·••i••t :•·•······ •: : i~ii~ ii:!f'~li!li /· ! •• !l~i u ...., .. ~ : • :·:; r::~)•"h •·· +:!:: tit•
LOCATION: E5873264 N2044946 (State Plane, NAD83, California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 169ft (NAVD88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Situ
COMPLETION DEPTH: 31 .6ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Situ
TEST DATE. 11/21/2006
LOG OF CPT-6 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
G:ljobdocs\3040\3040.000 Solcdad\GISIMXfficPT_mdb.m><d, 24/07107 10:02, ,tong 708
:
:

Black & Veatch
October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009)
TIP RESlSTANCE (Isl)
80 180 240 320
SLEEVE FRICTION (tsl)
FRICTION RATIO (%) MEASURED
POREPRESSLRE(IS~
ESTI~ TED
SQlUNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH
(Interpreted from CPTTIIP Reslscanoe,
Nk = '2 lo 15)(1<,1)
170
105
160
15 155
150
145
12 ◄ 5 9 10 15 ........_.__.__ ; .....
.. + .. r ..,... •. --~~- ~--
·+ ,···· ·:;;;;=!=~
···•i«••t····i .; .:: :::T. ... +··
140
135
130
125
: ; ; ; : ; : : :
::~.:·;··r·~---r·r·i·.,: .
- ; -·•--..: ···'. -~i..·-~·:.x·_
. . . ..,........• ..
:::: ::~~ ::~~: ::: , ,;,.,. OOH+••••
120
115
110
105 ::::::::!::::;::: ...:.___ J • .,
··:·-··
: : 0 00 00 000:0000 0 •·••tHOO
100
LOCATION: E5873606 N2044730 (State Plane, NAD63, California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 172.1ft (NAVD88) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Situ COMPLETION DEPTH: 32.1ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Siju
T EST DATE: 11/22/ 2006 REVIEWED BY: M . Paquette
LOG OF CPT-7
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad , California
G:\ obd~ Ci:°OOil Soledad\OS'MXO\CPT_mdb.mxd, 24107/07 10:02, vto,,g 709
: •• ; !.: :.: :
;.II •1 •~ ._,
Black & Veatch -Ji.GRD . October 2007 (Project No. 3040.009) TIP RESISTANCE (tsf) ESTIMATED
80 160 240 320 MEASURED SOIL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH _, 1------------------------- Resistance. ' Nk • 12 to 15)("51)
SLEEVE rnICTION (1$1)
2 • 1 2 456789 10 15
;":.. ·•••••· ·+· ....... ·f····~---··
110 • I.( • i "t ' •• .....~ •• ·-·~•--• '. ....
165
160
155 -~~-)::;::: ):::tr· --:---:--·... ··;-..;··:·
50 . :::~
·'~cc:
:;::~ ::?:~·-
--~"'N'/!:
1:'"""
.. :. ::::::: 1 . ...
··.--' ··••···'·
··!··--r-..··•·........ , .... ........
145
Ul:%ii:.
40 :r'r'j
135 ::/lllW 130
·:···:... •+·,··i·
1511------·--~-·•r---l-,-~,-+--,-,.....,.....,...+.. ~':'.---,.; ...f · H--~..:.. 125 ·· ·-·,····.··
.. ;....:.. .. ....... :.'-····: ..;··:·:·+:··\
120
.. l . 15
OO!f--,--;..+-'--,-'-'"""'-'--'-.c....-,-t-,-;--+--'-,-,-11-~---,---,-·,··11·~,•~·'·,·~·+~~:;;rti::i:1;,~---..~'·_--~-+~·---•-i_,__-+---l--'---l ....j . 110 :: ru:::,J,.:. c:., ,r,,.L.,;
,..; ~if[J:::: .•••l• - •t ..-...... • ·•<.-.. ---·-:-........~·· .........r···:···· :~:~:~::·: ....... ~ .,1 ....i.~···· ···· :····'!'""'"'."' ----~· ··-l- ... • ..... ;----: ....
100 :::::+: 1,.....,....i,···. ····--···t·
............. + .. ·+:·+-.......

LOCATION: E5873603 N2044362 (State Plane, NAD83. California Zone 4) Exploration Type: CPT SURFACE EL: 172ft (NAV088) PERFORMED BY: Gregg In Siju
COMPLETION DEPTH; 30.5ft OPERATOR: Gregg In Situ
TEST DATE: 11/22/2006 REVIEWED BY: M. Paquette
LOG OF CPT-8
Soledad WWTP Upgrade and Expansion
Soledad, California
G:tjol>doa,13040\3040.000 So/&dadtGIS\MXD\CPT_mdb.mxd. 24/01/07 10:00. "•"9 710
CJ>
·" "
0 ID"' "'
0 0
I
w
z
rn
Cl:'.
:::,
>-
0 z
3:
~ ::;
u
~
z
0 ~ ::.
'.5
u
w
Cl:'.

Cl:'.
i
w
0 ~ w
0 -' 0
U)

BORING LOCATION MAP

SOLEDAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY

WIND TURBINE
34520 Morsoli Road
Soledad, California
BJS71NG auu:mc
NQTESc·
I. HO ?AD APEA
.2. P•ll ,',fiE,, ES111M TE:> Fill. YAHfMi:£ =200 er l. ACCESS ROAi) ES11WATED YAROACE cur rMoAer =,3~ er FILL Y.iRD.AGE - JllO CY ~. Tl«L ME: OL1LOI~!; PAO 'SlrE: tlEE:D'S $1.lK'VEt -Ye?{;, -YCJ< FJ..;AL(?E.

I
I
f
J
1 2,,
r
[
f
I
I
J
Base Map Provided by Patrick and
Henderson, Inc., September 25, 2013
LEGEND
T Boring Location (Approx.)

NOTTO SCALE
4378 Old Santa Fe Road Earth Systems Pacific San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8116 (805) 544-3276 • FAX (805) 544-1786
E-mail: [email protected]
October 3, 2013 QF SL-17099-SA 711
- -
MAJOR GROUP 0 Earth Systems Pacific DIVISIONS SYMBOL
BORING
LOG
LEGEND

SAMPLE/SUBSURFACE

WATER SYMBOLS

CALIFORNIA MODIFIED

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SHELBY TUBE
BULK

SUBSURFACE WATER

DURING DRILLING

SUBSURFACE WATER

AFTER DRILLING
GRAPH.

SYMB01
-
•
D
0 :y
sz

BLOWS/FOOT
Cl) GW
_J
5 ~wl!f GP
Cl) a:m - o fll
0 GM
w ~ ~@i
z u. (!) Ill
Oo 8 GC u.:::i ij
(9
~ J: ;,!~! 0 SW
w !~ffi SP Cl) ~!!!~
<t:
0:: ~ !11 :5 SM
0 0 SC
Cl) ML
_J w
5 ;,!W N _men CL
Cl) a:o w ~ .... Gi
0 ~fil cii OL
w u.8 8
z ~~ ~ MH OQa: a: I ~ ::.o CH (9 a:~ a: Orn~ w OH
z ~~~ u: -fl)
PT

SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC
FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC
FINES
GRAPH.

SYMBOL
l .... o,..,o'"'o
000000
o'""onor
Dvo"- n
tlij~·1•• ....
p,9\!i•.. WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO .. FINES ..

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES
.. ····.·- "··. ... ·.,,.,,
'''\ CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES -~ ·~

INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SIL TYTI CLAYEY

FINE SANDS, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLAS CITY I

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ~ . - .. - ORGANIC SIL TS AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW . - .. - . .. - .. - PLASTICITY ' - .. -.

