Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3466; OLIVENHAIN RD WIDENING & REALIGNMENT; SOIL & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION; 1995-03-01
I 3LJ(, I S I , I ..I I I SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR I OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE .• CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I : • I U • PREPARED FOR I . PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA I • S •1 I / PREPARED BY S I GEOCON INCORPORATED SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA GE000N 0 INCORPORATED Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists / Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 ri Project Design Consultants 701 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Mr. Brad Smith Subject: OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a soil and geologic investigation for the proposed Olivenhain Road improvement ,project, located at the southern boundary of Carlsbad, California. The project will involve building a new widened road and installing a bridge structure, as well as constructing a dike off-site within the adjacent Encinitas Creek. The accompanying report presents our discussion, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the planned improvements, as well as the field and laboratory, analysis upon which they are based. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very ly yours, - GOONI T vi F. e i d au R. /Zr/ci/a RCE 225 CEG 1778 RCE 42132 RRG:AS :DFL:dmc (8) Addressee (2) Simon Wong I Attention: M 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego, CA 92121-2974 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 AU 0 'Creve w __ - C I ct,wu i—il I SADA No. 225 i NO.1778 u) DINVIG II Exp.12-3197 )JJ GEOLOGIST Ii OF / I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................1 I SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................2 I SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..................................4 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) .........................................5 Slopewash (Qsw) ...............................................5 ,Alluvium (Qal) ..................................................6 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) ............................................6 Delmar Formation (Td) .........................................7 L GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ................................................7 GROUNDWATER ................................................7 I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .............................................8 Landslides..................................................8 I Faulting and Seismicity ............................................8 Liquefaction ................................................11 AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................13 I CONCLUSIONS General...................................................13 Groundwater............................................ ...... 15 ' Soil and Excavation Characteristics .................................15 Remedial Grading ............................................... 16 Grading.......................................................17 I . Bulking and Shrinkage Factors ......................................20 Slope Stability ................................................21 Settlement ................................................23 I . Foundations ...................................................23 Lateral Loads .................25 ScourDepth ...................................................25 Pavement Design ............................................... Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................28 26 Slope Maintenance ..............................................28 I LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS . . . I,. . .. I . . . . t .. . . TABLE OF CONTENTS ( C o n t i n u e d ) LIST OF MAPS AND IL L U S T R A T I O N S Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figures 2A 2B, Geologic M a p s Figures 3A - 3B, Cross-Sections A-A' an d B - B ' Figure 4, Construction Det a i l f o r G e o t e x t i l e P l a c e m e n t Figure 5, Typical Stability Fill Detail Figure 6, Surficial Slope St a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s - Fill Slopes Figure 7, Slope Stability, Analysis -.Cut and Fill Slopes Figure 8A, 8B and 8C, Cha r t s o f A l l o w a b l e P i l e L o a d s v s . D e p t h o f E m b e d m e n t Figure 9, General Bridge P l a n H APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-i A-7, Logs o f B o r i n g s APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST R E S U L T S Table B-I, Summary of In- P l a c e M o i s t u r e - D e n s i t y a n d D i r e c t S h e a r T e s t R e s u l t s Table B-H, Summary of Pla s t i c i t y I n d e x T e s t R e s u l t s Figure B-i, Gradation Curv e Figures B-2 - B-3, Consolidation Curves APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION ANALY S I S APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANA L Y S I S - BUTTRESS DESIGN Figures D-1 - D-4, Cross Sections APPENDIX E . CALCULATIONS FOR P A V E M E N T S E C T I O N S APPENDIX F. Logs of Previous Borings a n d T r e n c h e s f r o m S o i l a n d G e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n , P r e p a r e d b y Geocon Incorporated on Ju n e 1 8 , 1 9 9 0 APPENDIX ,G Laboratory Test Results fr o m S o i l a n d G e o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n , p r e p a r e d b y G e o c o n I n c o r p o r a t e d on June 18, 1990 . .. APPENDIX H RECOMMENDED GRAD I N G S P E C I F I C A T I O N S .4 I I I 1 I Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a soil and geologic investigation for the proposed Olivenhain Road project and associated improvements located at the boundary of the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to observe and- sample the existing and subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site and to provide recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the roadway and bridge as presently proposed as well as for the construction of the proposed off-site dike. The scope of our services included a geologic reconnaissance of the site by a senior project engineer, as well as the excavation of 6 small-diameter borings. Logs of the exploratory excavations and other details of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. The logs of the exploratory excavations prepared for our Soil and Geologic Investigation 'for Olivenhain Road Improvements, dated June 18, 1990, are presented in Appendix F. Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained during the field exploration at various depths in the excavations. The laboratory tests were performed to evaluate various pertinent physical' characteristics. The tests performed 'included moisture and density determinations, direct shear strength, consolidation, and grain size characteristics. A summary of the laboratory tests performed and the results of tests are included, in Appendix B. ' -1- Project No. 05466-12-01 March21, 1995 Appendix F presents the logs of exploratory excavations performed during the preparation of our Soil and Geologic Investigation for Olivenhain Road Improvements, dated June 18, 1990. The results of laboratory tests performed as apart of that same study are provided in Appendix G. In addition, the following plans, reports, and aerial photographs were reviewed: Published and unpublished available geologic literature pertaining to the subject site: 1953 stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site and surrounding areas. Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance for Olivenhain Road Alignment Carlsbad, California, prepared by Gèocoñ Incorporated, revised dated August 4, 1989. 4 Supplemental Soil and Geologic Investigation for La Costa Ranch-Southwest I and II Areas, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 28, 1989. Soil and Geologic Investigation for Olivenhain Road Improvements, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 18, 1990. Plans for the Grading and Improvement of Olivenhain Road, scale 1 inch equals 40 feet, sheets 1, 4, 5, and 11, prepared by Project Design Consultants, first plan check submittal; dated 1992 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located at the southern boundary, of Carlsbad, California. That portion of Olivenhain Road proposed to receive the improvements currently consists of a 2-lane, asphalt paved roadway trending generally east-west and extends froml Camino Real approximately 1300 feet to the east. The immediate area surrounding the site is characterized by a generally south facing hillside gently -2- I, I Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 I to moderately sloping towards a drainage trending generally east-west on the southern boundary. An approximately. 5 to 15 feet high 1:1 (horizontal:'vertical) cut slope exists at the northwest portion of I the site. The site is bounded by El Camino Real on the western boundary, an improved 4-lane I .section of Olivenhain Road on the eastern boundary and undeveloped property on the northern and southern boundaries. Several relatively-shallow underground utilities including sewer, water, gas, I telephone, and a fuel line cross or run parallel with the existing portion of Olivenhain Road. The elevations of the existing road surface range from a high of approximately. 92 feet above Mean Sea I Level (MSL) in the eastern portion of the site to 'a low of approximately 80 feet MSL in the western portion. of the site. I The area proposed to receive the dike is. located in the Encinitas Creek, adjacent to the south and I along the boundary between the cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas, in the city of Carlsbad. This area is presently covered with abundant brush and vegetation. The topography of the creek within the I planned dike area is very gentle, descending toward the center from high elevations of 110 feet MSL on the north and south ends to a low elevation, of 102 feet MSL in the center of the creek. :1 A review of the progress plans prepared by Project Design Consultants, entitled Plans for the Grading and Improvements of Olivenhain Road, indicates that it is proposed to construct a new, I widen road for a length of approximately 1,380 feet, shifting the center line by up to 110 feet to the I . north. The proposed Olivenhain Road realignment will encroach into the existing slope requiring a cut slope with an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and a maximum height on the order of 33 i . . I I I Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 S I.. I feet. The proposed cut slope will have a length of approximately 1,000 feet. The improvements at Olivenhain Road will consist of the construction ,f a 4-lane roadway with a width of 126 feet. Part of the proposed improvements will also include the construction of a bridge section to widen the existing El Camino Real Bridge at Encinitas Creek. The bridge will be widen by approximately 40 I feet along the east end at the intersection with El Camino Real. It is anticipated that the bridge will I be supported on end-bearing driven piles. The piles will be Caltrans Class 45C at the abutments and Class 70C at the center pier. S. The dike will be constructed with fill soils having fill slopes at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) with a maximum height of approximately 13-feet. The proposed dike will have widths of 30 feet at the weir section and 102 feet at the embankment footprint with a length on the order of 530 feet. The descriptions contained herein are based on our site reconnaissance and the review of the I aforementioned plans. If project details vary significantly, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for review, and, if addition recommendations are needed, they can be provided at that time. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Three general surficial soil types and geologic formations were encountered during the field - investigation. These include, in order of increasing age, undocumented fill, slopewash, alluvium, Torrey Sandstone and the Delmar Formation. Each of the soil types is deseribed below in order of -4- I I ,Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 I I increasing age. The approximate limits of the various soil types are indicated on the Geologic Maps,. Figures 2A and 2B, and. Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B', Figures 3A and 3B. Undocumented Fill (Oudf) . I Undocumented fills were, encountered beneath and adjacent to the existing Olivenhain Road. Fill depths encountered ranged from 2 to 17 feet and are underlain by slopewash or alluvium. The fills were generally composed of loose to medium dense, moist to saturated, dark brown, silty to clayey sands. It is anticipated that the fills soils were derived from surrounding surficial and formational I . soils. The fill soils adjacent to the Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real are considered unsuitable to receive settlement-sensitive compacted and/or additional structure fill soils; therefore, the I recommendations presented in the grading .section should be closely followed. Fills utilized to backfill utility trenches located within Olivenhain Road were not exposed or tested I during the subsurface investigation. However, it was observed that the asphaltic concrete pavement Overlying portions of the assumed trench alignments have experienced some stress with resulting I fatigue cracking, indicating that settlement may have occurred within the underlying backfill soils. Slopewash (Osw) I . . Slopewash soils were encountered adjacent to and beneath the existing road and consist of loose to stiff, brown and dark brown, clayey sands and sandy clays. The observed thickness of slopewash 1 . soils encountered ranged from 2 to 7 feet. The loose soils in areas to receive settlement-sensitive I' -5- a I i Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 1 ' structures should be removed and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Grading section. Alluvium (Qal) Soils of alluvial origin occur within the drainage bottom along Encinitas Creek, and are exposed I adjacent to the south side of Olivenhain Road and the east side of El Camino Real, as well as in the area of the proposed off-site dike. The undocumented fill at the east end of the new road alignment is also underlain by alluvium. These deposits typically consist of loose to medium loose, very moist to saturated, brown, grey to greenish grey, silty to clayey, fine- to medium-grained sands to sandy clays. The alluvial soils encountered in the vicinity of exploratory Boring Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have a thickness of 14.5, 4, 27, 9, 14, and 14.5 feet, respectively. Previous investigation (Reference 1990 study) indicated alluvial soils to be a depth of 28 to 30 feet in Boring Nos. SB-4 and SB-3, respectively. The results of the field investigation and analysis of the laboratory tests indicated that the alluvial soils, underlying the subject site, can be classified as moderately to highly compressible. Remedial grading measurements for the alluvial soils are presented in the Grading section. Torrey Sandstone (TO The Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone was encountered in one trench (T-5, reference Soil and Geologic Investigation dated June 18, 1990.) located off-site to the north and above an elevation of approximately 110 feet MSL. The formatiônal soil consists of dense, damp, light tan sandstone and is underlain by the Delmar Formation. i H I Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 I I Delmar Formation (Td) Portions of the site are underlain by the Eocene-aged Delmar Formation that generally consist of I relatively dense, moist to very moist, brown to olive-green sandstones, siltstones and claystones. I Adversely, dipping bedding and remolded clay seams were observed within the Delmar Formation (Boring No. LB-1, reference June 18, 1990 study) in the area of the proposed cut slope which will I require remediation as discussed hereinafter. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE I Bedding of the Delmar Formation generally dips from 2 to 5 degrees to the southwest. Bedding planes and remolded clay seams will be exposed during slope excavation and will be dipping adversely out-of-slope (see Figure 3A). Slope stability analyses were performed at the highest portion of the proposed cut slope. The results of the analyses are discussed later in this report along with recommendations for remediation. GROUNDWATER Perched water or groundwater was encountered at a depth of 4 feet in exploratory Boring No. 1, and at a depth of 8 feet in exploratory Boring Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5. It is our opinion that the high groundwater condition is caused by the present rainy season. Groundwater or seepage at the site may vary as a result of seasonal fluctuation or irrigation. Although groundwater seeps were only observed in alluvial and formational soils at the time of our investigation, each of the units on-site have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions SVA Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 to water seepage. Recommendations for mitigating seepage encountered during grading should be provided at that time. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Landslides I Landslides were not encountered at the site during the investigation. - Faulting and Seismicity Based on our review of aerial photographs and published geologic maps, it is our opinion that the site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground• shaking-in theevent of a major earthquake along any of the mentioned faults; however, the seismic risk at the site is not considered significantly greater than the surrounding area. Deterministic Analysis. Earthquakes which might occur on the Rose Canyon Fault, its continuation northward as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (OZD), the Coronado Banks Fault Zone, Elsinore Fault, San Jacinto Fault, and other faults within the southern California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. In order to determine the distance of known faults to the site, the computer program EQFAULT Blake (1993) was utilized: Principal references used with EQFAULT in selecting faults to be included were Jennings (1975), Anderson (1984); and Wesnousky (1986). I I I Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 I' I In addition to fault location, the program EQFAULT was used to estimate earthquake recurrence intervals, and ground accelerations at the site for the "maximum credible" and "maximum probable" I seismic events. Estimates of earthquake recurrence intervals were calculated based on the method ' of Campbell (1978). Attenuation relationships presented by Joyner and Boóre (1982) were used to estimate site accelerations. Within a search radius of 100 miles from the project site, 38 known active faults were identified. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the closest active fault, which lies approximately 6 miles to the southwest i of the site. I The results of the seismicity analyses indicate that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the dominant I source of potential ground motion at the site. Earthquakes having a Maximum Credible Magnitude of 7.0 and Maximum Probable Magnitude of 6.5, respectively, are considered to be representative of the potential for seismic ground shaking within the property. Themaximum credible earthquake I is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework while the maximum probable earthquake is the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval (California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43). 'Dhe 'estimated maximum credible and maximum probable ground accelerations I were determined to be approximately 0.33 g and 0.25 g, respectively. The effective ground acceleration is associated with the significant part of the ground motion containing repetitive motion portions that possess strong energy content and that produce structural deformation (Newmark and I ' I Project No 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Hall, 1982). It has been determined by Ploessel and Slossoñ (1974) that the effective ground acceleration is equal to approximately 65 to 70 percent of the peak ground acceleration for I earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site Earthquakes occurring at distances in excess of 20 I miles are assumed to result in an effective ground acceleration equal to peak ground acceleration Presented on the following table are the earthquake events and site accelerations for the faults considered most likely to subject the site to ground shaking - I I I: S. •. .. -. - I *Derived from Blake: T F.-, EQFA ULT Computer Program for Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults 1989a, updated 1993 I - I • .• • • I - I • -•- Project No; 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Liquefaction The liquefaction, potential was evaluated by means of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) and the procedures presented by Seed and Idriss (1972), Seed (1979), Seed and others (1985), and Seed and Harder (1990). In addition, the requirements for peak ground surface acceleration and earthquake shaking characteristics outlined in the City of San Diego Amendment to the UBC Section .91.02.2905 and Section 91.02.2312, and the results of the seismic analysis of our EQFAULT program, were utilized. The results of our analysis from the data obtained during the drilling operations at exploratory Boring' No. 3 indicate that the alluvial soils from a depth of 9.25 to 16.75 feet possess a moderate potential for liquefaction, yielding a factor of safety ranging from 0.79 to 0.98. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix C. The density of the alluvial soils increases with depth yielding a low potential for liquefaction for the underlying alluvial soils. The exploratory Boring No. 3 was drilled approximately 170 feet south of ,the south abutment of the existing bridge due to limited access and the presence of numerous existing underground lines near the existing bridge. Exploratory Boring No. 2 was excavated immediately to the north of the proposed north abutment. Based on a projection of, the soil profile, it is estimated that the lense of soil with a factor of safety of less than 1.0 for. liquefaction potential might be on the order of 6 feet in thickness in the vicinity of the proposed south abutment. Considering the proposed remedial grading measure, it is our -11- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 opinion that the potential for liquefaction will be greatly reduced. The remedial grading measures, will consist of the partial removal and recompaction of the alluvial soils in conjunction with the use of a geotextile (at the bottom of the overexcavation area), which will improve the in situ conditions and will economically reduce the liquefaction potential. -12- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General No soil or geologic' conditions were encountered that in our opinion would preclude the improvement of Olivenhain Road, and the construction of the proposed bridge and off-site dike provided the recommendations of this report are followed. The area within and along the right-of-way of Olivenhain Road is underlain by a variety of soil types and conditions including undocumented fills and trench backfills, moderately to highly compressible slopewash and alluvial soils and claystones of the Delmar Formation containing adverse bedding. The grading operations along Olivenhain Road will consist of the total to partial removal and recompaction of the undocumented fill soils and alluvial soils and the performance of the cuts to allow for the realignment of Olivenhain Road. The proposed cut slope located along the north side of Olivenhain Road will require stability remediation measures in the form of the construction of a buttress fill from Station 1+50 to 9+80 (approximately). ,Details of construction are described below. It is understood that the existing underground utility lines will not be relocated. Therefore, remedial grading measures in the form of removal and recompaction of the undocumented fill -13-, Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 soils and alluvial soils near the existing underground 'lines will be limited in extent and depth, to avoid damage to the conduits. The actual depth and extent of removal near existing conduits planned to remain will require coordination by the geotechnical engineer, the City of Carlsbad and the responsible owner agency. 6. It is anticipated, that removal of existing fill and alluvial soils will be limited near the abutments of the proposed bridge extension due to groundwater conditions associated with Encinitas Creek. Remediãtion of unsuitable soils in other areas may also be limited as discussed above. Therefore, it will be necessary the use a geotextile fabric to stabilize the , 'bottom of excavations prior, to placement of fill soils. 7.. Due to restrictions in site access, subiurface soil data at the south bridge abutment and center pier has been extrapolated between exploratory borings. Therefore, installation of indicator ' piles is strongly recommended. ' 8. The area proposed to receive the off-site dike is underlain by compressible alluvial soils to depths, ranging from 4 to 14 feet. These soils should be remediated by removal and recompaction unless limited by the presence of groundwater. For this condition, grading will 'require special proëedures as discussed below. -14- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Groundwater 9. Perched water or groundwater was encountered along portions of the road and at the proposed off-site dike at relatively shallow depths. Based on observations at the time of exploration, groundwater was found at elevations varying from 73 to 75 feet MSL in exploratory Boring Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The groundwater in exploratory Boring Nos. 4 and 5, excavated in the vicinity of the proposed off-site dike, was found at elevations varying from 97 to 98 feet MSL. Due to anticipated seasonal fluctuation of groundwater levels within the drainage bottom, depth of remedial grading within the alluvium may be limited. Soil and Excavation Characteristics 10..Based on the subsurface Investigation and the referenced investigation of the property to the north, the soil conditions encountered are anticipated to vary from low expansive sands derived from the sandy members of the surficial and formational units to highly expansive clays of, the surficial deposits and portions of the Delmar Formation. 11 In our opuuon, the undocumented fill soils, topsoil, slopewash, alluvium and Delmar Formation-can be excavated with light to moderate effort with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Lightweight grading equipment may be required where excavating at depths near the groundwater surface. 'Excavation of the formational soils will require light to moderate effort. Cemented oversized sandstone "chunks' may be generated during excavation of the Delmar Formation and could require heavy ripping. Oversize rocks or' irreducible chunks, -15- / 13 6 Hs Two Hio -Vuc P'rj' (w"ciEEp 'çi 'VEP) I& 7'E Ec'',,jc W-11 CH Ot' AJ E (HP-Z,i'DEp) w,.SO W/rN •ThE iui oqpuiq 77Is'.m,)) 7 17, er OF? Poofl% S s U,ut7E 'Th ,q owq ", O42t2VG ,i-s pllc,$T S?L'JSkJV L 4a M-1111 -Rerm ,c.' - - - W,'isH 47 rcc.'A'F-' /1 Il' 0/ S,Lry 7; L -yJ F;,.z:' SOO '7 I r7E p'rH OF 5' ETJ3OTrb!n Ole , RE!). 4orn E-Pi r ? 17'v I I T!oRJJG se,.-q 7E t! OA R. ThE E,5-7-1 AJ ?AoPosD R'ApJqY vJ'r Sn7'0 U sUP. E /E ptTE) Oriit o,,Acr I WI 1W /i*J 79iVA1 31 ?;E7• I CLAyE-'SAvP I I $wo ,4r a '&IAS , I 11 Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 if encountered, should be placed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications presented in Appendix H. Remedial Grading Remedial grading will be required within the formational soils to mitigate potential slope instability of the proposed cut slope along and to the north of the roadway. Within the roadway and bridge abutment areas, removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils, including undocumented fill soils, slopewash and alluvium, will be required. Depths of removal adjacent to the abutments will be limited by' groundwater. Remediation along the rn~ority of the road alignment will extend to an estimated 5 to. 7 feet below existing grade except as limited by existing utilities. Along the east end of the roadway, ?the depth of alluvium will preclude complete removal. In this zone, removals may be restricted to 5 feet, provided geotextile fabric is placed prior to placing fill (see Figure 4). Wet soils derived from excavation within surficial soil areas may require drying by spreading and aerating or by mixing with other suitable on-site soils: Export of these wet soils may be. required if the recommended drying methods cannot be adequately performed. -16- LI Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Proposed remedial grading within the utility easements crossing or in-line with Olivenhain Road should be reviewed and approved by the owner agencies and Geocon Incorporated prior to start of proposed grading. Grading for construction of the earth embankment for the dike should be planned to remove and recompact the compressible alluvial soils. In the center portion of the dike, removals may be limited by groundwater. This condition and depth to groundwater will vary seasonally. Where groundwater is present, removals should be restricted to approximately 2 to 3 feet above the water level. In order to provide a stable base to achieve soil compaction during embankment grading, a layer of geotextile fabric may be required (see Figure 4). If alluvium is left in place, some short-term settlement of the embankment fill should be anticipated. Grading All grading should be performed in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications (Appendix H) and the current City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix H, the recommendations of this section take precedence. All earthwork should be observed and all fills tested f6r proper compaction by Geocon Incorporated. Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the Owner or Developer, Grading Contractor, Civil Engineer, City of Carlsbad representative and -17- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Geotechnicäl Engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing asphalt pavement, deleterious matter and vegetation in areas to be graded. The depth of removal should be such that material to be used in fills is essentially free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping operations and/or site demolition' should be exported from the site. Re-use of processed, old asphalt concrete with the fill soils may be considered but should be approved by the City of Carlsbad. The existing fill soils, slopewash and alluvial soils should be removed and recompacted as previously discussed. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. The actual depth and extent of removal near the location of existing underground conduits should be determined in the field under the direction of the geotechnical engineer and City of Carlsbad representatives. Remediation of unsuitable soils near the bridge abutments and along the Olivenhain Road alignment will require the use of a geotextile to stabilize the bottom of the excavation where removals are limited. Figure No. 4 presents a construction detail. The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted in layers. In general, native soils are suitable for reuse as fill if essentially free from vegetation, -18- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 debris and other deleterious matter. Native soils containing excess moisture will be considered suitable for reuse, if they are dried back and/or mixed with other soils prior to placement as fill. Layers of fill placed should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. In areas proposed for improvements, all fill (including backfill and scarified ground surfaces) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557-91. Fill soils placed within the top one foot of roadway subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. All fill soil should be placed at a moisture content ranging from 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content. Fill soils placed at moisture contents below optimum moisture content may be considered unacceptable, based upon the determination of the geotechnical engineer or his field representative. Grading should be performed such that the upper 3 feet of fill placed in the roadway pavement area is composed of properly compacted low expansive soils. The more highly expansive soils should be placed in the deeper fill areas and properly compacted or exported from the site. Low expansive soils are defined as those soils that have an Expansion Index of 50 or less when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2. The grading operations for the off-site dike should commence with the removal of the vegetation and any debris that may be present. All the deleterious debris should be exported from the site and should not be mixed in the structural fill. -19- I . Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21,1995 I I . 24. The alluvial soils in areas to receive structural fills for the dike embankment should be removed until competent, dense formational soils of the Delmar Formation area exposed, I where possible. If groundwater is encountered, remediation will be limited and should include I placement of a geotextilé fabric as previously discussed. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. The excavated materials and the I materials generated from grading operations should be placed in layers and compacted in accordance with the above recommendations. The outer 12 feet of fill slopes should be 1 composed of properly compacted granular soil fill to reduce the potential for surface 1 sloughing. All fill slopes should be "track walked" upon completion of the grading operation. Slope tests shall be taken upon completion of grading to verify that 90 percent relative I compaction has been achieved at the face of slope. - Bulking and Shrinkage Factors . . 1 25. Estimates of embankment bulking and shrinkage factors • are based on comparing laboratory ' compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as encountered in the exploratory trenches. It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as well as in compacted fill densities, render shrinkage value estimated very approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to any relative compaction of 90 percent or higher of the maximum laboratory density. Thus, the contractor has approximately a 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based on the limited work performed to date, it is our opinion that a shrinkage factor of 5 to 10 percent can be used as a basis for estimating -20- i . . I . S Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995. how much the on-site surficial soils (existing, undocumented fill, alluvium, and topsoils) may shrink when excavated from their natural state and placed as compacted fills. Based on prior experience with soils of the Delmar Formation, it is estimated that a bulking factor of 0 to 5 percent may be anticipated when the material is excavated from its natural state and placed as compacted fill. Slope Stability Cut slope stability analyses were performed for the highest portion of the proposed 2:1 cut slope, based on the geologic conditions observed and the proposed finish grades. Shear strength parameters were selected on the basis of laboratory test results and previous experience with similar materials. Specifically, strength parameters evaluated during slope stability analysis for the proposed La Costa Ranch - Southwest I and II Areas, immediately north of the subject slope (see referenced report dated November 28, 1989), were used to supplement this current study. Details of the slope stability analysis performed and computer- generated results are presented in Appendix D. 27. The results of the analyses are summarized as follows: a. A buttress fill with a 30-foot wide key will be required for stabilization of the proposed cut slope at its maximum height (Section A-A' and B-B', Figure Nos. 3A and 3B). The key should extend a minimum of 5 feet below the lowest adjacent proposed grade at Olivenhain Road. . A detail of the recommended buttress fill, including drainage details, isshown on Figure No. 5. -21- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 b. Stability of the back cut during construction for the buttress is marginal. It is recommended the backcut be constructed no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). Even under these conditions, there is a possibility of slope instability occurring during construction, particularly if the entire back cut is constructed at one time, and is left open for an extended period of time. C. Potential instability during slope construction may be reduced by flattening the slope of the temporary excavation to 1.75:1.0 (horizontal :vertical) or flatter. As an alternative, the backcut may be constructed in three sections, each approximately 300 feet in length. d. The buttress fill slope, as well as the replacement fill slope, constructed as recommended, will have calculated factors-of-safety in excess of 1.5 under static conditions for deep-seated failure. Surficial and gross slope stability analysis and experience with similar soil conditions in nearby areas indicates that the proposed 2:1 fill slopes constructed of granular materials (typically derived from the sandy zones of surficial soils and Delmar Formation) will have calculated factors-of-safety in excess of 1.5 (see Figure Nos. 6 and 7). It is recommended that all cut slopes and remedial excavations be observed during grading by a representative of Geocon Incorporated to verify that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated. The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular "soil" fill to reduce the potential for surface sloughing. All fill. slopes should be "track-walked" upon completion of the grading Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 operation. Slope tests shall be taken upon completion of grading to verify that 90 percent relative compaction has been achieved at the face of slope.; 31 All slopes should be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion: Settlement . . Alluvial soils, if left in place within the dike area, will consolidate when subjected to loads imposed by the embankment fill soils. The magnitude of settlement will be a function of the extend of re mediation or the thickness of left-in-place alluvium. It is recommended that upon completion of grading, surface monuments be. set and surveyed weekly to monitor the settlement..This data will allow the project soil engineer to judge when all significant settlement has occurred and construction of settlement-sensitive improvements can begin. Due to the granular characteristics of the alluvial soils, settlement should occur over a relatively short period. . . Foundations .. . A foundational system consisting of driven piles is recommended for supporting the proposed • bridge lateral extension. Information provided by the project structural engineer indicates that precast prestressed concrete piles Class 45C and 70C are proposed. It is assumed that the piles should be designed as end-bearing. The theoretical single pile allowable axial capacities are presented in Figure Nos. 8A, 8B, and 8C. The theoretical capacity is based on the results -23- • • • . • • Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 of standard penetration test data and subsurface soil stratification encountered in the exploratory borings. It should be noted that minimum embedment depths for the south abutment and center pier are estimated. Pile design for these locations is based on subsurface data extrapolated between the exploratory borings. 