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY, SIL TY SOILS, ELASTIC SIL TS 1111 I

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC
~'!-••-·· ·-··-·· - SILTS .::::.::::.:

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 'v 'v 'v

OBSERVED MOISTURE CONDITION
DRY I SLIGHTLY MOIST . I MOIST I VERY MOIST I WET

LITTLE/NO MOISTURE I JUDGED BELOW OPTIMUM I JUDGED ABOUT OPTIMUM I JUDGED OVER OPTIMUM I SATURATED

TYPICAL CONSISTENCY

COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS

BLOWS/FOOT DESCRIPTIVE TERM SPT
LOOSE 0-2
MEDIUM DENSE 3-4
DENSE 5-8
VERY DENSE 9-15
16-30
OVER30

GRAIN SIZES

DESCRIPTIVE TERM CA SAMPLER
0-3 VERY SOFT
4-7 SOFT
8-13 MEDIUM STIFF
14-25 STIFF
26-50 VERY STIFF
OVER50 HARD
SPT
0-10
11-30
31-50
OVER50

CA SAMPLER
0-16
17-50
51-83
OVER83
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING I #200

SILT & CLAY
FINE

MAJOR DIVISIONS

EXTREMELY HARD

VERY HARD
HARD

MODERATELY HARD
SOFT
VERY SOFT r
f
~ ;;;
f MAJOR DIVISIONS
i FRESH
- SLIGHTLY WEATHERED -~
f MODERATELY
., WEATHERED
f
i INTENSELYWEATHERED

DECOMPOSED
#40 # 10 #4 3/4" 3" 12"

SAND GRAVEL

I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE

TYPICAL ROCK HARDNESS

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

COBBLES BOULDERS
CORE, FRAGMENTH OR EXPOSURE CANNOT BE SCRATCHED WITH KNIFE OR SHARP PICK; CAN ONLY BE CHIPPED

WITH REPEATED EAVY HAMMER BLOWS
CANNOT BE SCRATCHED WITH KNIFE OR SHARP PICK; CORE OR FRAGMENT BREAKS WITH REPEATED HEAVY

HAMMER BLOWS
CAN BE SCRATCHED WITH KNIFE OR SHARP PICK WITH DIFFICULTY (HEAVY PRESSURE); HEAVY HAMMER BLOW

REQUIRED TO BREAK SPECIMEN
CAN BE GROOVED 1/16 INCH DEEP BY KNIFE OR SHARP PICK WITH MODERATE OR HEAVY PRESSURE; CORE

OR FRAGMENT BREAKS WITH LIGHT HAMMER BLOW OR HEAVY MANUAL PRESSURE

CAN BE GROOVED OR GOUGED EASILY BY KNIFE OR SHARP PICK WITH LIGHT PRESSURE, CAN BE SCRATCHED WITH FINGERNAIL; BREAKS WITH LIGHT TO MODERATE MANUAL PRESSURE CAN BE READILY INDENTED, GROOVED OR GOUGED WITH FINGERNAIL, OR CARVED WITH KNIFE; BREAKS WITH

LIGHT MANUAL PRESSURE

TYPICAL ROCK WEATHERING

TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

NO DISCOLORATION, NOT OXIDIZED
DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION IS LIMITED TO SURFACE OF, OR SHORT DISTANCE FROM; SOME FRACTURES PRESENT; FELDSPAR CRYSTALS ARE DULL
DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION EXTENDS FROM FRACTURES, USUALLY THROUGHOUT; Fe-Mg MINERALS ARE "RUSTY"; FELDSPAR CRYSTALS ARE "CLOUDY"
DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION THROUGHOUT; FELDSPAR AND Fe-Mg MINERALS ARE ALTERED TO CLAY

TO SOME EXTENT OR CHEMICAL ALTERATION PRODUCES IN SITU DISAGGREGATION DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION THROUGHOUT, BUT RESISTANT MINERALS SUCH AS QUARTZ MAY BE UNALTERED; FELDSPAR AND Fe-Mg MINERALS ARE COMPLETELY ALTERED TO CLAY 712 ------------------------
Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 1
LOGGED BY: R. Wagner PAGE 1 OF 3
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Auto Hammer JOB NO.: SL-17099-SA AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation: 967 ft+/- DATE: 08/13/13

SOLEDAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY SAMPLE DATA CJ)
CJ) _J WIND TURBINE >- 0 _J f- CJ) i!: :;,, ::i (ll 34520 Morsoli Road UJ f- a.. Q) (.) <t: UJ _J UJ ui 0::: CJ):Z $ 0 UJ .)!! CJ) 2 Soledad, California >:;,, Zc;:::- ::i ~ 0 0 0::: Q) a.. a.. $ ;;; 0~ _J (.) >- UJ u LL CJ) CJ) UJ .)!! 2 >- o.3- ~c Oo::: (ll f-~ <t: f- _J UJ 0:::
::i CJ) >- 0 (ll a.. g UJ
@@ lb @~@©~O~uO@OO 0::: 2 z a.. 0 '-O--l--1,-,.,,.,.,.,.,._-------------------+-----+-----I--+---+----+-----. _ SM • • • • SILTY SAND: olive brown, loose, slightly moist 1 ,._ - • • • • r,. (Alluvium)
- '------------ 2 ,._ - : : : : r,. gray
- '. '------------ 0.0-4.0 0 3 :::: olive
: ,..._ : : : ______________________y_ 2 5 SP '
·:_· ... POORLY GRADED SAND: gray, loose, wet, fine ~ 5.0 - 6.5 86.0 40.7 3 4 grained to very fine grained -
3 . ·.··•
a ..-·:·
9 10.0- 11.5 - 90.6 30.7 4 7 interbedded with thin lenses of SANDY SILT 6 11 12 13
14 J.--
medium dense, trace fine to coarse gravel 4 15 15.0- 16.5 96.6 23.9 9 17 13 -
16 17
··•:
18 4 FAT CLAY WITH SAND: light olive gray, stiff, very 20.0 _21.5 - 82.4 38.7 10 17 moist, very fine grained sand 10 6 25.0-26.5 84.6 38.3 10 18
11 -
LEGEND: - Ring Sample Q Grab Sample D Shelby Tube Sample 8SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies ot the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ ot other locations and times. 713 Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 1
LOGGED BY: R. Wagner PAGE 2 OF 3
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53 with Auto Hammer JOB NO.: SL-17099-SA AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation: 967 ft+/- DATE: 08/13/13 ~ UJ (/J a::

Zc
UJ u (/J ~~ o.S
>- 0
a:: ~
0 LEGEND: 11111111 Ring Sample Q Grab Sample D Shelby Tube Sample SOLEDAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY SAMPLE DATA (/J WIND TURBINE ...J (/J ~~ ~ 0 34520 Morsoli Road ...J I- a.. (!) () Ill UJ (/Jz s 0 ~~ ...J UJ >- UJ JE (/J Soledad, California a.. a.. s;; 0 0 a:: (!) 0 ~ () ...J LL ~ > Oo:: (/J 1------------------------l UJ I- JE (/J <( 1 Ill 0:: - ...J UJ ::) z (/J OJ a.. g UJ z a..

FAT CLAY WITH SAND: as above
4 30.0 - 31.5 11111111 82.5 37.7 7 14
9 4

35.0 - 36.5 11111111 80.2 41.5 5 11
8 medium stiff
•
3 40.0 - 41.5 4 14 LEAN CLAY: gray, stiff, very moist, trace fine sand 6 2 45.0-46.5 • 4 13
5 2

50.0- 51.5 • 4 11 medium stiff 4
.SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification or actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times. 714 Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 1
LOGGED BY: R. Wagner PAGE 3 OF 3
DRILL RIG: Mobile 8-53 with Auto Hammer JOB NO.: SL-17099-SA AUGER TYPE: 6" Hollow Stem Auger Surface Elevation: 967 ft+/- DATE: 08/13/13 en
en _J
~ z- ~ 0 a. Q) t) ID
w-2! 2
0~ en
t) >- en en
::i
-
CL -
55 56
- ~
SP
- ~ .. ·; .. -
57 .. .. - ... ·.
58 -

SOLEDAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY

WIND TURBINE
34520 Morsoli Road
Soledad, California
@@0[1, @~@©~□ lPvD@OO
LEAN CLAY: as above
----------------------1- POORLY GRADED SAND: brown, loose, wet, fine grained
_J
<(
>:;:;- 0::: Q)
w -2! I- ~
~

55.0 - 56.5

SAMPLE DATA
>-
!:: w w en 0::: enz _J w a. a. Zc- ::i ~ w u ~~ 2 >- 0~ ~~ Oo:::
<( I- _J w en >- i5 ID a. 0::: 2
0 0
0 • 4
en I- ~ 0
0 0 _J LL ID 0::: 0 w z a.
6 59
-
60 -
.... _ ------------------------ SW r:~~ WELL GRADED SAND: light brown, medium ii dense, wet
61 -
62 -
63 -
{{~~
End of Boring @ 61.5'
Subsurface water encountered between 4.5' and

19.5' and@ 55.5'

60.0 - 61.5 •
4 7
11 25
64 -
65 -
66 -
67 -
68 -
69 -
70 -
71 -
72 -
73 -
74 -
75 -
76 -
77 -
78 -
79 -
BO
-
LEGEND: - Ring Sample Q Grab Sample D Shelby Tube Sample • SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of octuol conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.

Subsurface conditions may differ ot other locations ond times. 715 Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA BULK DENSITY TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2937-10 (modified for ring liners) September 8, 2013

BORING DEPTH MOISTURE WET DRY
NO. feet CONTENT,% DENSITY, pcf DENSITY, pcf
1 6.0 - 6.5 40.7 121.0 86.0
1 11.0 - 11.5 30.7 118.4 90.6
1 16.0-16.5 23.9 119.7 96.6
1 21.0 - 21.5 38.7 114.3 82.4
1 26.0 - 26.5 38.3 117.0 84.6
1 31.0 - 31.5 37.7 113.6 82.5
1 36.0 - 36.5 41.5 113.5 80.2
716
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA MOISTURE-DENSITY COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557-12
PROCEDURE USED: A September 8, 2013
PREPARATION METHOD: Moist Boring #1 @ 0.0 - 4.0'
RAMMER TYPE: Mechanical Olive Brown Silty Sand (SM)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed)
SIEVE DATA: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 103.2 pcf
Sieve Size % Retained (Cumulative) OPTIMUM MOISTURE: 14.3% 3/4" 0
3/8" 0
#4 0
-
CJ
a.
>-~
....

UJ
z
w
C
~ C
97 96
95 f··+·· .........
··++·· .....
' ' ' !
' !
' '
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOISTURE CONTENT, percent
Compaction Curve Zero Air Voids Curve
717
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63/07; D 1140-00/06
Boring #1 @ 6.0 - 6.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Cu= 2.8; Cc= 1.4
September 8, 2013
Sieve size
3/8" (9.5-mm)
#4 (4.75-mm)
#8 (2.36-mm)
#16 (1.18-mm)
#30 (600-µm)
#50 (300-µm)
#100 (150-µm)
#200 (75-µm)
% Retained
0 0
0 0
0 11
73 91
% Passing
100
100
100
100
100
89 27
9 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
100 10 0.1
GRAIN SIZE, mm

0.01 718
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63/07; D 1140-00/06
Boring #1 @ 16.0 - 16.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Cu= 8.1; Cc= 3.1
September 8, 2013
Sieve size
3/8" (9.5-mm)
#4 (4.75-mm)
#8 (2.36-mm)
#16 (1.18-mm)
#30 (600-µm)
#50 (300-µm)
#100 (150-µm)
#200 (75-µm)
% Retained
0 4
7 38
80 86
90 93
% Passing
100
96 93
62 20
14 10
7 U. S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
(!)
z
en
en
<(
a..
~
z
w
u
0::
w
a..
1:: H:-+:~~:_:1::-+-:~:=·•+·=··_···=·+-··=·-···=•+· ·=·-···=··_··=··+· =--...-:-=--.::_-:=-+.....::++,·.:t.:J,_:+,::-··+·+-·-__::i-·_;:-- ..-..+.+-1-..-...-.-..·-+*.-=--,·--.··,··--·_·- ...--·-·+··+-t~J_••( ·-·'.;!=~J}...4 80 ' ......................
70 H+~==l==t:==l===t::=:::::=::::~:1:::=::::=:::::=:::::~:::1:+_:::::=l=t,_:_::t=: __ ➔--__::r:t=-+.:;:=::::-,..::t=::::-~:;;: ___:___:_:_::-::,:::......... ::~::x:: i f.·1_~FAE~i~~~Af:ftfffj~f:f~~f:.l~:~.=J.. 80 50 40 t::i:t:1:::::::::t::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::n:::;:::;::::t::::::::::::1::::::::::::1:::::::::::::::::::::;:ti::1:::::::::1::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::tffl:t·· 100 10 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE, mm
719
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63/07; D 1140-00/06
Boring #1 @ 26.0 - 26.5'
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
September 8, 2013
LL= 51; PL= 13; Pl= 38
Sieve size
3/8" (9.5-mm)
#4 (4.75-mm)
#8 (2.36-mm)
#16 (1.18-mm)
#30 (600-µm)
#50 (300-µm)
#100 (150-µm)
#200 (75-µm)
% Retained
0 1
1 2
2 9
21 29
% Passing
100
99 99
98 98
91 79
71 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
100
90 80
70 (!)
z
en 60 rn<
Q.

I- 50
z
w
u 40 0::
w
Q.
30 20
10 GRAIN SIZE, mm
720
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA PLASTICITY INDEX ASTM D 4318-10
September 8, 2013
1 1

26.0- 26.5' 45.0 - 46.5'
51 45
13 16
38 29
Plasticity Chart
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
60 50
40 ~
Qi
't:I
.... =
....
-0 30 u....
.....
<ll
-~
20 10
0 721
led ad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D3080M-11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) Boring #1 @ 11.0 -11.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Ring sample, saturated
September 8, 2013
INITIAL DRY DENSITY: 90.4 pcf
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 30.7 %
PEAK SHEAR ANGLE(¢): 29°
COHESION (C): 296 psf
SHEAR vs.NORMAL STRESS
3,000
2,500
2,000
-(/)
C.
en
en
w
0:: 1,500 Ien
0::
<(
w
:c
en
1,000
500
0 A _,,,,,,,,
V /
/
i
; V
..,,/
/
/2
V /
/
/ V
V ./
/fi
__,./
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NORMAL STRESS, psf
722
ledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA DIRECT SHEAR continued ASTM D 3080/D3080M-11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) Boring #1@ 11.0 -11.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Ring sample, saturated
September 8, 2013
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed)
SAMPLE NO.: 1 2 3 AVERAGE

INITIAL
WATER CONTENT,% 30.7
DRY DENSITY, pcf 89.3
SATURATION,% 95.4
VOID RATIO 0.853
DIAMETER, inches 2.410
HEIGHT, inches 1.00
ATTEST

30.7 91.1

99.7 0.816

2.410

1.00 30.7 30.7

91.0 90.4

99.5 98.2

0.817 0.829

2.410

1.00 WATER CONTENT,%
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SATURATION,%

VOID RATIO
HEIGHT, inches
2,000
1,500 ....
1/)

0..
en
en
w
0:: 1,000 Ien
0::
<(
w
::c
en 500
0 35.3 36.1 37.8

89.9 92.8 96.5
100.0 100.0 100.0

0.840 0.782 0.714

0.99 0.98 0.94
I
I
)--- --l.--+-- --~-- --- -- -- I I - I
I - I
I -
........, I --- -- -- I
I / I - - - - - - ~
- , - 1-1- - I I
I - -- I ✓ - I i
I
-- I
, / I --.--,, I ,
,
, I -- -
~
,.. I--- I ,
V - I
'

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION, inches
--- -- ------
- """"'~- -
I
!
--486psf
---971 psf

0.25 723
ledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D3080M-11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) Boring #1 @ 16.0 - 16.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Ring sample, saturated
September 8, 2013
INITIAL DRY DENSITY: 110.0 pd
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 13.5 %
PEAK SHEAR ANGLE ((2!): 28°
COHESION (C): 312 psf
SHEAR vs.NORMAL STRESS
3,000
2,500
-tJ)
C.