34. The actual capacity of the driven piles should be verified in the field using an appropriate dynamic pile driving formula. It is recommended that at least 3 indicator piles be driven to evaluate the actual capacity of the piles in conjunction with the contractors pile-driving hammer. Indicator pile locations should include both abutments, as well as the center pier. 35 0 The allowable 'uplift capacity of .a single pile may be taken as 30 percent of the piles' allowable axial capacity. This value, as well as the axial capacity, may be increased by one- third when considering wind and/or 0seismic loads. Piles should not be located closer than three pile diameters from each other (center-to-center). It is recommended that a minimum pile driving energy of 30,000 foot-pounds be used to drive the piles. 0 Driving caps or rings and/or followers should be capable of protecting the pile heads and imparting a uniform distribution of hammer energy to the piles. In addition, they should be designed to reduce the loss due to absorption of the blow. -24- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, .1995 Pile locations may be pre-drilled, if necessary, to achieve design tip elevation. Drill diameter should not exceed pile cross-section dimension and depth of drilling should not be deeper than 5 feet above pile tip elevation. Lateral Loads The passive earth pressure of the prevailing soil conditions against the proposed abutments may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 300 .pcf unit weight. Axial piles with a minimum dimension of 12 inches may be designed for an allowable lateral load of 5 kips. Axial piles with a minimum dimension of 15 inches may be designed for an allowable lateral load of 13 kips.. . A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed for resistance for sliding between concrete and soil. . Scour Depth . 41. The scour depth has been determined utilizing hydraulic data indicated in the Drainage Study for E. C. R. Bridge prepared by. Dr. Howard H. Chang, dated May 1991 and provided by Project Design Consultants and the procedures described in Fluvial Processes in River Engineering by Howard H. Chang. Based on the information contained in the above referenced documents, we estimate that the scour depth will be on the order of 5 feet. Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Pavement Design 42. The following pavement recommendations for widening ancLrealigning the roadway are for preliminary purposes only, and are based on an R-Value of 5 and a Traffic Index of 9. Two alternatives are presented. The first alternative recommends the use of a geogrid within the aggregate base material. The second alternative utilizes a conventional pavement of asphaltic concrete over aggregate base. A third alternative has been suggested by others and would include lime stabilizing the subgrade soil. This alternative is best utilized for clay, soils and may not be appropriate for this project. It is recommended that any of the alternatives be further evaluated once the grading operations are completed and subgrade soils are exposed. The final pavement section will be determined once subgrade soils are exposed and R-Value tests performed. Pavement section modifications will be required if assumed R-Value is not achieved. *Assumes TI = 9 and R-Value = 5 **Base reinforced at mid-depth with Tensar BX-1100, or equivalent. -26- L Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 Calculations for the recommended pavement section alternative sections are presented in Appendix E. Selection of pavement design section alternatives should be reviewed and approved by the City of Carlsbad. Mixing ratios of asphalt concrete and soil matrix will be provided by the project soil engineer. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils (fill and formational) should be processed and compacted to a minimum relative compaction (ASTM D1557-91) of 95 percent at or above optimum resistive content. Base course material should consist of Class 2 Aggregate Base and be properly moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum relative compaction (ASTM D1557-91) of 95 percent at or above optimum moisture content. 46: Class 2 Aggregate Base should conform to Section 26-1.02B of the Standard Specifications of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). 47. Existing asphalt concrete may be crushed to minus 6 inches in dimension and mixed with the surficial subgrade soils. This procedure, if implemented, should be reviewed and approved by the City of Carlsbad. Mixing ratios of asphalt concrete and soil matrix will be provided by the project soil engineer. -27 Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 48. Joining of new and existing asphalt (at east and west ends) should be constructed in accordance with regional/City of Carlsbad standards. Site Drainage and Moisture Protection .49. Providing and maintaining adequate drainage and moisture protection of supporting soils is an important design consideration. Recommendations presented herein assume' proper site drainage will be established and maintained. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to site improvements. The site should be graded such that surface drainage flow is directed away from structures and into swales or other controlled drainage facilities. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be given to providing a cutoff wall or extended curb along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the top of the subgrade. Slope Maintenance Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the siope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on, fill slopes and is generally preceded by -28- Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. -29- Project No; 05466-12-01 March21, 1995 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon ' the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the - investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, I or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or I identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the I .scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. I 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are I brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out 1 such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the• conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in I applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. L IA SPA CffiTA i LA COS! MXIRV -_I 9w 4jjzzoo 3 34 I ' ,' LEVjj , I 4 Z EE CAL a 4 ;IZ \ SUNRICH RRA Li IW Ul 3 L _JI IUA 711 AVi —s R1ITMIVAV su"E" 'F -\ :.EJCA iA ___ J BLQ LOS RCUP q TAUT FO MIA K EU( ST whoA sr - -' I I .j fl - CIR - VAJIESSA ,, GAISE9 . 6w 00 VALLEDA rd ;40 LUIS Pry WSP 640M IFLOWER RD IKI PL VIGAND r . AW SOURCE: 1994 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT is UNLAWFUl. ID COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY .RT THEREDF. WIIETHER FOR PERSONAl. USE OR RESALE. WITHOUT PERMISSION GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 RRG/RSS DSK/G0000 4 NO SCALE N VICINITY MAP OLWENHA1N ROAD WIDENING CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 3 - 2.1 -199.5 I.PROJ.NO.05466-12-01 I FIG. 1 No LEGEND Qudf _.UNDOCUMENTED FILL Qsw......SLOPEWASH Q01 ALLUVIUM T? ...... TORREY SANDSTONE Td ..... DEL MAR FORMATION S REMOLDED CLAY SEAM I 1. * I I I I2O- I. I00- I S I Qai 60- 40 I . H II I . I Al .-sr-140 . EXISTING GRADE . -120 Tt PROPOSED GRADE - . - S r— 12 —i • _,_* I -100 - Td• • *_,' 4. ,,t... .. . .. - . - - . ..w .. . .. . . - q,•_ _ _ 80 '3 0' . Td S • .60 -40 GE000N INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAI. ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92121.2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 PROJ. NO. 05466-12--0 1 FIG. 3A DATE 3-2I-1995 ROAD- Qur. LEGEND Qudf ...... UNDCUMENTED FILL O Qsw ......SLOPEWASH Qa! ...... ALLUVIUM TORREY SANDSTONE Td ...... DEL MAR FORMATION REMOLDED CLAY SEAM _______EXISTING OLIVEHAIN B a .1-140 PROPOSED ROAD . - WIDENING . . . . I -120 EXISTING GRADE Tt Td -100 PROPOSED RADE .. 000 Qs w I - . -80 TL 30 —4 - . - -60 IL40 / GE000N INCORPORATED SCALE: 1 = 20 (HORIZ. . VERT.) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6980 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-8900 - FAX 619 558-6159 PROJ. NO. 05466-12-01 FIG. 3B DATE 3-21 -1995 • - _PROPOSEDSUBGRADE ELEVATION 5' REMOVE AND RECOMPACT MIRAFI 600X OR EQUIVALENT PRODUCT ------------ EXISTING UNDOCUMENTED AND/OR ALLUVIAL SOILS 4. NO SCALE N GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 RG/RSA DSKIG0000 CONSTRUCTION DETAIL FOR PLACEMENT OF GEOTEXTILE OL1VEHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CAL1FORIIIA DATE 3 - 21 - 1995 PROJ. NO. 05466 - 12- 01 FFIG.-4 RssrnwLWs 1 II IN 12' MIN. 1 .r FINISH SLOPE 'J p1 / /••..,, 4y, (4 / ? SEE DETAIL L___ • ,_____ NOTE 5 2% MIN NOTE 4 3" TYPICAL 30 jt MUM. NO SCALE EXCAVATE BACKSLOPE AT 1.0 TO 1.0 INCLINATION SUCH THAT KEYWAY WILL BE A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET IN WIDTH AND DOES NOT ENCROACH UPON STREET. BASE OF BUTTRESS FILL TO BE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET BELOW STREET GRADE AT A TOE OF FINISH SLOPE OR AS EVALUATED IN THE FIELD BY THE PROJECT GEOLOGIST/ENGINEER. BUTTRESS FILL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED GRANULAR SOIL APPROVED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED PRIOR TO USE. HEEL DRAIN TO BE 6-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK WALLED, SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR ABS SDR 35 SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM AND PROPERLY OUTLETTED. FILTER MATERIAL TO BE OPEN GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT FILTER FABRIC. FILTER MATERIAL VOLUME TO BE 3 CUBIC FEET PER FOOT FOR OPEN GRADED CRUSHED ROCK. WHERE SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED IN THE BACKCUT, WE RECOMMEND CHIMNEY DRAINS IN THE FORM OF APPROVED PREFABRICATED CHIMNEY DRAIN PANELS (MIRADRAIN, TENSAR OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET CENTER-TO-CENTER A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET IN WIDTH OR 12-INCH BY 24-INCH SLOTS FILLED WITH FILTER MATERIAL. IN GENERAL, CHIMNEY DRAINS SHOULD EXTEND TO 10 FEET BELOW THE TOP OF THE SLOPE. WHERE UTILIZED, NO BENCHING IS REQUIRED. DESIGN MAY BE CHANGED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. GEOCON WHO INCORPORATED (]EOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 RG/RSA DSK/G0000 TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL I OLWEHA1N ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 3-21- 1995 PROJ. NO. 05466-12-01 1 FIG. 5 RrnWthN Tvt--r Vn 01...1'Lfl1 ASSUMED CONDITIONS: Slope Height H Infinite Depth of Saturation Z 3 feet Slope Inclination 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) Slope Angle i = 26.5 degrees Unit Weight of Water y,,= 62.4 pounds per cubic foot Total Unit Weight of Soil Yt = 120 pounds per cubic foot Angle of Internal Friction 4) = 26 :degrees Apparent Cohesion C = 250 pounds per square foot Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face. Seepage forces parallel to slope face. ANALYSIS: FS = C ('yi - c) Z c0s2 i tan = 2.2 Z sin z cos i REFERENCES Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc. Second International Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62. Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay, Proc. Fourth International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81. STJRFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - FILL SLOPES OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 6 PPn1TCT No flS466-12-01 ASSUMED CONDITIONS: Slope Height H = 35 feet Slope Inclination 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) Total Unit Weight of Soil y = 120 pounds per cubic foot Angle of Internal Friction 4) = 26 degrees Apparent Cohesion C = 250 pounds per square foot No Seepage Forces ANALYSIS: XCO = yH tan 4) Equation (3-3), Reference I C FS =NcfC Equation (3-2), Reference I yll XCO = 8.2 Calculated Using Eq. (3-3) NCf = 27 Determined Using Figure 10, Reference 2 FS = 1.61 Factor of Safety Calculated Using Eq. (3-2) REFERENCES Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics, Series No. 46, 1954. Janbu, N., Discussion of J.M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. -SM6, November 1967. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - CUT AND FILL SLOPES OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGuRE 7 NORTH ABUTMENT (ABUTMENT 3) ALLOWABLE PILE LOAD (TONS)- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 ::i' 0 U, I- uJ LU 10 W 20-L4 0 I- z LU 30 uJ cc U- 0 40 0 LU 50 WE - a - RECOMMENDED - - MINIMUM - DEPTH - - OF EMBEDMENT - - - = 15' - - - - - 12" ROUND CONCRETE OR PILE QUARE 15" ROUND CONCRETE PILE OR OCTAGONAL / I THEORETICAL SINGLE - PILE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY GEOCON INCORPORATED - - D (IEOTECHNICAI. ENG1NF1RS AND ENC'TINRF.RTNO GF.O1,OC1ISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 RG/RSA J I DSK/G0000 OLIVENHA1N ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 3-21 - 1995 1 PROJ. NO. 05466 - 12-01 1 FIG. M NAM LNd CENTER PIER (PIER 2) ALLOWABLE PILE LOAD (TONS) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 .1 U, 10 I- w w U- I-. 20 W U- 30 W 50 Lu 60 NOTE: MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH IS ESTIMATED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY INSTALLATION OF INDICATOR PILES THEORETICAL SINGLE -PILE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY GEOCON INCORPORATED OEOTEC}INICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 RG/RSA T DSK/G0000 OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 3-21-1995 PROJ. NO. 05466-12-01 FIG. 8B RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DEPTH - - - - - - - - - - OF EMBEDMENT 24' = 12" ROUND OR SQUARE cc 40 L CON RETE PILE / 15" F )UND OR )CTAGON/ CONCRETE PILE '0 30 w Lu co 40 U- 0 RECOMMENDED - a - - - MINIMUM - DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT = 25' - - - - - - - - - - 12" ROUND CONCRETE OR PILE SQUARE / 15" ROUND OR OCTAGONAL CONCRETE PILE SOUTH ABUTMENT (ABUTMENT 1) ALLOWABLE PILE LOAD (TONS) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 NOTE: MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH IS ESTIMATED AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY INSTALLATION OF INDICATOR PILES. I THEORETICAL SINGLE -PILE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY I GEOCON . INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159 RG/RSA I DSK/G0000 OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 3-21-1995 1 PROJ. NO. 05466-12-01 1 FIG 8C I Project No. 05466-12-01 March21, 1995 I APPENDIX A : FIELD INVESTIGATION I I The field investigation was performed on January 24 and 30, 1995, and consisted of a site - reconnaissance, and the excavation of six exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Figure Nos. 2 and 3. The borings were advanced to maximum depths of 15 to 56.5 'feet using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an 8-inch-diameter continuous hollow-stem auger. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings by driving a 3-inch, 0 D., split-tube samples I 12 inches into the "undisturbed" soil mass with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The 'sampler was equipped with 1-inch-high by 23/s-inch-diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate sample removal and testing. Relatively undisturbed bulk samples were also obtained during the drilling operations. The soil conditions encountered in the excavations were visually examined, classified, and logged. Logs of the borings are presented on Figure Nos. 'A-i through A-7. I I I . : ...-,.. I I I I PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 • I >-w., I- BORINGB1 W.CD C • I- WX LE 0 0 SOIL DEPTH L 1' zU NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 79 DATE COMPLETED 1/24/95 I.._ FEET I EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION. 0 - ALLUVIUM SOIL - . 00 Soft, saturated, greenish-gray, Sandy, Silty CLAY, - 2 - medium to high plasticity - I . .4 . - B1-1 : YL - CH . . - - 6 96.8 28.7 B1-2 -Becomes medium soft to medium stiff, very moist to 10 99.4 26.7 - 10 saturated, greenish, no silt or sand, high plasticity 1 12 : 14 - B1-3 -25 105.1 22.8 - . I U - :1. DEL MAR FORMATION - 16 - T. I Medium dense, moist, yellow, Silty, very fine to - SM medium SAND I : :.i..1. 18 I 20 - B1-4 Hard to very hard, very moist, green, CLAY, high 50 - . 105.4 22.8 plasticity 1 22 7 CH I24 - B1-5 - . 50/8" 110.0 21.1 BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET I Figure A Log of Boring B 1. page 1 of 1 ORW I SAMPLE SYMBOLS U ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ;.. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TINES. I • . PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 BORING 2 ucrun SAMPLE CD o I- a • 1-4 I— &.L. - H' NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 78 DATE COMPLETED 1/30/95 FEET CUSCS) H HP EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 • MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0• - ___ __________________________ / • ALLUVIUM SOIL Soft, saturated, gray-greenish, CLAY, high plasticity CH - -: DEL MAR FOR MA11QN . 