Cl)
UJ
w
0:::

IUJ
0:::
<C
w
J:

UJ
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 V
0 V
V
u..,.V
~v
500
/
_,V
v'
v ...... ,,,,,,......
/ ./
V u
1,000 1,500
NORMAL STRESS, psf
V ✓
_,/
2,000
/ V
v
2,500
724
ledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA DIRECT SHEAR continued ASTM D 3080/D3080M-11 (modified for consolidated, undrained conditions) Boring #1@ 16.0 - 16.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Ring sample, saturated
September 8, 2013
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed)
SAMPLE NO.: 1 2 3 AVERAGE

INITIAL
WATER CONTENT,%
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SATURATION, %

VOID RATIO
DIAMETER, inches
HEIGHT, inches
ATTEST

13.5 110.5

72.0 0.497

2.375

1.00 13.5
111.0

73.0 0.490

2.375

1.00 13.5 13.5
108.6 110.0

68.5 71.2

0.522 0.503

2.375

1.00 WATER CONTENT,%
DRY DENSITY, pcf
SATURATION,%

VOID RATIO
HEIGHT, inches
2,000
1,500 ....

U)
C.
ti)
ti)
w
ix: 1,000 tti)
ix:
<(
w
:::c
ti) 500
0 0.00

18.6 17.9 17.8
110.8 112.3 112.6
100.0 100.0 100.0

0.492 0.472 0.469

1.00 0.99 0.97
--500psf
---1,000
psf
I
I
I
~," l,' ~
_,,.~
I'
/
/
Ir"
I I
I
I
I
' I 17·-- I I

I I ,, -- -- --- -- -- I
I -1--·· I -- ,,r
' I ,,
/
I ,
I I / r-- I ,__ --- I I ,, - _... - I -- - .... - ,::.. -~',:J" I I - I
~ ,::....- I
I
VI I
I I
I

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION, inches
725
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA UNCONFINED COMPRESSION ON COHESIVE SOIL ASTM D 2166-06
Boring #1 @ 21.0 - 21.5'
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
Ring Sample
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: 27 psi (3,940 psf)
September 8, 2013
Dry Density: 82.4 pcf
Moisture Content: 38.7%
Degree Saturation: 100%
Specific Gravity: 2.70 (assumed)
H/D Ratio: 1.68
TIME
(MINUTES)
DEFORM, in
( X 1000)
AXIAL
STRAIN
AREA
{SQ. IN.)

APPLIED

LOAD (LBS)

STRENGTH
(PSI)

STRENGTH
(PSF)

0.5 31 0.0078 4.46 36 8 1,161

1.0 69 0.0173 4.51 78 17 2,492

1.5 106 0.0265 4.55 105 23 3,323

2.0 141 0.0353 4.59 118 26 3,700

2.5 177 0.0443 4.64 126 27 3,914

3.0 212 0.0530 4.68 128 27 3,940

3.5 248 0.0620 4.72 124 26 3,781

4.0 281 0.0703 4.76 111 23 3,355

4.5 315 0.0788 4.81 88 18 2,635

5.0 351 0.0878 4.86 68 14 2,016

5.5 390 0.0975 4.91 50 10 1,467

6.0 424 0.1060 4.96 31 6 901

6.5 460 0.1150 5.01 20 4 575

7.0 495 0.1238 5.06 13 3 370

7.5 531 0.1328 5.11 10 2 282

8.0 600 0.1500 5.21 5 1 138
726
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA UNCONFINED COMPRESSION ON COHESIVE SOIL ASTM D 2166-06
Boring #1@ 36.0 - 36.5'
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
Ring Sample
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: 24 psi (3,454 psf)
September 8, 2013
Dry Density: 80.2 pcf
Moisture Content: 41.5%
Degree Saturation: 100%
Specific Gravity: 2.70 (assumed)
H/D Ratio: 1.68
TIME
(MINUTES)
DEFORM, in
( X 1000)
AXIAL
STRAIN
AREA
{SQ. IN.)

APPLIED

LOAD (LBS)

STRENGTH
{PSI)

STRENGTH
(PSF)

0.5 31 0.0078 4.46 28 6 903

1.0 61 0.0153 4.50 46 10 1,472

1.5 93 0.0233 4.54 56 12 1,778

2.0 123 0.0308 4.57 65 14 2,048

2.5 154 0.0385 4.61 71 15 2,219

3.0 185 0.0463 4.64 78 17 2,418

3.5 215 0.0538 4.68 83 18 2,553

4.0 245 0.0613 4.72 90 19 2,746

4.5 277 0.0693 4.76 96 20 2,904

5.0 307 0.0768 4.80 100 21 3,001

5.5 338 0.0845 4.84 105 22 3,125

6.0 368 0.0920 4.88 110 23 3,247

6.5 399 0.0998 4.92 115 23 3,365

7.0 429 0.1073 4.96 118 24 3,424

7.5 458 0.1145 5.00 120 24 3,454

8.0 488 0.1220 5.05 118 23 3,368

8.5 518 0.1295 5.09 115 23 3,254

9.0 548 0.1370 5.13 106 21 2,973

9.5 578 0.1445 5.18 98 19 2,725

10.0 610 0.1525 5.23 86 16 2,369

10.5 641 0.1603 5.28 73 14 1,993
727
ledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL---17099---SA CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 243S/02435M---11
September 8, 2013
Boring #1@ 6.0 --- 6.5'
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
Ring Sample
DRY DENSITY: 88.0 pcf
MOISTURE CONTENT: 40.7%
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed)
INITIAL VOID RATIO: 0.880
VOID RATIO vs. NORMAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM

1.000 I ' I I I [ J,_i-1+----------+1--1---r-----t-----t--li---l---+i-+l___--+-1__I --+--+1----+----t--+I_IHi I I

0.950

0.900
V
0 D
R
A
T
0 0.750
I I I I I i
c-----+-----+i--+-----+-1----+-I-,'-+-t-+------+-----+1--tl-+--+-'-t-+-+l-+i----'i----+---1-+i----+------+-+1-~ I I I I !

I I I I
I i I I I i I i I I

I I I I I I
1-------+--------+----+-----+---:--+--I ,=::::1:1:=======,====:==:=:!=:=+--:,---+-+--I:~::~~~~~~:~~~-=-1~~-=-~~lt----.--t~--++-------:___,---:__,----i +--------+--+-I-+-,,----+i--+-+------;------;---+------+--------+------+-+---i----+----+!-t-1+-+------+--+---------+--+-,-+-·--+-+I-+L-l ... f--------t------+--+l-+---1-+--I--+I---+--++'----+------+--+-------+-----+------+---__j,-t---+----------+l-~1---+-------t--+I-+---+-H ii I I I I I I i

I I I I
I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I
i I I !
i I I
+------------+l--+---------+-----+------+-t----t----t:-t1----+-i!------+--+--------+-I-+--+------•-+-+------+--l----'-.-I----+----+--il----+----+1---, I I i ! I I

I I I I I I I I I
•----calcttlated nitia~-ra'"'u.lr-',,___.;-+i------+----+----,c----',.,c::co"'tUra~-~.~.1-----------l-l--+!_1-----------+----11_;-+-------+'--;---+-----+--+-I-+;--+-+---i, f------------+----------t--tl-+-+------.,.•----+--t---+------+-------+--+I----+!----+----+------j-1---+---I---+--------+---+-+----lt-----+-l--i-l-- f------------+----------t----+-------+-----i-""""l"---!,.;i:-----t--------t-------------+-+----+-----1--t-r------+------+--+-------+-----t------+---+-t----i I I i ! 1 - ! r-,---+-----+l-----il-+----+------+----+--t--1--·~~.+---1 -+-----t------+-----+---+-+---i-------+------+1--+---------+----il----+i---+-H

0.850 +-----,--+--I-+-+-+--+---+I_,1-+------+-1-+---_--....-"!'·----l---------1---t-+---t---+'-------t--------t-l-+--------+-------+11----+---I---1--'rl 1-------+---------+----+-----+------+----+-+---+--+------------tl--+--------+-I_.....-+-=,...J' 1-I++I-----t------+----+-----+-+-i--t----+----1 I -,~_µ__ I I I
1-------+-'-----+----+----+--+-l-+----+---l-+l_-+-__---+l--+-----------+------+-------if-H---7~---+l_ _,__-+-------1-+------+-+-~ I I I I I I LLl]:::9.~_ _,_ 1 --------+---+----+-I---+-~1-'+-JI 1--------t------+----+l-+----+----I. II I I I I I " I I I i I I I 11 ' I I
1--------t------+1--+1-+----+---I---+1--+-+-+----+------+•''----::::::---±------t---! --.+.I-,-,,tT I "1 1--------+---------+----+l_..__1-+-I-+1---+-+I-+I------+'--+-----1+-----+l--+I~·.. I I ' • I ! I I ! I I I 1 ! I ·----+--------+-1r-11--+---+---H I I
I I I I 0 .800 -,---------;--+-I-+----+---+---+-I ~1-+----t-------<--------+1--+-----+----11--+-+---i +-+----+------+----+--------+-1----+--!--<----!--l

I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I ! I I I I I
I I I I I I I I i
I ! i I t
I I I I I I •

I I I I I I
I I I I I i I I I I I I
I I I I I i , I I I
+-------+--+------++-+--+----+---'-+-+---+------+------+l----+-----+---1---+----+I-J-+-+----+-'--t-1-t-'----t-1------11----,--i-+---i i I I I I I I I i I I I _J
: I I I I I : : I I I I I -~
---+--+-1--+l-+----fi_---+----i'-++1___-+1__+---1-+-----t-------+-t---+1-t-i1-----++---+1-+!----l----i---1 lffllI :, 1, I 11! ·I .111111 1' I I 1 I • • : • • • • ·---+r-+------------+-----+l----+l-+----;----•-H-l-1+-I----J---------i:--+---+---~I+ - 1 l 1 I 1· 1 11 1 , 1 , 1 j____l 1 1
o.7oo +1----'-----------'----L______~____,__,__1---'-+.----'-----------'----L______L-1----i1.------'----1-'----'-'---1+-, 1---------'----'---------'-----'1'-----'-1. I -01

0.1 1 10 100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS, ksf
728
ledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435/D2435M-11
September 8, 2013
Boring #1@ 21.0 - 21.5'
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
Ring Sample
DRY DENSITY: 81.0 pcf
MOISTURE CONTENT: 38.7%
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.70 (assumed)
INITIAL VOID RATIO: 1.082
VOID RATIO vs. NORMAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM

1.100 -,

1.050
V
0 D
R 1.000
A
T
0 0.950
I I I
I I I I I I I +I-+-i---l\r---i-1--+-1-+1---+--+l-+--+1--tri1

1.1 50 ~,---~-~-~1~1~1-~ I I 1 ' I I
I I I -+I-+------+--1--+-+--t-l-+-+-+-+1-+----j-'--+---+--+---+1-+I-+-!ril 1-----+I---'--+--+I___.;_ I I --+-+-----+----+-+---+---+--+-+l+fl I I I I ___-+--1! ---+-'-+--+--+l·--+--+-H i i

I I I I I I I I
I I !
1-----+1----+--+--+---+-I-t--,---+-+----+!----+-t--1-t-+-r-+-+-+----+---+--+I--,--tl-t--+--ri I I I I I I ! l I i I I : , : I ! I I , I I , :mI
f------+---11---l---!--+---+-+-1, -l-i-1-----l----!---l--1--+--!--+-+-+-I---+1 1 ---tl--+--+---+-1 I I I I I I I I
pakulate.d ,~.. ,~,.,, !;,< cati,·l>'h--+1---+-f·-·!--+:-+----f----+--t----+--t:-i-:-+!-!-,:j-1---+,----+1--+---+-1-+--+-+-+1I,- i i I I I -t-'+'----+---ll--+--+--l+--1+-+-+-I I
1-------+-f--'---+---!--+-+-+-+-+----l-l'---!--+--+--+-+--+l-+-+-1---+l----+--+--+--l,1 _ ~-I-+
I ! I I I I I
I I i I I I I !
--l------+-+---+-+l--+-8•-cil-+-I+-----+------11_ __,l--++I-+'-11·-+--+-+I___-+-!--+--+I--+1--+I-+'-+--+1- 1 I-,..._ I I I I I I I 1-------+-----+I-+-I-+--+-f-i"°"i'k-+--'-...--+---+l--+--+----+--+1-+--+,+I----ll--+--1-+-:,--+:-+--+--t-+- I I -._ I i I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I
I I I .......... I
1-----+I_ _,_ __,!_ _,__,___..,___.,._,_,____-+__~e• ! I I i I ""'1,--+--+--+--+---!-+-----+1----+--+--+-+--+,-+-_4-+-H 1-l---+l----+---+----+--+-+-+-+~l----+----+-I~,- I I
-+-----+----+l--+---+---+-1-,++I-+------+---+'----1'..~-+-+---t--+-+----+-'--+-I-+-+-+--+l--!--+'---+-11 f--------J----+--+---+---+--+-+-++-------+--+----!--'-'l- I I I ! ! I I '• ! I .~~H
! I ' -. I I I I i I ! I I I I I\ I I I I
-+---+-1--+'--+---+--+-I-+--:\-+----+---+---+:---+1---+-\~'-+-~r---+:---,:f----1i-+-+-:-f--+-+-, f--1------+1-----+1--+1----+---+i__l---+-+I+I---+--+I-+I---+--+-+I\',l-t-f----f--1--lf---+--+---'-'-!--,-;-+ I I I ! I I I I ! I I I ! I I \ I ! I
-f-----t----t--+--+--+---+,--+-1++----+---+-1 -+-, --+--+--+--t--1,\-t--,---+:--1--+1-:-----1-t--+-H 1 I I I I ! I
--+---+I----+--+--+-!--+--+-+-+--+-------<l--+-1-+-,--,.,--,.l-+--+1-,l-1,---,411 I I I I \ i I I I I ' I I I I I ! 1 i I i I I I \ ' I :------+1----'f----+---+-l--+I--1le-+l-+--+i----+---+--+i---+--+1-+-1-+1-++·~\,--\--l--+-+-I-+---+1--+1-+-,,-+i-t-J I
I ! f I I I I I \ ! I I I i I I I I I r·-f--f------t-,---+--+---+--+--+l-+-+-1+L---\c\--+1--,!--,-+---+-+-i-+,-++-+-+ II +-------+--+---+I---+--+!-+--+l-+-'lf------+----+--+--+--le--+1-,I_J_l_____--_--_-\-\~~'-I-_-_---+-+-_-_-++-,,=;1=;=~1_:;:_-1--1

0.900 1------+1----ll--+---!-I-+--i•..L 1 1 1 I 1 'I I I I \ ! I 1 1 1--------+----l--+---+--+I--!__T+!-r--+!____l!--!-_-_•N-1-c-li--ti-tL_+,~I-:;_+---!~1-=-:=-=-:=--:=--\~\l+-i=-=-:=-=---'-~1--_-=:-:=-:+-=-_-+r-:-___+-i~ 1------7·--l--,----'!--+--1 I I I lc:=1:::f11 •- 1=¥1, -- . ~1\. I I , I I I , - ~'-.-+---+--+--t-!--H J >-i---~'----+--+--+-I--+--+l--+-+-l-----,1__+-1-+--1-t--t- +-+-+----+1-_e'----+--+---+-++-f--++-1-1 ! I ! I I I I I I I ! I I f-------+-,--+--+!-+-!-+-l-t-+-l++l------f------+-l-+--1+--+-, i-!-----+-1-+----+-i---+-+-+-H I I --i-l-+-+1----+---+-,,-+l--,-t-+l-+-1!--!----+l---+--+-ri!--+--+--iriri I