1 Medium dense, moist, yellow, Silty, fine to medium 6 - SAND - :'. :1.1.1. SM 8 1 10 B2-2 - - very moist to saturated, greenish-brown, very - 13 0 Silty CLAY CL -12 Very dense, moist to saturated, green, Silty, fine to t SM - - 14 - B2-3 medium SAND , 50 110.1 19.1 - _____ Hard to very hard, moist to very moist, green, Silty - -16 - CLAY - - 18 B24 CL -Becomes light yellowish-green, Sandy 65 20 22 - 24 112-5 - -Becomes green, highly plastic, no sand 50/9" 109.2 21.2 BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET Figure A-2 Log of Boring B 2, page 1 of 1 ORW ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED). SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE •.. CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLYAT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TINES. I .__ PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 IW BORING B 3 DEPTH S SOIL FEET SAMPLE (USC 55 ELEV. (MSL.) 81 . DATE COMPLETED 1/30/95 I EQUIPMENT 'INGERSOLL RAND A-300 W to C9 0 MATERIALDESCRIPTION 0 - FILL SOIL. Loose, very moist to saturated, dark brown, Silty, fine I . 2 -.1 to medium SAND - .:1.1i - B3- 1 . SM 6 100.6 13.8 6 I 1 8 - B3-2 . - 6 1 10 1 12 H 1 14 B3-3 Yj. 1 15 16 I 18 - .:I: 1.1 ALLUVIUM SOIL I.. . I Loose, saturated, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, I - B3-4 : SM very cohesionless . . 13 20 - .•1-'k 22 - I•.ii 24 - 133-5 :j . . . . . 22 26 - •1.I . - I •- . . . .• . 28 I - 133-6 jJ -Becomes medium dense, olive-brown, Clayey, Silty - 27 Figure A-3 Log of Boring B 3, page 1 of 2 : ORW I SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED1 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TINES. 1 . . . PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 I BORING B 3 DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL FE lm ET NO.CLASS ELEv;(MsL.) 81 DATE COMPLETED 1/30/95 d C MIA. ' I EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 CL 0 - - ° MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 32 34 • 113-7 • . SM -Becomes dense, brown to light brown, Silty, very 50/10" 102.1 23.7 cohesionless - 36 I 38 1i - - B3-8 • -25 I 40- Stiff, very moist, brownish yellowish-green, Sandy, - - CL Silty CLAY -. 42 44 1 - B3-9 DEL MAR FORMATION . 42 Dense, saturated, yellow, fine to medium, slightly .46 - :j - Silty SAND, very cohesionless, very weathered I 48 1I - 113-10 SM -Becomes very dense, very moist to saturated, - 55 50 - -. - yellowish-brown, Clayey.. •i_•l_I- :1 152 •:'- . .1.i. I. B3- 11 . Very hard, very moist, green, CLAY 50/6" 113-12 . . - 100 56.- BORING I . BORING TERMINATED AT 56.5 FEET Figure A-4 Log of Boring B 3, page 2 of 2 . . ORU SAMPLE 'SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I. - PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 BORING CD I—C WX • I DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL IN CLASS • FEET NO. (USCS) ELEV. (MSL.) 105 DATE COMPLETED 1/30/95 I EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 a. 0 (.3 MATERIALDESCRIPTION 0 ALLUVIUM 1V1/) Loose, very moist, dark gray, Silty, slightly 'Clayey, - 2 - fine to medium SAND I•-;f*' B4-1 SM I ' 6 98.9 23.8 8 -Becomes saturated - 1 1 B4-2 32 110.8 19;1 DEL • 10 I - - Dense, very moist, yellow, very Clayey, Silty, fine to medium SAND I '12- SM - I 14 B4-3 - - 27 105.3 22.9 Ai BORING TERMINATED AT 15 FEET I 1 0 1 0 Figure A-5 Log of Boring B 4,. page 1 of 1 , .. oaw SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE ' NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TINES. PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 BORING B 5 1H Ix DEPTH 9 WX SOIL FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 106 DATE COMPLETED 1/30/95 ci 01 EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ALLUVIUM - - ]H Medium loose, very moist to saturated, gray-brown, - - t. Silty, fine to medium SAND 2 V :1t SM V - 115-1 10 90.4 25.0 -Becomes saturated 115-2 • . V . V - 14 101.2 22.0 10 - V :•i.'-i- V V - • 12 - •NV. V - 14 B5-3 21 86.6 36.1 - DEL MAR FORMATION CH Stiff, very moist to saturated, green-gray, CLAY V -16 - - -Becomes very stiff to hard V18 BORING TERMINATED AT 18 FEET V Figure A-6 Log of Boring B 5, page 1 of 1 V ORW D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL NJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY Al lilt 5ftUtIL WJKINU usc UKtNI.n Lus.uLusi iuw Al Inc DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. II PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 BORING B6 DEPTH SAMPLE CD I- SOIL 0 • IN FEET NO. (USCS) CLASS 1/30/95 ELEY. (MSL.) 102 DATE COMPLETED EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 _ 0 U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION • ALLUVIUM Loose, very moist to saturated, yellowish-brown, very - 2 SC Clayey SAND - 1 1 4 - 28 106.4 20.2 B6-1 _____ ________________________________________________ DEL MAR FORMATION - 6 - Medium dense, very moist, yellow, Clayey, fine to 'I'., medium SAND 8 - - B6-2 SC 33 104.9 21.1 10 12' -Becomes gray, Silty, less Clayey 14 B6-3 ;.//. 38 16- - - BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET Figure A-i Log of Boring B 6, page 1 of 1 ORW I EJ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TINES. F~ U Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 U APPENDIX B I LABORATORY TESTING I Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with substantial conformance with the general test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures'. I Selected, relatively undisturbed drive and chunk samples were tested for their in-place density and moisture content, direct shear strength, consolidation, grain size, and plasticity index characteristics The results of the laboratory tests are presented in tabular and graphical forms hereinafter. The in- place density and moisture characteristics are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings. I H U U / U 1.. I Project No: 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF IN-PLACE MOISTURE- DENSITY AND DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample . Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear Resistance (pcf) (%) (pst) (degrees) 2-5 109.2 21.2 945 24 3-7 102.1 23.7 750 34 TABLE B-II SUMMARY OF PLASTICITY INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample No Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index 3-4 --- --- *Nonplastjc PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 ,. ., '4 ci 'LI I [II tIJ 4' m i'i'i: i kUROADIWIDENI NGI P1:1.'ICALIF ORNIA I ORW Figure B-I I GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY I COARSE COARSE FINE 1OARS MEDIUM I FINE : 11 I I I ;I Il {II .: iiiui_1111011 niia___ 1111111_11111111 111111 11111111 IIIIIiI 11111111 11111111 111111_1111011_ooii.u_111111111_11111111 : iiuuii____ ____HhUhI-IIHlIIlI 11111111 iii 1111111 lilhiHi_11111111 :iuiii_11111111_oouiiiouiui_11111111 iii 1111111 ohhuhiIE:!!ui 11111111 111111 1110111 11111111 ____ 111111 IlhlUl oiiuuu , IKUhIimiiuiiii SAMPLE Depth (ft) CLASSIFICATION I 4AT W LL PL P1 B3-2 9.0 (SM) Silty, fine to medium SAND B3-4 19.0 (SM) Silty, fine to medium SAND PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 P1 illIllIllIllIllI 1111111 11111111 11111111 !iIIIIIl 11111111 11111111 ___IIiiiiiiiiIIIIII_11111111 1mph IiiIIII_11111111 ___ImuIIIII.!!ul_11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 1111111 11111111 11111111 p .. I '1 I [II III YA sliti) I m ia *.i : u .i.WIDENING I i 11 ' CALIFORNIA i ORW Figure B-2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.4 Initial Water Content (%) 25.4 Initial Saturation (%) 100+ Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0 PROJECT NO. 05466-12-01 11111111- IllilliF__1IIIIIII_ 11111111 11111111 ___1Ih1111 iii'i!!iIIIHI 11111111 11111111_iiiAII 11111111 T' 11111111 11111111 11111111 :iiiiiiii 111111111111111111111111___ IIIIIIIF 11111111 'I CONSOLIDATION ki: 1LI D7..'WIDENING$I 1 IY 'CALIFORNIAI ORW Figure B-3 Initial Saturation (%) 100+ Sample Saturated at (ksf) 4 I I I H I I I APPENDIX C . LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 05466-12-01. S. . S •.. I I I I I I I * *** ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * I * * *LIQUEFy2* * * **** ** * * * * * * *** * * * * I .. EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL' LOB NUMBER: 5466-12-01 DATE: Tuesday, February 28, 1995 OB NAME: OLIVENHAIN ROAD WIDENING LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: I SOIL-PROFILE NAME: OILVB3 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 8.0 ft I S IDESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.50 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.250 g. sigma BOUND: N rd BOUND: N • IN60 CORRECTION: 1.00 • FIELD SPT N-VALUES < 10 FT DEEP ARE NOT CORRECTED FOR SHORT LENGTH OF DRIVE RODS I • I I NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). Ll eed and Others [1985] Method PAGE 1 -------------------- CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (Ni)60 STRESS r STRESS SAFETY (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR LNO. ---4-------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.047 0.047 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ -@ @ 1 I i0.75 1.25 0.078 0.078 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 0.109 0.109 6 41 @ .@ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.25 0.141 0.141 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.172 0.172 6 41 @ @ @ @@ @ @ 1 I i2.75 3.25 0.203 0.203 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.75 0.234 0.234 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.25 0.266 0.266 6 41 @. @ @ 1 4.75 0.297 0.297 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I : 1 5.25 0.328 0.328 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.75 0.359 0.359 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 6.25 0.391 0.391 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.422 0.422 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 I i6.75 7.25 0.453 0.453 6 41 @ @ 1 7.75 0.484 0.484 6 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.516 0.508 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.983 0.162 1.03 1 I i8.25 8.75 0.547 0.524 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.982 0.167 1.00 1 9.25 0.578 0.539 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.981 0.171 0.98 1 9.75 0.609 0.555 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.980 0.175 0.96 0.641 0.570 6 .41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.979 0.179 0.94 1. I i10.25 10.75 0.672 0.586 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.978 0.182 0.92 1 11.25 0.703 0.602 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.977 0.186 0.90 i 11.75 0.734 0.617 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.976 0.189 0.89 0.766 0.633 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.975 0.192 0.87 1 I i12.25 12.75 0.797 0.649 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.974 0.194 0.86 1 13.25 0.828 0.664 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.972 0.197 0.85 1 13.75 0.859 0.680 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.971 0.200 0.84 I i 14.250.891 0.696 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.970 0.202 0.83 1 14.75 0.922 0.711 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.969 0.204 0.82 1 .15.25 0.953 0.727 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.968 0.206 0.81 0.984 0.743 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.967 0.208 0.80 1 I i15.75 16.25 1.016 0.758 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.966 0.210 0.80 1 16.75 1.047 0.774 6 41 1.310 7.9 0.167 0.965 0.212 0.79 2 17.25 1.078 0.790 13 .55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.964 0.214 1.11 17.75 1.109 0.805 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.963 0.216 1.10 I 2 2 18.25 1.141 0.821 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.961 0.217 1.09 2 18.75 1.172 0.837 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.960 0.219 1.08 2 19.25 1.203 0.852 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.959 0.220 1.08 19.75 1.234 0.868 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.958 0.222 1.07 I 2 2 20.25 1.266 0.883 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.957 0.223 1.06 2 20.75 1.297 0.899 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.955 0.224 1.06 21.25 1.328 0.915 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.954 0.225 1.05 I 2 2 21.75 1.359 0.930 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.952 0.226 1.05 2 22.25 1.391 0.946 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.951 0.227 1.04 2 22.75 1.422 0.962 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.949 0.228 1.04 I lSeed-and,-Others-[1985]-Method PAGE 2 ------------- I FOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C I (Nl)60 1 STRESSIr I STRESSISAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%) N (B/ft) RATIOI d PATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 23.25 1.453 0.977 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.947 0.229 1.03 I 2 2 23.75 1.484 0.993 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.946 0.230 1.03 2 24.25 1.516 1.009 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.237 0.944 0.231 1.03 2 24.75 1.547 1.024 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.236 0.943 0.231 1.02 25.25 1.578 1.040 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.236 0.941 0.232 1.02 I 2 2 25.75 1.609 1.056 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.236 0.939 0.233 1.01 2 26.25 1.641 1.071 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.236 0.937 0.233 1.01 2 26.75 1.672 1.087 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.235 0.934 0.234 1.01 I 2 27.25 1.703 1.103 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.235 0.932 0.234' 1.01 2 27.75 1.734 1.118 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.235 0.930 0.234 1.00 2 28.25 1.766 1.134 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.235 0.928 0.235 1.00 28.75 1.797 1.150 13 55' 1.067 13.9 0.235 0.926 0.235 1.00 I 2 2 29.25 1.828 1.165 13 55 1.067 13.9 0.235 0.923 0.235 1.00 2 29.75 1.859 1.181 13 55 1.067 . 13.9 0.234 0.921 0.236 1.00 3 30.25 1.891 1.196 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.919 0.236 Infin 1.922 1.212 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.916 0.236 Infin 3 I 30.75 31.25 1.953 1.228 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.913 0.236 Infin 3 31.75 1.984 1.243 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.910 0.236 Infin 3 32.25 2.016 1.259 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.907 0.236 Infin 2.047 1.275 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.904 0.236 Infin 3 I 32.75 33.25 2.078 1.290 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.902 0.236 Infin .3 33.75 2.109 1.306 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.899 0.236 Infin 2.141 1.322 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.896 0.236 Infin 3 I 34.25 34.75 2.172 1.337 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin Infin 0.893 0.890 0.236 0.235 Infin Infin 3 35.25 '2.203 .1.353 26 73 0.929 24.2' 3 35.75 2.234 1.369 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.886 0.235 Infin 36.25 2.266 1.384 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.882 0.235 Infin I ' 3 36.75 2.297 1.400 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.878 0.234 Infin 3 37.25 2.328 1.416 26 73 .0.929 24.2 Infin 0.874 0.234 Infin 3 37.75 2.359 1.431 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.870 0.233 Infin 38.25 2.391 1.447 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.866 0.233 Infin I 3 3 3875 2.422 1.463 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.862 0.232 Infin 3 39..25 2.453 1.478 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.858 0.232 Infin 3 39.75 2.484 1.494 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.855 0.231 Infin 40.25 2.516 1.509 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.850 0.230 Infin I 3 3 40.75 2.547 1.525 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.845 0.229 Infin 3 41.25 2.578, 1.541 26 ' 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.840 0.229 Infin 41.75 2.609 1.556 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.836 0.228 Infin I 3 3 42.25 2.641 1.572 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.831 0.227 Infin 3 42.75 2.672 1.588 26 73 0.92.9 24.2 Infin 0.826 0.226 Infin 3 43.25 2.703 1.603 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.821 . 0.225 Infin 3 43.75 2.734 1.619 26 73 0.929 24.2 Infin 0.816 0.224 Infin I I I I I I I I.. ----- -------------------- * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * ************************ YER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT. FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF (ft) I(blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) %<#200 50 SPT (ft) i 17.0 6.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 26.0 0.250 10.25 . 15.0 0.250 20.25 2 30.0 13.0 SUSCEPTIBLE. (1) 125.0 3 44.0 26.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 15.0 0.250 30.25 Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - BUTTRESS DESIGN General Slope stability analyses were performed using the PCSTABL5 computer program; which was developed by Purdue University in conjunction with the Indiana State Highway Commission. PCSTABL5 utilizes a two-dimensional limiting equilibrium method to calculate the factor of safety. For this analysis, the Modified Janbü Method of Slices was used in analysis of irregular failure surfaces. For analysis of circular surfaces, the Modified Bishop Method of Slices was utilized. A STABL5 search routine was used to identify the critical potential failure surface in each case analyzed. A discussion of shear strength parameters used in the analyses, and descriptions of results obtained for each case analyzed, are presented below. Computer-generated output files showing the conditions modeled, and minimum' calculated factor of safety in each case, are also attached. , 'Shear Strength Parameters Shear strength parameters assumed for analysis are indicated in the output files, and are summarized below. Selection of strength parameters was based on laboratory testing, and previous experience with similar soil and formational materials. The shear strength parameters assumed are ,considered to be conservative representations of the actual strength of materials on site. Project No. 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 APPENDIX D (Continued) SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - BUTTRESS DESIGN Undisturbed Torrey Formation Sandstone 300 38 Undisturbed Delmar Formation Claystone, Across Bedding 500 18 Delmar Formation Remolded . Clay Seam, Along Bedding 150 . 10 Undisturbed Delmar Formation . Sandstone 300 28. Compacted Fill 250 . 