0.850 +-,____j___ _l__ll__.LI--L-+-..L.L-+'-----'-1 __.J._ 1_.i._1----'--'---'---L 11__ 1,_+-___.,LI-----'--'I_L_I--'-_J_-·L_L-J

0.1 10 100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS, ksf
729
led ad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA CONSOUDATION TEST ASTM D 243S/D243SM-11
Boring #1 @ 26.0 - 26.5'
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
Ring Sample

1.050

1.000

0.950
V
0 D
R 0.900
A
T
I
0 0.850

0.800

0.750
September 8, 2013
DRY DENSITY: 84.2 pcf
MOISTURE CONTENT: 38.3%
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.70 (assumed)
INITIAL VOID RATIO: 1.001
VOID RATIO vs. NORMAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM
i
I I I
I I
I I
I I I
I
I
"-calculatedfitiaL4ic:Lra•i.-.

I
I I ',
I I
I I I
I
I I i
i I I I I ! I i I I i i I

I I I I I
' I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I i
I I I I I I l
i I

I I I I
I
I I I
I I
i I I I
I
I I I
I I
I i
I I I
I
I
I i I
I i I
i I
-' I

0.1 i I I I
I I I I I I I I i I I
I I I I ' I i

I I I I I I I
l I
i
I I i I
I I I i

I I I I I I I I
! I I I I i I I i I I i
I I I I I I e,..._ I I I I I I-....__ I I
I I ., I
I '-... I I
+ 1'-... I I
I ---. I I

I ' I I I
I I "\. I J_ I I
I "\. I
1'. I
I'\. i I I I I
I I
I
• I
I I
i I I I\ I I I \i I
I ,\
\ I I I I ,\ i
! I \I I
f-- I I I I I I I
-r I I I ' I
i ' I i\
•
I I I \
I ! \ i - I I \ I
I i I -, I
I I I I \ I I I I i I I
• i ' I
I
- I I I ! i I I
I -;- I I I I I
•,.,.___ --- I I I I I
I I i I -..-...._ L
I I

I 'SJ I I I
+ I I ,..__ I
I I I r-.

I
I I
I
IT I
! I i I I I I I i I i I I I I
i I i
-....._
\ !
\ I
\
\
\
\
\I
-....._ _\
~-
I
I
n
I
Iii I

I --- '
I I I l
I I
i I

I I I I
I ' I

I I I I
i
I I I
I ----
i I
I i
I i I
I I
I
I
: I I
I I
I
I 41 I
I I r -+
I +~1-
I I
I I i I I I I
I
I I i I I
I I

I I I I I
I I
I I
i I
I
J I '
i I
I
I i
I
I I

I I I I I

I I I I
10 VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS, ksf
100
730
Soledad Water Reclamation Facility Wind Turbine SL-17099-SA ASTM D 2435/D2435M-11
Boring #1 @ 36.0 - 36.5'
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
Ring Sample

1.150

1.100

1.050
V
0 D

1.000
R
A
T
I
0 0.950

0.900

0.850

0.1 I
,,11t1atvdmat J
I
!
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
•- I
-. - I 1- I I
• I
I "-
'
I ' •
\
I "
' '\
' :=, \
I
' ' I 'e
\
\
= ' I I
• - - --
-· -...... I
-- I I •~ I I I ,._
I
I
I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I
10 VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS, ksf
I
I
I I
I
I
I
\
\
\ I
\
\
\ I
\
\
\
\ I
I
\
\ I
--.L!..

I -
I
I
I
I
I
September 8, 2013
DRY DENSITY: 79.2 pcf
MOISTURE CONTENT: 41.5%
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.70 (assumed)
INITIAL VOID RATIO: 1.129
VOID RATIO vs. NORMAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM
100
731
Califcrnla State Certified Laboratory No. 2153 CERCO ~ analytical 12 September, 2013 1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A
Job No.1309000 Concord, CA 94520-1006
Mr. Judd King
Earth Systems Pacific
Cust. No. 11 974 925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775
www.cercoanalytical.com
4378 Santa Fe Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Project No.: SL-17099-SA
Project Name: Soledad WRF Wind Turbine
Corrosivity Analysis -ASTM Test Methods
Dear Mr. King:

Pursuant to your request, CERCO Analytical has analyzed the soil samples submitted on September 03, 2013. Based on the analytical results, this brief corrosivity evaluation is enclosed for your consideration.

Based upon the resistivity measurements, both samples are classified as "corrosive''. All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.

The chloride ion concentrations ranged from none detected to 50 mg/kg. Because the chloride ion concentrations are less than 300 mg/kg, they are determined to be insufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mo1tar coating.

The sulfate ion concentrations ranged from 69 to 1,000 mg/kg and are determined to be sufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar-coated steel at these locations. Therefore, concrete that comes into contact with this soil should use sulfate resistant cement such as Type n, in accordance with the California Building Code requirements with a maximum water-to-cement ratio of

0.55. The pH of the soils range from 6.74 to 8.87 which does not present corrosion problems for buried iron, steel, mortar-coated steel and reinforced concrete structures.

The redox potentials range from 310 to 470-mV. Sample No.001 is indicative of aerobic soil conditions.

Sample No.002 is indicative of potentially "slightly corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic soil conditions.

This corrosivity evaluation is based on general corrosion engineering standards and is non-specific in nature. For specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations or consultation, please call JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. at (925) 927-6630.

We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if you require farther information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

JDH/jdl
Enclosure 732
California State Certified Laboratory No. 2153
CERCO
analytical
Client:

Client's Project No.:

Client's Project Name:

Date Sample-d:

Date Received:

Matrix:

Authorization;
EarthSystems Pacific
SL-17099-SA
Soledad WRF Wind Turbine
13-Aug-13
3-Sep-13
Soil
Signed Chain ofCustody
1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A
Concord, CA 94520-1006
925 462 2771 Fa.x. 925 462 2775
www.cercoanalytical.com
Date ofReport: 12-Sep-20 I3
Job/Sample No. Sample l.D. .

Redox
(mV) pH
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)*
Resistivity
(100% Saturation)
(ohms-cm)
Sulfide
(mg/kg)*
Chloride
(mg/kg)* ~
Sulfate
(mg/kg)*
. -
1309000-00 l Bl @0'-5.0' 470 6.74 - 510 - 50 1,000
1309000-002 Bl @ 50.5'-51.5' 310 8.87 - 970 - N.D. 69
Method: ASTMDl498 ASTMD4972 ASTM 01125M ASTMG57 ASTM 04658M ASTMD4327 ASTM D4327 Detection Limit: - 10 - 50 15 15 -
I0-Sep-20 I3 I I -Sep-2013 - I I-Sep-2013 I l-Sep-20 13 Date Analyzed: I0-Sep-2013 - • Results Reported on • As Received" Basis
N.D. - None Detected
Che~~k~,(
Laboratory Director
Oua litv Control Summary - All laboratory quality control parameters were found to be within established limits PageNo. I 733

APPENDIX IV
2024 Laboratory Test Results
734

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineeririg, D esign and Construction Services Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24/24
Technician: SPV
MOISTURE-DENSITY TESTS - D2216/D7263
1 2 3 4 5
Sample No. A-24-001-
3A
A-24-001-
5A
A-24-001-
8A
A-24-001-
10A
R-24-002-
1A
USCS Symbol SP SP SP CH SP-SM
Depth (ft.) 4 8.5 21 31 1
Sample Length (in.) 5.946 5.948 5.369 4.880 5.944
Diameter (in.) 2.395 2.361 2.399 2.383 2.354
Sample Volume (ft3) 0.01550 0.01507 0.01404 0.01260 0.01497 Total Mass Soil+Tube (g) 1050.3 1082.2 1101.3 928.6 1106.9 Mass of Tube (g) 272.8 284.9 280.3 272.6 279.2
Tare No. 122 124 105 D4 152
Tare (g) 14.7 14.3 14.0 13.7 14.2
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 77.0 88.8 88.8 81.3 93.0
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 72.6 79.9 73.2 62.2 85.4
Dry Soil (g) 57.8 65.6 59.2 48.5 71.3
Water (g) 4.5 8.9 15.6 19.0 7.6
Moisture (%) 7.7 13.6 26.3 39.2 10.6
Dry Density (pcf) 102.7 102.7 102.0 82.4 110.1
Notes:
735

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineeririg, D esign and Construction Services Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24-5/30/2024
Technician: SPV
MOISTURE-DENSITY TESTS - D2216/D7263
1 2 3 4 5
Sample No. R-24-002-
3A
R-24-002-
7A
R-24-002-
8A
R-24-002-
9A
R-24-002-
12B
USCS Symbol SP-SM CH CH CH ML
Depth (ft.) 4 16 26 31 45.5
Sample Length (in.) 5.977 5.594 5.290 5.071 3.725
Diameter (in.) 2.344 2.379 2.396 2.401 2.390
Sample Volume (ft3) 0.01492 0.01439 0.01380 0.01329 0.00967 Total Mass Soil+Tube (g) 1012.5 980.3 978.4 949.4 799.0 Mass of Tube (g) 280.8 275.0 279.5 277.1 278.2
Tare No. 9013 152.0 K18 G7 G23
Tare (g) 114.2 14.2 13.6 13.4 13.5
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 334.6 67.8 70.6 74.7 76.3
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 292.5 49.3 53.9 56.9 60.8
Dry Soil (g) 178.4 35.2 40.3 43.5 47.4
Water (g) 42.1 18.5 16.7 17.8 15.5
Moisture (%) 23.6 52.5 41.4 40.8 32.7
Dry Density (pcf) 87.4 70.9 78.9 79.2 89.5
Notes:
736

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineeririg, D esign and Construction Services Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24-5/30/2024
Technician: SPV
MOISTURE-DENSITY TESTS - D2216/D7263
1 2 3 4 5
Sample No. R-24-002-
12A
R-24-002-
13A
A-24-003-
1A
A-24-003-
3A
A-24-003-
5A
USCS Symbol ML ML CL CL CL
Depth (ft.) 46 51 2 5 11
Sample Length (in.) 5.510 5.392 5.931 5.570 6.005
Diameter (in.) 2.388 2.394 2.380 2.385 2.363
Sample Volume (ft3) 0.01428 0.01405 0.01527 0.01440 0.01524 Total Mass Soil+Tube (g) 1017.6 991.5 1167.3 1038.0 1155.3 Mass of Tube (g) 274.7 279.2 273.2 223.1 272.0
Tare No. H22 A12 C19 2015 9018
Tare (g) 13.6 13.8 13.9 114.6 115.4
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 81.0 75.9 98.7 321.3 319.7
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 63.5 58.3 91.7 283.2 287.1
Dry Soil (g) 49.9 44.4 77.7 168.6 171.8
Water (g) 17.5 17.6 7.1 38.2 32.5
Moisture (%) 35.1 39.7 9.1 22.6 18.9
Dry Density (pcf) 84.9 80.0 118.4 101.8 107.5
Notes:
737

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineeririg, D esign and Construction Services Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24/24
Technician: SPV
MOISTURE-DENSITY TESTS - D2216/D7263
1 2 3 4 5
Sample No. A-24-003-
9A
A-24-004-
1A
A-24-004-
5A
A-24-005-
1A
A-24-005-
3A
USCS Symbol SP CL SP CL SC
Depth (ft.) 31 2 11 1 4
Sample Length (in.) - 5.736 - 5.822 5.962
Diameter (in.) - 2.372 - 2.382 2.393
Sample Volume (ft3) - 0.01467 - 0.01501 0.01552
Total Mass Soil+Tube (g) - 1090.4 - 1216.3 1253.0
Mass of Tube (g) - 241.5 - 238.3 285.9
Tare No. C19 B18 2005 2019 G7
Tare (g) 13.9 13.8 121.7 124.8 13.4
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 93.6 85.3 331.2 265.3 81.3
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 86.9 73.0 327.0 257.0 76.3
Dry Soil (g) 73.1 59.2 205.3 132.2 62.9
Water (g) 6.7 12.3 4.2 8.3 5.0
Moisture (%) 9.1 20.9 2.1 6.3 8.0
Dry Density (pcf) - 105.6 - 135.1 127.3
Notes:
738

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineeririg, D esign and Construction Services Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24/24
Technician: SPV
MOISTURE-DENSITY TESTS - D2216/D7263
1 2 3 4 5
Sample No. A-24-005-
5A
A-24-006-
1A
A-24-006-
3A
A-24-006-
5A
USCS Symbol SC SC SC SC
Depth (ft.) 11 2 5 11
Sample Length (in.) - 5.979 5.294 -
Diameter (in.) - 2.401 2.397 -
Sample Volume (ft3) - 0.01567 0.01383 -
Total Mass Soil+Tube (g) - 1157.7 1106.2 -
Mass of Tube (g) - 240.4 239.2 -
Tare No. C4 122 B18 A9
Tare (g) 13.6 14.2 13.7 13.9
Wet Soil + Tare (g) 83.2 86.3 78.4 88.3
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 77.8 80.8 74.0 79.8
Dry Soil (g) 64.2 66.5 60.2 65.9
Water (g) 5.4 5.5 4.4 8.5
Moisture (%) 8.4 8.3 7.3 12.9
Dry Density (pcf) - 119.2 128.8 -
Notes:
739

Crawford
& Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering, Design and Construction Services Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24/24
Technician: AOM
200 Wash - ASTM D1140
Method A
Max Particle Standard Sieve Recommended
2 mm or less No. 10 20 g

4.75 mm No. 4 100 g

9.5 mm 3/8 " 500 g

19.0 mm 3/4 " 2.5 kg

37.5 mm 1 1/2 " 10 kg

75.0 mm 3 " 50 kg
Table from 6.2 of ASTM D1140
Sample No. A-24-001-6A A-24-001-7A R-24-002-3A R-24-002-5A R-24-002-15A USCS Symbol SP SP SP-SM SP SP
Depth (ft.) 11 16 4 7.5 61
Tare No. 9007 1009 9013 X26 X23
Tare (g) 114.6 126.69 114.17 116.47 117.14
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 283.33 292.71 292.52 280.34 289.22
Dry Mass before (g) 168.7 166.0 178.4 163.9 172.1
Dry Mass after (g) 162.0 159.8 167.6 159.8 164.3
Moisture (%) 20.6 23.2 23.6 22.9 17.8
Percent Fines (%) 4 4 6 2 5
Notes:
740

4.75 mm No. 4 100 g

9.5 mm 3/8 " 500 g

19.0 mm 3/4 " 2.5 kg

37.5 mm 1 1/2 " 10 kg

75.0 mm 3 " 50 kg
Table from 6.2 of ASTM D1140
Sample No. A-24-003-3A A-24-003-5A A-24-003-6A A-24-004-5A A-24-005-2A USCS Symbol CL CL SP SP SC
Depth (ft.) 5 11 16 11 2.5
Tare No. 2015 9018 X11 2005 X19
Tare (g) 114.6 115.35 116.37 121.66 114.1
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 283.15 287.13 367.08 326.96 307.66
Dry Mass before (g) 168.6 171.8 250.7 205.3 193.6
Dry Mass after (g) 30.8 68.2 242.8 199.2 138.0
Moisture (%) 22.6 18.9 2.8 2.1 5.2
Percent Fines (%) 82 60 3 3 29
Notes:
741

4.75 mm No. 4 100 g

9.5 mm 3/8 " 500 g

19.0 mm 3/4 " 2.5 kg

37.5 mm 1 1/2 " 10 kg

75.0 mm 3 " 50 kg
Table from 6.2 of ASTM D1140
Sample No. A-24-005-4A A-24-006-3A
USCS Symbol SC SC
Depth (ft.) 5.5 5
Tare No. X19 23213
Tare (g) 115.77 129.16
Dry Soil + Tare (g) 303.95 325.31
Dry Mass before (g) 188.2 196.2
Dry Mass after (g) 107.2 149.0
Moisture (%) 8.4 6.7
Percent Fines (%) 43 24
Notes:
742

Crawford
S, ASSOCIStSS, Inc. Geotectncel Engtneenng. Design end construceaon serVK:es - ,~ - ..... ~
......... ........ ..