26 Cross Section A-A' The proposed 35-foot high 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) cut slope of Cross Section A-A' was analyzed for deep-seated potential failure surfaces. Block failure along the lowest of the two remolded clay seams was determined to be the most critical mode of failure, from' analysis of several potential failure modes. A buttress fill with a 30-foot wide key will be required to stabilize the proposed cut slope. Minimum calculated factor of safety for the slope, with the recommended buttress fill, is greater than 1.5. Analysis results for potential block failures along the lower and upper remolded clay seams are shown on Figure Nos. D-1 and D-2, respectively. , ' . Project No. 05466-12-01 : March 21; 1995 APPENDIX D (Continued) SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - BUTTRESSDESIGN The search routine used allowed for generation of circular surfaces within the stability/replacement fill, with a resulting factor-of-safety of approximately 2.2. Analysis results for circular surfaces are shown on Figure No. D-4. The search routine used for generation of circular surfaces within the stability/replacement flu, and also behind the fill into the natural slope. The critical slip surface identified extended behind the stability/replacement fill, with a resulting factor-of-safety of approximately 2.2 (see Figure No. D-4). Surfaces within the stability fill have greater factors-of- safety. Stability of the temporary back-cut for the buttress fill was also analyzed. It is recommended the base of the buttress fill extend at least five feet below the lowest sheet-grade elevation. Results of an analysis performed for a 1:1 '(horizontal: vertical) back-cut slope are shown on Figure No. D-3. Minimum calculated factor of safety for the during construction back-cut shown is only slightly in excess of 1.0. Consequently, the temporary slope is anticipated to be marginally stable. Recommendations relative to construction of the buttress fill, and stability of the during-construction back-cut, are presented in the Conclusions and Recommendations section. - C ch F-H -XC <•C. 0 • co >-C C 0 In 0 0 OLIVENHA'IN ROAD IMPROVEMENT -D -3 0 Li. (D 1) z 0 0 Lfl G) U) 0 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00 180.00 210.00 240.00 X -. 4XIS (ft) •• ** PCSTABL6 by Purdue University modified by Peter J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin-Madison --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Olivenhain Road Improvement Cross Section B-B' Proposed Cut Slope Block Failure Along Lower Shear Plane Figure C-i BOUNDARY COORDINATES S 8 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries BoUndary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 4 2 40.00 29.00 46.00 32.00 2 3 46.00 32.00 48.00 33.00 3 4 48.00 33.00 79.00 48.00 2 5 79.00 48.00 81.00 49.00 3 6 81.00 49.00 82.00. 50.00 2 7 82.00 50.00 130.00 57.50 2 8 130.00 57.50 240.00 75.00 1 9 130.00 57.50 240.00 63.00 2 10 81.00 49.0.0 240.00 60.00 3 11 79.00 48.00 240.00 59.00 2 12 4800 33.00 240.00 46.50 3 13 46.00 32.00 240.00 45.50 2 .14 40.00 29.00 240.00 • 30.00 4 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 130.0 300.0 38.0 0.00. 0.0 1 2 130.0 130.0 300.0 18.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 120.0 120.0 100.0 10.0 0.00 0.0, 1 4 130.0 130.0 3.00.0 28.0 0.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 5.0 Box X-Left . Y -Left X-Right Y-Right . Height No. . (ft) . . (ft) . , (ft) . . (ft) . (ft) 1 48.00 32.50 . 50.00 32.60 0.10 2 51.00 . 32.60 100.00 36.20 0.10 Following Is Displayed TheMost Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * *,Safety Factor is Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified.By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft). (ft) 1 48.21 33.10 2 48.32 33.02 3 48.91 32.52 4 • 81.51 i4.86 5 81.96 35.39 6 85.17 39.22 • 7 • 88.38 43.05• • • 8 .91.60 46.88 9 93.36 4.8.98 10 94.14 49.91 11 • 95.77 52.15 : • *** 1.315 '*** • . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT -. -D -3 0 Li. ID 1) Cf z 0 01 0) 0) I- 'I o• 4 NO 0 0 30.00 60.00 90.00- 120.00 150.00 180.00 210.00 240.00 X -: AXI.S (ft) ** PCSTABLG. ** by Purdue University modified by Peter J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin-Madison --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spèncer's Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Olivenhain Road Improvement Cross Section B'-B' Proposed Cut Slope Block Failure' Along Upper Shear Plane Figure C-2 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 Top Boundaries 14 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 ' 0.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 2 40.00 29.00 46.00 32.00 3' 46.00 32.00 48.00 33.00 4 48.00 33.00 79.00 48.00 5 79.00 48..00 81.00 49.00 6 81.00 49.00 82.00 50.00 7 82.00 50.00 130.00 57.50 8 130.00 57.50 240.00, 75.00 9 130.00 57.50 240.00 63.00 10 81.00 49.00 240.00 60.00 11 79.00 48.00 240.00 59.00 '12 48.00 33.00 240.00 46.50 13 46.00 32.00 ' 240.00 45.50 14 40.00 29.00 240.00 30.00 Soil Type Below End 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 4 I I ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS. 1 4 Type(s) of Soil a U Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface :No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. I 1 130.0 130.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 130.0 130.0 300.0 18.0 0.00 0.0 3 120.0 120.0 100.0 10.0 0.00 0.0 1 I 4 130.0 130.0 300.0 28.0 0.00 0.0 1 I A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 1 : The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base H Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of - Sliding'Block Is 5.0 I Box X-Left : Y-Left X-Right • : • No. (ft) (ft) (ft) 1: 81.00 48.50 : 82.00 • : 2 150.00 53.40 : 200.00 I: • . I S I : 1• S S I H•• :5 Y-Right Height (ft) (ft) 48.50 0.10 56.90 0.10: Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. * * Safety Factor Is Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 80.63 48.81 2 81.ob 48.50 3 199.9:8 56.86 4 200.31 57.25 5 203.53 61.08 6 203.61 61.18 7 205.80 65.67 8 207.85 69.89 *** 2.598 *** C LU 0 P C -p C "2 C OJ .0). x0 C LO 0 0 • cn '1 C, C 0 rn 3 0 OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT 30.00 60.00 90.00 • 120.00 150.00 180.00 210.00 240.00 - X -AXIS Aft) - . ** PCSTABLG ** by Purdue University , modified by Peter J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin-Madison --Slope Stability A±ialysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Olivenhain Road Improvement Cross Section B-B' . V Proposed Back Cut Block Failure Along Lower Shear Plane Figure C-3 BOUNDARY COORDINATES' 11 Top Boundaries 17 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below End 1 .O.O 29.00 V 40.00 29.0.0 4 2 40.00 29.00 40.10 24.00 4 3 V 40.10 24.00 V 70.00 24.00 4 4. .70.00 24.00 75.00 29.00 4 5 75.00 29.00 80.00 34.00 '2 6 80.00 34.00 81.00 35.00 . 3 7 . 81.00 35.00 95.00 49.00 2 8 . 95.00 49.00 96.00 50.00 3 9 96.00 . 50.00 98.00 52.00 2 10 98.00 52.00 130.00 57.50 2 11 130.00 57.50 240.00 75.00 1 12 130.00 57.50 240.00 63.00 2 13 . 96.00 50.00 240.00 60.00 . . 3 14 95.00 . . 49.00 240.00 59.00 2 15 81.00 35.00 240.00 46.12 3 16 80.00.. 34.00 17 75.00 29.00 240.00 45.19 2 240.00 30.00 4 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 130.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 130.0. 130.0 300.0 18.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 120.0 120.0 100.0 10.0 0.00 0.0 1 130.0 130.0 300.0 28.0 0.00 0.0 1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Met-hod, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line SegmentsForActive And Passive-Portions Of Sliding Block Is -5.0 - - Box - X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. -- (ft) - (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 - 8100 34.50 86.00 34.88 0.10 2 87.00 34.64 200.00 42.86 0.10 / Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. S * * Safety Factor Is Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 80.76 34.76 2 81.11 34.47 3 95.24 35.21 4 95.94 36.05 5 98.88 40.09 6 101.82 44.14 7 104.76 48.18 8 105.90 49.75 9 106.73 50.75 10 109.02 53.89 *** 1.024 *** - - - mm - - - - - - mm - mm - mm 0 C) Cu -p 0 S- 0 0) u-i FH XC <C C (O >-0 0 m C C Ui 0 0 OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 X -. AXIS 150.00 180.00 210.00 240.00 (ft) ** PCSTABLG ** by Purdue University modified by Peter J. Bósscher University of Wisconsin-Madison --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Olivenhain Road Improvement Cross Section B-B' Proposed 30-Foot Wide Buttress Fill Block Failure Along Lower Shear Plane Figure C-4 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 19 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No.. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below End 1 0.00 29.00 40.00 29.00 4 2 40.00 29.00 82.00 50.00 5 3 82.00 50.00 98.00 52.00 5 4 98.00 52.00 130.00 57.50 2 5 130.00 57.50 240.00 75.00 1 6 40.00 29.00 40.10 2400 4 7 40.10 24.00 70.00 24.00 4 8 70.00 24.00 75.00 29.00 4 9 75.00 29.00 80.00 34.00 2 10 80.00 34.00 81.00 35.00 3 11- 81.00 35.00 95.00 49.00 2 12 95.00 49.00 96.00 50.00 3 13 9.6.00 50.00 98.00 52.00 2 • • 14 130.00 57.50 240.00 63.00 2 15 96.00 50.00 240.00 60.00 3 16 95.00 49.00 240.00 59.00 2 17 81.00 35.00 240.00 46.20 3 18 80.00 34.00 240.00 45.20 2 19 75.00 29.00 240.00 30.00 4 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS. 5 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 130.0 300.0 38.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 130.0 130.0 300.0 18.0 0.00 0.0 1 3 120.0 120.0 100.0 10.0 0.00 0.0 1 4 130.0 130.0 300.0 28.0 0.00 0.0 1 5 130.0 130.0 250.0 26.0 0.00 0.0 1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Sliding Block Surfaces, Has Been Specified. The Active And Passive Portions Of The Sliding Surfaces Are Generated According To The Rankine Theory. 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 2 Boxes Specified For Generation Of Central Block Base Length Of Line Segments For Active And Passive Portions Of Sliding Block Is 5.0 Box X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Height No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 81.00 34.50 82.00 34.60 0.10 2 100.00 35.90 150.00 39.30 0.10 1. Following Is Displayed The Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined.. * * Safety Factor is Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points I Point X-Surf Y-Surf. No. (ft) . (ft) I 1 67.90 42.95 2 68.13 42.80 3 72.37 40.15 I 4 76.61. 37.50 5 80.85 34:85 6 81.24 34.52 7 149.84 39.27 8 150.36 39.89 9 153.30 43.93 I : 10 . 11 156.24 1.59.17 47.98 52.02 12 . 160.25 53.50 13 161.11 54.52 - 14 164.04 58.57 15 164.52 .59.23 16 166.52 63.31 I . 2.233 1• . I . .. . I . . I . I. I .. I . .. ., APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 05466-12-01 I I Project No 05466-12-01 March 21, 1995 I .'. •1 I . APPENDIX CALCULATIONS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS STREET: Oliverihain Road - .TRAFFIC INDEX: 9 : ... I R-VALUE: 5 . REFERENCES: a. Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 608.4 b. City of Carlsbad - Supplemental Standard No. GS-17 Design Guideline for Flexible Pavements with Tensar Geogrid Reinforced Base I Layers, Tensar Technical Note BR2, dated March 1986 Design Procedure for Flexible Pavements with Tensar Geogrid Reinforced Base Layers, dated 1994. .' I PAVEMENT SECTION GE for AC = (.0032)(9)(100-78)+.2 = 0.83 feet I . . GE = 0.83 feet for AC yields actual thickness = 5.4 inches Use 6.0 inches 'AC (minimum of 6 inches required by City of Carlsbad [Reference b]). I . GE for 6.0 inches AC, = 0.83 , . . . .. . GE for AB = (.0032)(9)(100-5)-0.83 = 1.60 feet I .GE = .60 feet AB yield actual thickness = 19.5 inches Use 6 inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over 19.5 inches of Aggregate Class 2 Base (AB). I As an alternative, reduce AB thickness requirement by including Bi-Axial geogrid (Tensar BX1 100, or equivalent). Base thickness (Reference c) reduced to 12 inches with geogrid placed at mid-depth. Therefore, use 60 AC underlain by. 12 inches of AB with geogrid reinforcing. I I I I I I I I 1 I I APPENDIX F LOGS OF PREVIOUS BORINGS AND TRENCHES FROM SOIL I AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION, PREPARED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED ON JUNE 18, 1990 FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I Project No. 05466-12-01 I I I I I I I FILE NO. 04392-04-02 BORING SB 1 10 DEPTH SAMPLE o. c SOIL W. x °'u. UJ X FEET NO.IN C ELEVATION 81 DATE COMPLETED4/12/90 . .' EQUIPMENT _MAYHEW1000 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SM-SC UNDOCUMENTED FILL .1: Medium dense, moist, mottled dark and 2 SBI-I light brown, Silty to Clayey fine - 23 114.7 9.1 • - _____ SAND: metal debris (spoon) : SM SLOPE WASH - 12 117.4 15.4 - SB 1- 2 J : Medium dense, moist, dark brown, slightly • \ clayey, Silty fine SAND _____ - BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET Figure A-i Log of Test Boring SB 1, page 1 of 1 OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS U ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST • ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING' TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. U- I I FILE NO. 04392-04-02 BORING SB 2 •. .- >.. UJ DEPTH SAMPLE 0 • I- SOIL <C tL 0) CLASS ELEVATION 81 DATE COMPLETED4/12/90 ui d FEET - 0 IIj'o - co EQUIPMENT MAYHEW1000 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - : ALLUVIUM - SM Loose to medium dense, damp to moist, 2 - SB2-1 light brown to brown, Silty fine SAND - 6 90.5 6.1 SB2-2 ;s;,;t:;;; fine -- ___- Medi; ::. - 109.5 20.0 • : SC SAND . . 6- Medium stiff, wet, dark brown, fine 8 - SB2-3 CL Sandy CLAY. . 7 106.5 23.3 10- DELMAR FORMATION - Very dense, moist, olive brown to yellow 12 - A :38 brown, Silty fine SANDSTONE; iron . • 106.5 21.0 stained blebs BORING TERMINATED AT 13 FEET Figure A-2 Log of Test Boring SB . 2, page 1 of 1 OLR 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS FM I II ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I. FILE NO. 04392-04-02 I BORING SB 3 DEPTH SAMPLE 3 SOIL • t - IN NO. x z CLASS ELEVATION 92 DATE COMPLETED4/12/90 I FEET H 0 (USCS) . wo O EQUIPMENT MAYHEW 1000 E MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0. - . H SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Medium dense, moist, light yellow, Silty 2 - SB3-1 fine SAND: cohesionless when disturbed 11 937 6.0 I 4 -. - 9 100.3 11.9 - SB3-2 6 - ALLUVIUM I . - :. :'. Sc Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey fine to medium SAND 10 - SB3-3 . . 10 112.9 16.2 I I 12 •i . . . . p.14. - SB3-4 . 18 116.3 17.3 18 20 -S93-5 . ., . 10 103.0 22.5 I 22 24 . . . - SB3-6 . . 6 105.0 24.3 I 26 . Ii 28 i . . . . u Figure A-3 Log of Test Boring SB 3, page 1 of 2 01 R SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BEREPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I . FILE NO. 04392-04-02 BORING SB 3 z . -. a i- o. DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL NO. CLASS ELEVATION 92 DATE COMPLETED4/12/90 '- 0 FEET (USCS) C pi EQUIPMENT MAYHEW1000 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 30 - -. - Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey CL fine to medium SAND (CONTINUED) 32 - - DELMAR FORMATION 34 - ,, Dense, moist, grayish-green, Clayey fine to coarse SANDSTONE - SB3-7 - 20 107.9 22.4 36 - ____ - BORING TERMINATED AT 36 FEET I I I I I I 1 I Figure A-4 Log of Test Boring SB 3, page 2 of 2 OLR I I NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.- IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I FILE NO. 04392-04-02 IM W BORING SB 4 DEPTH SAMPLE o a SOIL H)- M °u. IN z CLASS ELEVATION 85 DATE COMPLETED4/12/90 1 (a ui z I FEET (USCS) a • co EQUIPMENT MAYHEW1000 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM ALLUVIUM - 2 : Medium dense, dry, brown, Silty fine I SB4-1 : to medium SAND 6 4 . Medium dense, moist, light brown, Clayey I . SB4-2 : :• fine to medium SAND 3 -6- I : 8 - 10 SB4-3 6 106.2 22.2 - 12 - _____- -- Firm, moist, dark gray-brown, fine to I medium Sandy CLAY to Clayey medium - 14.: CL/SC SAND: mottled - - SB44 12 113.1 19.9 I :16 1:18 1 S . - 20 - SB4-5 . 7 103.8 23.2 I 22- I 24 - SB4-6 13. 111.0 20.9 ' 26- 28 - I - . 30 -Firm, Sc DELMAR FORMATION moist, greenish-gray, Clayey fine SB47 to medium SANDSTONE 18 107.5 27.4 BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET Figure A-5 Log of Test Boring SB 4, page 1 of 1 OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS D .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I. .. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I FILE NO. D-4392-402 I BORING LB 1 DEPTH SAMPLE J 3 SOIL IN ELEyATION _110 DATE COMPLETED 4/11/90 FEET 3 EQUIPMENT BUCKET AUGER RIG __- a. a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SLOPE WASH I - 2 - CL. Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY - DELMAR FORMATION . . - 2 - - LB1-1 -- Hard, damp, dark greenish-gray to olive, - I Silty CLAYSTONE: highly fractured in - - random directions - CL - 10 LB1-2 : Becomes more sandy, moist 9.5 to 12 - 3 125.2 10.1 = feet 112 1/8 inch thick, wet, remolded clay seam; N30W, 5SW throughgoing slickensided I - 14 -. surface at 12.25 feet 6-8 inches calcium-carbonate-cemented - - - LB1-3 fossiliferous sandstone at 13 feet - 3 113.9 17.6 16 _LBI-4 - - - . Bedding N30W, 5SW; sharp depositional - 18 - contact at 17.5 feet - Sandstone layer; 12 inches thick, - light orange, fine sandstone 17.5 20 - LB1-5 CH to19feet 6 . Very hard, moist, dark greenish-gray, Silty - 22 CLAYSTONE; numerous random slickensided - fractures 6-10 inch thick zone of slickensided - adverse fractures at approx. NIOE, 20W; 24 . (discontinuous fractures, but continuous - . --- - . zone) at 21 feet 26 • . . . ______ 1/4-3/8 inch thick, wet, remolded clay seam; N20W, 3SW, throughgoing slickensided - 28 surface at 27 feet - • Figure. A-6 Log of Test Boring.LB1, page 1of2 . OLR LI SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 - -. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I .. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) - II ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .. CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. DISTURBED I I FILE NO. D-4392-402 BORING LB 1 DEPTH C I- SOIL o uJ. x IN SAMPLE NO. (j ELEVATION110 DATE COMPLETED 4/11/90 FEET EQUIPMENT BUCKET AUGER RIG W W 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 30 LB1-ô 8 - - ______ Hard, moist, 1iht brown, Sandy-Clayey : LB1-7 SILTSTONE with thin bedded gypsum every 32 - SM -- lto 2inches------------------------------------- - Dense, wet, dark orange, Silty, coarse SANDSTONE 36 - - - - Veiy ------- - - SANDSTONE: seepage atcontact BORING TERMINATED AT 36.5 FEET • NEAR REFUSAL Figure A-7 Log of Test Boring LB 1, page 2 of 2 OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS' AND TIMES. I I FILE NO. D-4392-402 I TRENCH T 1 .