I\,
' I\
~ .
\
\
~
' \
' ' ' ...___
•
Percent Passing by Weight
Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
CAInc File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24/24
Technician: AOM
Sample ID: R-24-002-6A
Depth (ft): 11
USCS Classification: Poorly-graded Sand (SP)
ASTM 6913 - Method A
Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size (mm)
% Cobble % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt/Clay
0 5 4 37 51
0 5 92 3
Sieve # Opening
mm
Cummulative
Mass Retained (g)
% Passing
%
Cobbles 3" 75 0.0 100%
Gravel
Coarse
2" 50 0.0 100%
1-1/2" 37.5 0.0 100%
1" 25.0 0.0 100%
3/4" 19.0 0.0 100%
Fine
1/2" 12.5 0.0 100%
3/8" 9.50 7.3 96%
#4 4.75 9.3 95%
Sand
Coarse #10 2.00 15.0 91%
Medium #20 0.825 38.4 78%
#40 0.425 78.4 54%
Fine #60 0.250 131.9 23%
#100 0.150 158.9 8%
Silt/Clay #200 0.075 166.4 3%
Cu = 3.2 Cc = 1.0
Moisture (%)
20%
Coefficient of Uniformity Coefficient of Curvature
743

Crawford
& Assoc1stes. Inc. GeocecMcel en91neenng. oes1gn end construcbOn servaces /
/ /
/
~
~ ,
,, I
I/ I -
/
/ / ~
/ / ' ~
~
/ ,_V /
/ ('
i,,,,,,,,
/ ,
/ ♦
/
I/ ,
/ V ' / /
I' ,
/ t v~ - ... - I V / •
/ ■
/ ♦
A
~
"A " L i n e
Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/29-6/4/2024
Technician: AOM
Plasticity Index - ASTM D4318
Sample ID Depth (ft) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit PI
A-24-001-11A 36 101 36 65
R-24-002-7A 16 80 32 48
R-24-002-8A 26 113 36 77
R-24-002-9A 31 88 33 55
R-24-002-12B 45.5 42 28 14
80 70
60 50
CH or OH
"U" Line
Plasticity Index (PI)
A-24-001-11A
R-24-002-7A
R-24-002-8A
40 30
20 CL or OL
R-24-002-9A MH or OH
R-24-002-12B
10 CL-ML ML or OL
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plasticity Chart
744

Crawford
& Associates. Inc
aeouclncel eng,ne~ oee,gn, and CONtruct,c,n Set'veee
Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/24/24
Technician: SPV
Sample ID: A-24-001-10A Depth (ft): 31.0
USCS Classification: Fat Clay (CH)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST - D2166

14.0 12.0

10.0 8.0

6.0 4.0

2.0 0.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Axial Strain (%)
Dry Density (pcf) 82.4
Water Content (%) 39.2
Unconfined Compressive 12.1 Strength (psi)
Unconfined Compressive 1742 Strength (psf)
Average Height (in) 4.880
Average Diameter (in) 2.383
Rate of strain (%) 0.5
Strain at Failure (%) 6.2
Notes: Compressive Strength (psi)
745

Crawford
& Associates. tnc G60C<lehnocel eng,ne~ oes,gn and conacrucu,n srvcee Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/30/24
Technician: SPV
Sample ID: R-24-002-7A Depth (ft): 16.0
USCS Classification: Fat Clay (CH)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST - D2166

18.0 16.0

14.0 12.0

10.0 8.0

6.0 4.0

2.0 0.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Axial Strain (%)
Dry Density (pcf) 70.9
Water Content (%) 52.5
Unconfined Compressive 16.6 Strength (psi)
Unconfined Compressive 2390 Strength (psf)
Average Height (in) 5.594
Average Diameter (in) 2.379
Rate of strain (%) 0.5
Strain at Failure (%) 6.7
Notes: Compressive Strength (psi)
746

Crawford
& Associates. tnc G60C<lehnocel eng,ne~ oes,gn and conacrucu,n srvcee Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/29/24
Technician: SPV
Sample ID: R-24-002-9A Depth (ft): 31.0
USCS Classification: Fat Clay (CH)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST - D2166

30.0 25.0

20.0 15.0

10.0 5.0

0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Axial Strain (%)
Dry Density (pcf) 79.2
Water Content (%) 40.8
Unconfined Compressive 28.1 Strength (psi)
Unconfined Compressive 4046 Strength (psf)
Average Height (in) 5.071
Average Diameter (in) 2.401
Rate of strain (%) 0.5
Strain at Failure (%) 5.0
Notes: Compressive Strength (psi)
747

Crawford
& Associates. Inc
lncel ~ oea,gn, Mid cone truCt10n Set".'Cee
Project Name: Soledad Recycled Water Conveyance
Crawford File No: 24-1057.1
Date: 5/30/24
Technician: SPV
Sample ID: R-24-002 13A Depth (ft): 51.0
USCS Classification: Silt (ML)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST - D2166

20.0 18.0

16.0 14.0

12.0 10.0

8.0 6.0

4.0 2.0

0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Axial Strain (%)
Dry Density (pcf) 80.0
Water Content (%) 39.7
Unconfined Compressive 17.9 Strength (psi)
Unconfined Compressive 2578 Strength (psf)
Average Height (in) 5.392
Average Diameter (in) 2.394
Rate of strain (%) 0.5
Strain at Failure (%) 6.6
Notes: Compressive Strength (psi)
748
I I
1 I 1 11 1
I I I I I I ' I I I! I I I - I j"I , ! I I ....___ ,-......, ......... l....
;-,,. ..._
·~ I\
I\.
\ ' I
\
\ ....... , .... \ ' r-1
~ \
""'-r,,
I J
I I I ■
~ GEOCON
,!l_O~N SULTAN'f S ..!.!:!Jl
CONSOLIDATION TEST - ASTM D2435

STRESS VERSUS STRAIN
Project Name
Geocon Project Number
Boring Number
Sample Number
Sample Description
Soledad Recycled Water
S9763-05-285
MR-24-002
Shelby 11 (40-42')
Greenish Gray lean CLAY
10 100
Effective Consolidation Stress, psf
1000 10000 100000
-1.0

1.0 3.0

5.0 7.0

9.0 Axial Strain (%) 11.0

13.0 15.0

17.0 Axial Load, psf Void Ratio Axial Strain, % Measurement Initial Final initial 1.215 0.00 Height (in.) 0.750 0.654
100 1.215 0.00 Moisture Content (%) 40.4 33.8
250 1.211 0.16 Dry Density (pcf) 77.2 88.6
500 1.209 0.28 Saturation (%) 91 100
1000 1.203 0.53 Note:
2000 1.190 1.11 Gs = 2.74 (assumed)
4000 1.173 1.90
8000 1.146 3.12
16000 1.082 6.01
32000 0.968 11.15
64000 0.833 17.24 3160 Gold Valley Drive, Suite 800
16000 0.895 14.44 Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
4000 0.950 11.96 tel. 916.852-9118 fax. 916.852.9132

Page 1 of 3 ends

Soledad City CouncilMay 21, 2025

Soledad City Council
May 21, 2025