- DEPTH SAMPLE J o 3 SOIL >. H IL I NO.IN CLASS Q ELEVATION 89 DATE COMPLETED4/10/90 LL I FEET H 0 IU in HO EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE I - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - SLOPEWASH - Stiff, damp, dark brown, very Sandy 12 CL CLAY - I - - __ __ __ __ : - 'Irregu1ardepositional contact inclined - 6 - southward at 5 feet -. DELMAR FORMATION 1 SM - Dense, damp, light tan-orange, Silty 8 : fine to coarse SANDSTONE - I - 10 : - Becomes moist at 10 feet - - 1-foot thick lense of green claystone if - 12 • between 10.5 and 11.5 feet - 14 • : - _____ Remolded clay seam 1/2- to 1-inch thick S inclined northward approximately - CH degrees at 14 feet --- - 10 - 16 1 Stiff, wet, dark greenish-gray, Silty - CLAYSTONE; random slicken-sided clay seams and fractures TRENCH TERMINATED AT 16 FEET 1: IS S. I I Figure A-8, Log of Test Trench T 1 I I OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL UJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I., FILE NO. D-4392-402 IW TRENCH T-2 Zo DEPTH SAMPLE o 3 SOIL u. tx 1 NO o CLASS ELEVATION 88 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 M to U) LU co FEET J W EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 - SLOPE WASH - Stiff, damp, dark brown, very Sandy - 2 CL-SC CLAY - II 6 - Angular claystone clasts between 5 - and 6feet ML - - \ Irregular depositional contact inclined southward at 6.5 feet 8 - ______ ______ - ___ _____________________ FORMATION EDELMAR , damp, light olive to brown, very very fine SANDSTONE to STONE; some clay I TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET I: I .. I. 'I j S 'I I , I Figure A-9, Log of Test Trench T 2 .. OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I . ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I S I FILE NO. D-4392-402 TRENCH T3 Zo DEPTH SAMPLE S SOIL UIX FE IN 0 0 ELEVATION87 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 ET EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0- - SLOPE WASH Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy'CLAY -2- CL 4 - Irregular depositional contact - - inclinedsouthwardat 4 feet DELMAR FORMATION S 6 - SM Dense, damp, light tan-orange, Silty coarse SANDSTONE TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET Figure A-lU, Log of Test Trench T 3 OLR 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 10 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS P7! I RZ I ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 ... CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I U: FILE NO. D-43902 I ix TRENCH T 4 >. . DEPTH 3 SOIL ' SAMPLE ELEVATION 86 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 FEET EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK .BACKHOE o . I ____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - — ___ __________________________ SLOPE WASH - Soft-stiff, moist, dark brown to olive, 2 - CL Sandy CLAY. 6 -- Very irregular depositional contact - - CH \_inclined southward at 6.5 feet I - DELMAR FORMATION .Hard, moist, medium olive-green, I Silty CLAYSTONE: bedding N50E, 5SE; randomly fractured with clay seams, gypsum I . TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET 1 I.. I . . . I I Figure A-il, Log of Test Trench T 4 . OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 1 . ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND-AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I , . .• I 1P7TT P MC fl_4Q...Afl TRENCH T5 DEPTH SAMPLE I-0 <1 SOIL 0 • IN NO CLASS ELEVATION 117 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 z FEET 3 (USCS) I-3 0 • EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 - SM SLOPE WASH Loose, dry, dark brown, Silty fine \. SAND 1 H: TORREY SANDSTONE - 4 SM Dense, damp, light tan, Silty fine • SANDSTONE: massive to crossbedded T5-1 H H -6- - - 8 Sharp depositional contact; N70E, 7SE - - at 8.5 feet T5 2 - DELMAR FORMATION - 10 L-CI - Hard, moist, medium olive-green, Silty CLAYSTONE; randomly fractured slicken- sided surfaces TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET Figure A-12, Log of Test Trench T 5 OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I •.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE E3 ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT1 WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I. I FTTF NO. D-492-402 I>- ul TRENCH T 6 DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL . IN NO. x z ( ELEVATION 91 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 d FEET EQUIPMENT __JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE M EL 0 0 I . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, dry to damp, medium to light I . 2 SM-S\ brown, slightly silty fine SAND 4 • - -------------------------------------- Loose, damp, light tan, fine SAND : - I6 SP : ALLUVIUM I-- T61 SM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty fine 10 : SAND I 12 Becomes wet 12 feet at - . - 14 - -. .. Groundwater at 14.5 feet ______ TERMINATED AT 15 FEET I TRENCH I I I . . I I . H Figure A-13, Log of Test Trench T 6 OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS [I ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) II... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE El ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE. NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I FILE NO. D-4392 TRENCHT 7 DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL IL M IN CLASS ELEVATION 94 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 & in D FEET. (USCS) a 0 H 0 . w o • EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - - ___ ___________________________ ___ ___ ___ SLOPE WASH - Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY 2 - - T7-1 CL . - 111.0 13.6 II 4 I T7.2 6 - . Possible remolded layer 1 inch plus/ - I . . minus thick at base (hillside creep) at 6.5 feet -8- CL - DELMAR FORMATION I Hard, moist, light olive mottled - 10 with orange, Silty to Sandy CLAYSTONE; - - - bedding N30W, 5NE Calcium-carbonate cemented sandstone '.layer 3to4 inches thick at1ifeet -,1 -. SM Dense, moist, light brown, Silty coarse I . . SANDSTONE TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13 FEET I. . I 1- .. I, . . .. H.• I Figure A-14, Log of Test Trench T 7 . . .OLR 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS - I I.. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE. -. - CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I FILE NO. D-4392-402 I TRENCH T 8 . ). . DEPTH SAMPLEIN SOIL FEET NO. ELEVATION 93 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 d EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE I . .' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 UNDOCUMENTED FILL - Medium dense, damp, medium to light I : - 2 : F SM brown, Silty fine SAND - 6 - : :: ALLUVIUM M Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty fine . SAND - 8 - : - ___---------------------------------------- -- T8-1 . Soft, wet, light reddish-brown, Sandy - I T8-2 CL . CLAY . 95.0 25.4 - 10 - - I -Becomes saturated at 11 feet - 12 14 -. - - Groundwater at 14.5 feet - I1 6 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 16 FEET 1 S. I I . S5 • I . 5. I Figure A-15, Log of Test Trench T 8 .. . OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL F ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I . .5 I FILE NO. D-4392-402 IM W TRENCH T 9 DEPTH 0 3 SOIL ''- - UI 1 SAMPLE CLA ELEVATION 91 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 U. I FEET (USCS) .1 M EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 - SLOPE WASH , Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY 1 121 CL I 4 - Irregular depositional contact - 6 __ :. - SM __ \_inclined southward at 5 feet ______ DELMAR FORMATION I Dense, moist, light tan, Silty coarse SANDSTONE: interbedded with thin olive claystone beds 6 to 8 inches I thick TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET I. 0 I .. I .. I . ..'.. . I. .. . { Figure A-16, Log of Test Trench T 9 .OLR U SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I . ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I - FILE NO. D-4392-402 I TRENCH T 10 DEPTH SAMPLE 3 SOIL . • IN NO. z CLASS ELEVATION 84 DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 I- FEET (USCS) 3 D IU EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE I - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0• - . UNDOCUMENTED FILL - Loose; moist to wet, orange-brown, I SM mottled, Silty medium SAND; chunks of • H asphaltic concrete debris I .4 Irregular contact at 5 feet ____________________ - - 6 SLOPE WASH - CL Soft, wet, dark brown, Sandy CLAY - 8 - Transitional into saturated, plastic I . 0 CH clay within Delmar Formation at 9 feet - 10 SM DELMAR FORMATION Soft to stiff, saturated, green-gray, I Silty CLAYSTONE; weathered claystone bed with remolded clay seams --------------------------------------- .Dense, wet, light olive-green, Silty I very fine SANDSTONE; trace of clay TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET I 1 0 I I I. 0 Figure A-17, Log of Test Trench T 10 . .OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I... DRIVESAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I I... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I 0•' •0 I: .. . FILE NO. D-4392-402 I TRENCHT11 0 4T DEPTH. j 3 SOIL . . H • ZL SAMPLE o z NO.. ELEVATION DATE COMPLETED 4/10/90 n iii FE IN ET EQUIPMENT JD-555 TRACK BACKHOE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - - - __ UNDOCUMENTED FILL I . 2 HSC . Loose, damp, medium brown mottled with tan, Clayey to Silty medium SAND; = - chunks of asphaltic concrete, . sandstone '.4 .... SLOPE WASH CL Soft to stiff, wet, dark brown, Sandy -6 CLAY . .8: 1 - - . DELMAR FORMATION 10 - Dense, wet, medium orange, mottled SM-SC with olive, Silty CLAYSTONE; inter- Y bedded thin claystone layers, seepage I 12 - ______ - ___ TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET I I.. 1 1 . I ..., ., I. I . I Figure A-18, Log of Test Trench T 11 .. .OLR . - SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I . ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE . ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE. INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I ., I / FILE NO. 04392-04-02 I TEST PIT HP 1 Z W.>. 0 W X DEPTH SOIL SAMPLE IN CLASS ELEVATION DATE COMPLETED 4/17/90 FEET 3 (USCS) . 0 EQUIPMENT HAND PIT M IL - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 7 I . 0 ASPHALTICCONCRETE - 5 inches . (approx. 4 layers) .I SM SUBGRADE: Dense, moist, I L brown,Silty,slightlyclayeySAND I HAND PIT TERMINATED AT 10 INCHES I .... I I I I I , I . . I I Figure A-19, Log of Test Pit HP 1 . ' ot. SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 13 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE - NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT'THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED-TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TINES. riLt INk.). U'W-U'I-UZ Ir TEST PIT HP DEPTH C9 .j 3 SOIL o CW3 . HZ H I&J'• IN SAMPLE NO. o a z CLASS ELEVATION DATE COMPLETED 4/17/90 \ z1 • - ' z FEET H 0 (USCS) ..3 w0o C a. UA EQUIPMENT HAND PIT w z a o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 ASPHALTICCONCRETE - 6 inches (several layers) BASE: Crushed aggregate - 7 inches SM SUBGRADE: Dense, moist, brown, Silty SAND HAND PIT TERMINATED AT 16 INCHES Figure A-20 Log of Test Pit HP 2 OLR SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) RZ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. I I I I I I I I I P-i H I I L I I I I APPENDIX G LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FROM SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PREPARED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED ON JUNE 18, 1990 FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 0546-12-01 File No. D-4392-402 June 18, 1990 TABLE B-I Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results ASTM D1557-78, Method A Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Density Moisture No. Description pcf % Dry Wt. LB1-4 Olive Clayey SILT with 117.2 13.8 little fine sand TABLE B-il Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Moisture Unit Angle of Shear Dry Density Content Cohesion Resistance Sample No. pcf % psf Degrees LB14 105.3 14.2 250 26 'LB1-5 112.4 16.9 150 10 LB 1-6 114.4 13.4 900 36 TABLE B-M' Summary of R-Value Test Results Sample • Location R-Value Tb-i 1 t 2 feet 5. Test Samples remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. Residual shear. • I I File No. 04392-04-02 1 SAMPLE NO. SB1-1 U .1 I I .. I 0 I-. I- i N -J 0 U) z 0 0 I z C) a. :1 9.1 5 1 5 s iee APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 114.7 Initial Saturation (%) 53 Initial Water Content (%) 9.1 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5 I I I OLR CONSOLIDATION CURVE OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-i I File No. 04392-04-02 i SAMPLE NO. SB3-1 U I I 1. Iz 0 '.4 I- C I '.4 0 U., z 0 U I z Ui C.) Ui I I I. I APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) I Initial Dry Density (pcf) 93.7 Initial Saturation (%) 24.4 Initial Water Content (%) 6.0 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5 I I OLR CONSOLIDATION CURVE OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-2 1 File No. 04392-04-02 SAMPLE NO. SB3-2 5 i.ee APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) I Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.3 Initial Saturation (%) 57 Initial Water Content (%) 11.9 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5 ii I OLR CONSOLIDATION CURVE OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-3 I File No. 04392-04-02 1 SAMPLE NO. SB3-5 U I I I I Iz 0 H .1- 'I a I H -I 0 U) z 0 I u I. - z Ui 0 I I. I 5 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) I Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.0 Initial Saturation (%) . 98.7. Initial Water Content (%) 22.5 Sample Saturated at, (ksf) 1.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA OLR . . Figure B-4 I ' H , I File No. 04392-04-02 I SAMPLE NO. SB4-5 I I I 0 H I-. 'I 0 I H 0 (0 z 0 0 I z w 0 'U a. -- -= z • 41 12 1' e.i s i.e S iee APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) F nitial Dry Density (pcf) 103.0 Initial Saturation (%) 98.2 Initial Water Content (%) 23.2 Sample Saturated at (ksf) • . 1.0 I I I OLR CONSOLIDATION CURVE OLWENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-5 APPENDIX. H RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR OLIVENHAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OFF-SITE DIKE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 0546-12-01 I RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1 GENERAL I '• 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom- mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. I . 1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for I . substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was I . performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work I schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency I . ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a 1 quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped, until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2 DEFINITIONS . I 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the 1 . . grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 1 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work: 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil I . Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. 1 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. I 1: 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the I Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified.representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. I .2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during I the site grading. 2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addendums) which may I include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for'the development of.the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3 MATERIALS 3. 1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or I imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock I . fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 I inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 1 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to I .allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined 1 as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill, quantity. 1 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. I. I I 1 3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, I Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration I cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. I Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 1 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may I extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal :vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is I acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the I laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation I characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions othTer than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be I notified immediately io evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition. 4 CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED I 4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, I . roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be I grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. 4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. I S I S 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. I The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved, by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that I would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. I 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal: vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. I TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL I FINISH- CR4OE i —XsTNc GOuNO 2 IN St 3=4 rwAr NI QOCS mar ==R more mart- I S NO SCALE NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. I (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational I material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. I I I I I 1 I I I 6 I . I I I I I I. I I I I 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented- steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the speáified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in-accordance with Section 6.3. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91. - 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum density has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6 Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. - 6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that 'a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension maybe incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be, limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading, as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face' method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. I H I I I i I I [1 I 1 I I I I r I I LI I 6.2.6 All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his I representative. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance I with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope . of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward I suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not I facilities.to develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage control -construction infiltration of water. post 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by I rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. I Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a I 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in . Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made will be .determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.31 Once a rock fill lift has been I covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. I 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM Dli 96-64, may be performed' in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in-determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a I minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing .tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes I and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the I deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing I ' deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted fill. In no case. will the required number of be less than two. soil passes 6.3.4 ' A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations I to verify that the minimum number of 'passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during I . grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 1-1 I 1 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large I . rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. I 6.3.6 To reduce the.potential for 'piping of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. . The need to place graded filter material below I the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded I filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by I representatives of the Consultant. 7 OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during I .clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field ' density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. I 7.2 The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials I , below any disturbed surface: When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. I 7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant I . shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient I moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in. the rock fill determined in I Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the I rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. I I I I 7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be I as recommended -in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. I 7.5 The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project I ' specifications. 7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: I ' 7.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1 Field. Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the I Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2 Field Density Test,' Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of I ' Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3 Laboratory ,Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density I Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. I 7.6.1.4 Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion Index Test. I , 7.6.2 Rock Fills: I ' 7.6.2.1 Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. '8 PROTECTION OF WORK I . 8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been I installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. I . 8.2 After completion of grading as, observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. 9 CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should beprepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GorGon Incorporated Form. Revision dal: O8/9 ONE-YEAR' MONITORING REPORT for the Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub 9itigation Area, Carlsbad, California Prepared for: City of Carlsbad Public Works - Engineering Department 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 Contact: Sherri Howard (760) 602-2756 Prepared by: 'EI-11---~-~.--F-~M",~ll-I'~,~ilI OT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Teams for Complex Projects 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contacts: Doug Gettinger and John Minchin (760) 942-5147 On Behalf of: Native Landscape 9746 Tamarack Lane, Escondido, California 92029 Contact: Ardis Peery (760) 735 8700 RECEIVED JUL 03 2002 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT May 2002 I -1 .1 One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area,. Carlsbad I . TABLE OF CONTENTS I Section S Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... U 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................1 2.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGY .................................... 6 3.0 MONITORING RESULTS ............................................6 I 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................11 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................13 6.0 'REFERENCES .....................................................13 List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Map ...................................................2 I Figure 2 Vicinity Map ....................................................3 Figure 3 'As-Built Plan with Site Photo and Transect Locations .................4 I Figure 4 Figure 5 Site Photos 1 and 2 , ..............................................8 Transect Photos, 1, 2 and 3 .......................................9 List of Tables I Table 1 Mitigation Time Line ..............................................5 Table 2 Six-Month Cover Data ..........................................7 I Table 3 Success Standards ..............................................10 I Appendices S Appendix A Floral Species List, Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Revegetation Area Appendix B Transect Data, Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Revegetation Area June 4, 2002 5 5 5 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Moitoring Report ii I Professional Tennis for Cno.plcx Projects I I One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the first annual monitoring report for the Faraday Avenue coastal sage scrub I mitigation area. This report shows the mitigation area is making excellent progress towards establishing coastal sage scrub on the site and meeting its success standards. As part of the long-term maintenance and monitoring program for Faraday Avenue, Dudek & Associates, I Inc. (DUDEK) conducted the one-year monitoring visit on behalf of Native Landscape on May 3, 2002. Native Landscape is under contract with the.City of Carlsbad to implement the I mitigation project, and DUDEK was hired by Native Landscape to serve as the Restoration Biologist to conduct the monitoring and reporting program. I Three permanent 25-meter transects were randomly established and data collected in the 1.5 acre mitigation site. This report includes the results of DUDEK's field monitoring work I during the first year, as well as an analysis of the assessment and recommended remedial measures. Transect data is also compared with the data collected at the six-month milestone I to measure progress. Work began on the mitigation site installation in July 2000 and the mitigation planting was I . completed as of October 24, 2000. The mitigation site formally began it's five-year maintenance and monitoring period on March 9, 2001, following acceptance of the mitigation planting installation and the 120-day establishment period by the project's landscape I architect, Richard Apel. DUDEK began monitoring the project in March 2001. Transect data collected in May 2002 shows native coastal sage scrub cover is making excellent I progress at 64.7 percent. Total native coastal sage scrub cover was 56 percent cover as of the six-month monitoring milestone of September 2001. Weed cover remains low at zero along the transects. The mitigation area remains in good condition, as it has since DUDEK began monitoring in March 2001. Even the area at the southeast corner with unfavorable soil conditions is showing noticeable improvement following applications of gypsum and fertilizer. The mitigation area was watered occasionally during the rainy season because rainfall was so limited and we did not want to set back the excellent establishment we have seen to date. After one year, the mitigation area is dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), but also has relatively good species diversity and richness. Almost all of the I LC7 I June 4, 2002 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. PvoJeseonaI Teams for Cn.nplox Projects Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report Hi I I I One-Year Monitoring Report I Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad California sagebrush has come from seeding, and it has grown rapidly to become the most dominant species in such a short period of time'. DUDEK observed new California sagebrush seedlings germinating this winter under and around existing California sagebrush plants. Presumably the seed for these seedlings was produced by California sagebrush plants growing in the mitigation area. I Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) inhabits the adjacent existing habitat and based on DUDEK's experience with other projects, the mitigation area vegetation I 15 nearly big enough to provide suitable structure for gnatcatcher use. Though no wildlife surveys have been done for this project, wildlife species such as greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), California quail (Callipepla californica), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte 'anna), I desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) have been observed in the mitigation area during monitoring visits. The current site conditions at the one-year milestone are in substantial conformance with the mitigation plan requirements. Keeping weed competition under control and increasing native cover continues to be the primary maintenance goal at this time. Continuing special attention needs to be paid to the small portion of the site where soil conditions are obviously less favorable to ensure continued improvement in coastal sage scrub cover. The applications of agricultural gypsum and fertilizer made by the contractor , appear to have made a noticeable difference in growth, with a rapid response seen to the applications. This would indicate the applications were beneficial in improving plant establishment. 1 ~ I 1 I June 4, 2002 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Profeosionnl T for C,in,pkx Projects Faraday Avenue Coastal Sge Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report .' iv I rc,ns One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Faraday Avenue coastal sage scrub mitigation area is located on the north side of Faraday Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California (Figures 1 and 2). The mitigation area was required as compensation for coastal sage scrub (CSS) impacts resulting from the extension of Faraday Avenue to Cannon Road. The Faraday Avenue Extension Project resulted in a CSS mitigation requirement of 12.95 acres. Most of the mitigation was accomplished by purchasing offsite mitigation credits, 1.2 acres at the Manchester Avenue Mitigation Bank and 10.81 acres at the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank. The remaining 0.94 acre of the required CSS mitigation is being created along Faraday Avenue and its progress is the subject of this report. Figure 3 shows the As-Built Planting Plan with transect and photo view point locations. Due to the site configuration and total disturbed slope area available, the CSS mitigation area is actually 1.25 acres, so there is an excess 0.31 acre of CSS creation that the City plans to use for additional mitigation needs associated with the extension of Cannon Road West. The approved Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for Faraday Avenue Extension, City Project Number 3593, dated April 5, 2000 (Mitigation Plan) calls for three years of maintenance and monitoring. The Mitigation Plan states that the formal monitoring period will begin I following installation and successful completion of the 120-day plant establishment period. Formal monitoring is to occur at six, 12, 24, and 36-month milestones. The six and 12-month monitoring milestones have now been successfully completed. Table I shows a time line for I the mitigation work. The City hired Native Landscape, Inc. to install and maintain the mitigation area, using the Mitigation Plan and formal landscape construction drawings prepared by R. W. Apel, Landscape Architects. Work on the mitigation area began in July 2000, with soil preparation, which included the addition of agricultural gypsum, soil sulfur, iron sulfate, and 6-20-20 fertilizer. The soil was then ripped and the slopes were track walked. The irrigation system was installed and tested for proper operation. Native Landscape performed a pre-plant weed control program and began planting container stock in late September. The mitigation area was hydroseeded on October 7, 2000. Dead container plants were replaced during the establishment period and several mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) were accidentally planted instead of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). They were allowed to remain in place and may survive over the long term, or they could die June 4, 2002 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report Professional Teau,o for Cn.iaplox Projects I n I I Faraday Avenue .CSS Mitigation, One-Year Monitoring Report FIGURE, Regional Map 1 . A - ( / ( L ¶ . t,rie ''' '.. Agua ' '•1"".t5c Gil W ter - -- - - - P0 F P1 •1 .40 .:P, . •'......... I - I pot J \•,_, - I' -. - / •1 a -- 77 D L'OND> A ;T • \'i ••• - \. • f'i __ / - - I - - BASE MAP SOURCE: USf3S 7.5 Minute Series, Encinitas'& San Luis Rey Quadrangles 1" = 2000' Faraday Avenue CSS Mitigation, One-Year Monitoring Report 1FIGURE I Vicinity Map 2 I PLANT LEGEND CONTAINER PLANT LIST TOTAl. SYMBOL SPECIES SUE QUANTITY QUANTITY NOTES O llacosmilepfuleIleCOnsangUlaee 1991 20 25 Locate per plan In ravine area C 15' o.c. bt graupa of 10 Coyote Bush plaits. IaameIl. a,0om5 I gal IS 18 Random toosllena per pier, rrds.20' apfut. ° Bladder-pod MI Malownalawlne 1 gal 20 25 Maoaed@ 10-15' or- In groups ollOplants Laurel Sumac f MlrrIuapunle.us 1 gel 30 38 Mowed © 6'-5'o.c. In groups of 10 plants tl Red MorAey Flower CxnrLle e adllrtgs 21) 25 Collect ekigle pad cuttings from plants In adjacent areas. Centel Pdc0ley Pier Allow cut ends to callus over. Plant pods at 113 rallhal, Oe . depth In groupsci5-10 pads eo 00 not collect nus than 16% of pads from any olngla acorn. plant Avoid planting In ravins. (')Rhua ftlegriftle 1 get 30 38 Manned 8'-10 o.c. Or groupe ci 10 plants. Lammed. Slay.... S" meliffane I gel 50 83 Massed © 4'-6' o. In groups of 20 plain. Blado Sage Selrrbuaia me.ta 5 get 8 8 Locate per plan In rsvEle ndnbrnxn 25' apart. Merdiwn Elderberry streprilaua lIneraa,4 250 313'Massed Z4'o.cln groups dq50p&.anla. Avcldplanthig Purple Needle Oman pole other shrubs within st. groups. (•••\ xylamnaraatccdsr 5gal 10 13 Random locattocs per plan. nMarow Its jcca ahldigow mrtllnga 10 13 Random localtone per plas. Ceded sIngle atom omkrgs M*" Yucca from plants Or erljacere ames. Allow art ends to callus over. Plant (r-Ir of atom In ground. Do not collect more than 15% of the atoms train any elngle sra,ce plant lfyrlroaeedMto'A' Coastal Sage Scrub - (refer laseed rids let) HYDROSEED MIX W - COASTAL SAGE SCRUB nlmran Species lOuisa, Sued Purity Gemfnstlor, PuraUvs (ScluriWIcnhs?Ccrraricnnants) (%) Ralu(%) 8ued(%) Adenorraftac$a4a0nm, 1 50 20 10 chmllse 4 Adsmlelacattbmlne _ 16 50 0 ril&Seasbtueh ____ ____ Encaulacatlfomlca 2 40 60 24 TdaEflcela Eilogonwnfeaotculallan to 85 i Ret-lop Burkwhesl (Calf. Budretreet) EathadIacbnlca 1 05 76 71 Celfonda Poppy onaplratkrmmrceflfwnlcwn 2 IS 20 3 talus sw*ra Deerweed 4 40 60 24 Lurus8unortus 3 95 55 81 2 55 .. 2 85 50 43 Bladrsteo MOnitOrs ..........2 slaayrfndllUnrbelum . taw Game 56 76 ii 2 40 50 20 San DlogoSuntlower Photo Location (§ Ti - Transect Location (• = Start) Scale in Feet 50 NOTES: I. REFER TO TECHNICAl. SPECIFICATIONS LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION SECTIONS FOR MATERIAL & INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR SMALl. VERIFY FiNAl. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AS STAKED IN THE FIELD AND ADJUST QUANTITIES OF PLANT MATERIALS AND HYDROSEED TO COVER ENTIRE AREA USING QUANTITIES PER ACRE SHOWN ON PLANT LEGEND. IMPLEMENT WEED ERADICATION PROCEDURES PER SPECS. PRIOR TO PLANTING. PROJECT AREA SHALl. BE TRACKED WALKED' PER SPECS. PRIOR TO SEEDING, I. I Faraday Avenue CSS Mitigation, One-Year Monitoring Report FIGURE As-Built Planting Plan with Site Photo and Transect Locations ______ .1 One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad I . out over the next few years if site conditions are too dry. Rather than re-seed small areas I where seedling germination was low following hydroseeding, approximately 20 California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) plants were installed from rose pots in small areas where California sagebrush was not present. In addition, Native Landscape applied agricultural gypsum and transplanted California I sagebrush and coyote brush seedlings from areas onsite with dense cover to areas with sparse cover. In general, seedling establishment was excellent throughout the mitigation site. Table 1 Mitigation Time Line Faraday Avenue Mitigation Area, Carlsbad, California IIIII J''FM A M J J A SO N ___ D' IIsj I= !IIIY III1' !III S = Start of Mitigation Installation Planting C = Completion of Planting, and Start of the 120-day Plant Establishment Period B = Begin the Three Year Maintenance and Monitoring Period (March 9, 2001) M = Quantitative Monitoring Data Collection R Report Due T = Final Report and Scheduled Termination of the Maintenance and Monitoring Program Completed work is shaded gray in the table. The landscape architect agreed that the planting was in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications and the 120-day establishment period was certified as being complete on March'9, 2001. DUDEK began formally monitoring the mitigation site as of March 9, signifying the start of the formal three-year maintenance and monitoring period. DUDEK inspected the mitigation area with Native Landscape monthly during the first year to check on plant establishment and site maintenance. Dead container plants were counted and replaced at the 90-day milestone. June 4,2002 • 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 5 Professional Trains for Co.oplcx Projects One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad In accordance with the Mitigation Plan, DUDEK habitat restoration specialists Doug Gettinger and Andy Thomson conducted the six-month botanical monitoring in September 2001 and the one-year botanical monitoring on May 3, 2002. Following the six-month I monitoring, DUDEK prepared the Six-Month Monitoring Report for the Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage ScrubMitigation Area, Carlsbad, California, dated January 2002 (DUDEK 2002). DUDEK prepared this one-year monitoring report based on the data collected in September 2001 and I May 2002, along with general qualitative monitoring observations made since DUDEK started monitoring the project in March 2001. 2.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGY The one-year monitoring consisted of a general qualitative inspection and characterization of the mitigation area along with the collection of quantitative -botanical data. Three 25- meter transects were permanently established in the mitigation area at randomized locations at the six-month monitoring milestone. Data will be collected from these transects at the six-month, one-year, two-year, and three-year milestones. In addition to collecting transect data, an area approximately five-meters wide surrounding each transect was examined to determine what other native and exotic species were growing, and any other pertinent information was also noted. A photo was taken at each transect and general site photos were also taken to document site conditions.' 3.0 MONITORING RESULTS Table 2 provides cover data collected From the transect monitoring in May 2002 and Table 3 shows the success standards for the Faraday Avenue mitigation area. The cover data shows that the mitigation area is dominated by native CSS species with minimal weed cover after one-year. Figure 4 shows site monitoring photos at the same locations at March 2001 and May 2002. The photos clearly show the increase in native species cover. Figure 5 shows photos of, each transect at the one-year monitoring milestone. Total native species cover is 64.7 after one year, compared with 56 percent at the six-month monitoring. Exotic species cover is zero percent after one year, compared with 0.7 percent at the six-month monitoring. California sagebrush cover is 42 percent, up from 35.3 percent U at six months. California sagebrush has already met and may exceed the final 40760 percent cover goal for year three. California buckwheat (Eriogonutn fasciculatum) cover is six percent 1 TF .1 June 4, 2002 ' 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 0 6 I Professional Teams for Comrmplcx Projects I I One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad I and black sage (Salvia tnellifera) cover is 4.7 percent at the one-year milestone. Both should ultimately meet the three year 15-20 percent cover goal. California encelia (Encelia californica) cover is 4.7 percent and Coyote brush cover is 2.7 percent at the one year milestone. Blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchiurn be//urn) cover remains relatively high at 2.7 percent. after one year, but has declined from 6.7 percent at six months. This low growing herbaceous species will probably decline more over time as the surrounding larger growing plants mature and take up more space. DUDEK believes the CSS mitigation area will meet its overall year three cover goals, and it remains to be seen if the various species will meet their individual cover goals. Bare ground cover is 40 percent at the one year monitoring, down from 46 percent at the six month monitoring, and can be expected to decline further as the vegetation matures. With exotic species cover at zero percent after. one year, it shows the landscape contractor continues to do a good job controlling weeds. Few weeds are present in the mitigation area at the one year monitoring. Table 2 One-Year Cover Data Faraday Avenue Mitigation Area, Carlsbad, California I(IIIEIlI1MI 'Artemisia cal/torn/ca California sagebrush 42 Baccharis pilularis coyote brush 2.7 Encelia calilornica California encelia 4.7 Eriogonum tasciculatum California buckwheat 6 Eschscholzia cal/torn/ca California poppy 0.7 Malosma laur/na laurel sumac 0.7 Rhus integr/fol/a lemonadeberry 0.7 Salviamell/fera black sage 4.7 S/syr/nch/um be/lum blue-eyed grass 2.7 Total Native Cover 64.7 * denotes exotic species . Total Exotic Cover 0 June 42OO2 . - 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Prof cooi000l T o f C fIo Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 7 ,00r l'ojoo,o .- - r . •- :- - P---- - -- N-. - ••• •- -. - .-,-_--./ , - .- \---- - - - .- - A - - - 'II. •, - I - - 1 (1 - - ---. •__: • -.. t:., :'•'-' . i- * L I "\1Y. M .4 .; i? . i •1 zm P. ow WM - '4'- •-:. r - - -P.'-. •-L - -, 41 . : - .- l*v ' .4 Ja.-. r-. -. . F, ' •' :14t r ) Al a Ir. — (P I - f i 4' 4 •I S •ri / i Eif i fv ia XCv (51 . , - A - ..• ' j •-.''.:' '.•. " . ? . , I One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad Table 3.. Success Standards Faraday Avenue Mitigation Area, Carlsbad, California iiii;iei 40-60 percent California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) 15-20 percent black sage (Salvia mellifera) 7 15-20 percent California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) 20-30 percent other woody shrubs (see plant lists) 15-20 percent Open gaps of bare ground and/or native grasses and herbaceous plants. In addition to the quantitative monitoring, Dudek inspected the mitigation area with the landscape contractor monthly in year one to inspect their maintenance work and check on plant growth and establishment. In general, growth and establishment have been progressing quickly with few problems observed. Most plants are healthy and vigorous. Mortality has been minimal. DUDEK counted 13 dead container plants at the one year monitoring. Dead plants observed included seven Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), three laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), two mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor) , and one lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia). The severe insect problems seen on Mexican elderberry following planting have not been seen since and the plants are now healthy and vigorous. Because native seedling cover got off to a good start and weed control was timely, weed invasion was not a serious problem during the first year of monitoring. The irrigation program was altered throughout the year to reflect plant water needs and seasonal weather conditions. The irrigation system was kept off as much as possible during the rainy season, but was used some because of drought conditions. While the 'majority of the site performed well, the small problem areas noted during the 120- day installation establishment period remained problems. DUDEK checked these small bare I . areas and determined they are probably localized areas with toxic concentrations of salt or some other mineral, which is impacting plant survival and establishment. Most transplated coastal sage scrub seedlings put in these areas did well initially before declining and dying. I The soil has a slightly different color and texture in the areas where the plants are not growing. These areas appear where the grade was excavated during construction, potentially I June 4, 2002 . 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 10 Professional Tennis for Ciunplcx l'rojrcts - One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal -Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad exposing salt deposits. The areas are small enough that DUDEK does not believe they warrant laboratory soilanalysis to confirm our suspicions. On DUDEK's recommendation, the landscape contractor applied agricultural gypsum and 19-6-12 fertilizer, with positive results seen relatively quickly. These areas continue to improve slowly and should all eventually have acceptable native plant cover. Even if they remain relatively barren, they are small enough that they will not impact the overall mitigation area success. DUDEK noticed sigiificant herbivory in the mitigation area at the one year monitoring. The damage appears to have been done by both deer and rabbits. Rabbits were observed in the mitigation area: Because of drought conditions, the surrounding native habitat is already dried out in early May, while the mitigation area is still green because of periodic irrigation. The majority of vegetation is established enough that its survival is not in question. I Vandalism has not been a problem in the mitigation area to date, but there has been occasional foot and bicycle traffic through the mitigation area. So far there has not been any significant damage done to the vegetation. A fence was installed on the street side along the I sidewalk edge that has kept most people.out of the mitigation area. There is also a wire fence along the western edge of the mitigation area which helps discourage traffic. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS DUDEK makes the following recommendations to help ensure the Faraday Avenue CSS mitigation area stays on track to meet its success standards. 1. Control the following perennial exotic species throughout the entire project site if they appear: fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.), castor bean (Ricinus convnunis), salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), giant cane (Arundo donax), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), common Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), acacia (Acacia spp.), and myoporum (Myoporum laetum). Control the following annual weed species if and when they appear: tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), sow thistle (Sonchus spp.), horseweed (Con yza canadensis), bur clover (Medicago hispida), sweet-clover June4 2002 289601 & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 11 Professional Trains for Coospkx Projects 1 I . One-Year Monitoring Report. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad (Melilotus spp.), garland chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum coronarium), and iceplant I (Mesembryanthemum spp.). I If the Landscape Maintenance Contractor has any questions or requires assistance in identifying any of these weeds, contact the Restoration Biologist to discuss identification and possible control methods during regular landscape maintenance I inspections. A combination of physical removal and herbicide treatment will likely be needed to control these species. Properly timed, repeat herbicide applications will .I likely be required for complete control of most of the hardy perennials. A combination of physical, cultural, and herbicide treatment will likely be required to keep annual weed species in check. It is important that annual weed control begin as I soon as they start to germinate and grow, and be completed before the plants have the opportunity to bloom and set seed. Refer to the herbicide label for information on proper timing and application rates. All applicable laws, regulations, safety precautions, and label directions must be 1 followed when performing pest control. The landscape maintenance supervisor should consult a licensed Pest Control Adviser if specific pest control I recommendations are required. All weed debris should be removed from the revegetation and enhancement areas and disposed of in a legal manner. 2. Make an additional application of fertilizer and agricultural gypsum to the areas with noticeably less CSS growth. 1 3. If bicycle or foot paths develop in the mitigation area, plant prickly pear cuttings in strategic locations to discourage the establishment of trails in the mitigation area. I Collect prickly pear cuttings from adjacent plants. I .4. Consider terminating irrigation over the.summer of 2002. The container plants should be watched to determine whether they are established enough to survive without supplemental irrigation. Continue with periodic irrigation if it appears they are not I yet strong enough to survive without water. If irrigation is continued over the summer of 2002, terminate all irrigation in fall in advance of the rainy season. I I June 42002 . 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 12 1 J'rO!,,orn,I T.,,,n., fo Cnnpk Pujrc' One-Year Monitoring Report Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by DUDEK habitat restoration specialists Doug Gettinger and Andy Thomson. Review was provided byProject Manager John Minchin. Graphics were provided by Martie Clemmons and. Annabelle Cuypers provided word processing. REFERENCES City of Carlsbad. 2000. Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for Faraday Avenue Extension, City Project Number 3593. April. Dreistadt, Steven H. 1994. Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs, An Integrated Pest Management Guide. The Regents of the University of California.,328 pages. Dudek &Associates, Inc. 2002. Six-Month Monitoring Report of Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Area, Carlsbad, California. January. June 4, 2002 . 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report . 13 Professional Trains for Csniplcx Projects APPENDIX A L5 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Professional Tcrnis for Complex Projects Floral Species list Faraday AvenUe Coastal Sage Scrub Revegetation Area, Carlsbad, California I I APPENDIX A Floral Species List Floral Species List May 2002 I Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Revegetation Area, Carlsbad 'Achillea (IUEIlI1[IEI mi/lefolium yarrow * Amsinckia spp. fiddleneck Anagalis arvensis scarlet pimpernel * Artemisia californica California sagebrush * Arternisia doug/asiana. Douglas mugwort * Baccharis pilu/aris coyote brush * Baccharis salicifolia mule fat * Baccharis sarothroides Spanish broom Brassica nigra black mustard Bromus diandrus ripgut grass Centaurea melitensis tocalote * Centaurium vensustum canchalagua Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican tea Conium macu/a turn poison hemlock Conyza bonariensis hairy fleabane Con yzl canadensis horseweed Cortaderia 5pj. _pampas grass * Encelia californica California encelia * Ence/ia farinosa brittlebush Erodiurn cicutarium redstem filaree * Eriogonum fascicula turn California buckwheat * Eriophy/lum con fertiflorum golden yarrow * Eschscholzia ca/ifornica California pppy Gazania hybrida African daisy * Gnapha/iutn spp cudweedBicolor cudwèed * Gnapha/ium ca/ifornicum California everlasting * Isocorna menziesii coastal goldenbush * Isorneris arborea bladderpod Larnarckia aurea goldentop * Lotus scoparius deerweed * Lupinus succu/entus - arroyo lupine Malosma laurina laurel sumac Ma/va parvifo/ia cheeseweed Me/i/otus spp. sweet-clover June4, 2002 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC.'Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 15 I Professional Teams for Cn'nlplcx Projects 1 APPENDIX A Floral Species List Floral Spçcies List May 2002 I Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub Revegetation Area, Carlsbad Mimulus auràntiacus .bush monkeyflower * Nasseila pukhra purple neédlegrass Nicotiana glauca tree ,tobacco * Opuntia littoralis coast prickly-pear Picris echioidés bristly ox-tongue * Rhus integrifolia I lemonadebeny * Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow * Salvia mellifera black sage.. * Sambucus mexicana Mexican elderberry * Sisyrinchium helium blue-eyed grass Sonchus spp.Sonchus species sow-thistle * Viguiera lacinata San Diego sunflower * Xylococcus bicolor mission manzanita * Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca Unidentified annual grasses Unidentified annual grasses * — Denotes native species I June 4, 2002 2896-01 & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub First Annual Monitoring Report 16 I Professional Tea,no for Co.npkx Projects APPENDIX B & ASSOCIATES, INC. roJssio,ol Teams for Complex Projcces May .2002 Transect Data Faraday Avenue Coastal Sage Scrub. Revegetation Area, Carlsbad, California Faraday - Transect #1 5/3/02 Botanical Name Common Name ,Nurnber of llttsj............%.Coyer Artemisia cal{fornica California sagebrush 1.0 20 Baccharis pilularis coyote brush 0 0 Encelia calfornica California bush sunflower 0 0 Eriogonumfasciculatum . California buckwheat 7 14 Esc/ischolzia calfornica California poppy 1 2 Malosma laurina laurel sumac 0 0 Rhus integrfo1ia lemonadeberry 0 0 Salvia me11fera black sage . 7 14 Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass 1 2 TOTAL NATIVE SPECIES -. 26 52 TOTAL EXOTIC SPECIES . 0 0 TOTAL VEGETATED . 23 46 TOTAL NON-VEGETATED . 27 . 54 t The percent cover is calculated by the formula: (# of actual hits/# of possible hits (100))*100. The maximum cover of any one species is 100%; however, in multi-species multi-layer vegetation the total cover of all the species can be greater than 100% due to different stratum and overlapping vegetation. Total vegetated is equivalent to 100% cover (2-dimensional) minus the sum of all the non-vegetated hits or non- vegetated percent cover (i.e., bare, litter). * Indicates exotic species. Additional plant species noted in the general area near the transect-include Anagallis arvensis (scarlet pimpernel)*, Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco)*, Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), Malva parvflora (cheeseweed)*, Picris echioides (bristly ox- tongue)*, Gnap/zalim ca1[ornicum (California everlasting), Encelia ca1fornica (California bush sunflower), Enceliafarinosa (brittlebush), Mimulus auranliacus (bush monkeyflower), Urticä urens (dwarf nettle)*, Verbena lasioslachys (verbena). Faraday - Transect #2 5/3/02 2002 Botanical Name Common Name S Number oLHits... [. %.Cover Artemisia calfornica California sagebrush 27 54 Baccharispilularis coyote brush 4 8 Encelia ca1fornica California bush sunflower 5 10 Eriogonumfasciculatum California buckwheat 0 0 Eschscholzia calffornica California poppy 0 0 Malosma laurina laurel sumac 0 0 Rhus integrffolia lemonadebeny I 2 Salvia me11fera black sage 0 0 Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass 2 4 TOTAL NATIVE SPECIES 39 78 TOTAL EXOTIC SPECIES 0 0 TOTAL VEGETATEDt 36 72 TOTAL NON-VEGETATED 14 28 t The percent cover is calculated by the formula: (# of actual hits/# of possible hits (100))*100. The maximum cover of any one species is 100%; however, in multi-species multi-layer vegetation the total cover of all the species can be greater than 100% due to different stratum and overlapping vegetation. Total vegetated is equivalent to 100% cover (2-dimensional) minus the sum of all the non-vegetated hits or non- vegetated percent cover (i.e., bare, litter). * Indicates exotic species. S Additional plant species noted in the general area near the transect include Picris echioides (bristly ox-tongue)*, Salvia me11fera (black sage), Enceliafarinosa (brittlebush), Lotus scoparius (deerweed) Anagallis arvensis (scarlet pimpernel) *, Gnaphalium ca1fornicum (California everlasting),Centaurea melitensis (tocalote)*, Mimulus aurantiacus (bush monkeyflower), Eschscholzia ca1fornica (California poppy), Urtica urens (dwarf nettle)*, Verbena lasiostachys (verbena). I I Faraday - Transect #3 5/3/02 2002. Botanical Name Common Name Number of Hits . %Cover. Artemisia caltfornica California sagebrush 26 52 Baccharis pilularis coyote brush 0 0 Encelia ca1fornica California bush sunflower 2 4 Eriogonurnfascicu1atun California buckwheat 2 4 Eschscholzia cal4fornica California poppy 0 0 Malosma laurina laurel sumac 1 2 Rhus integrfo1ia . lemonadeberry 0 0 Salvia ,ne11fera black sage . 0 0 Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass I 2 TOTAL NATIVE SPECIES, . . . 32 64 TOTAL EXOTIC SPECIES 0 0 TOTAL VEGETATED 31 62 TOTAL NON-VEGETATED 19 38 t The percent cover is calculated by the formula: (# of actual hits/# of possible hits (100))*100. The maximum cover of any one species is 100%; however, in multi-species multi-layer vegetation the total cover of all the species can be greater than 100% due to different stratum and overlapping vegetation. Total vegetated is equivalent to 100% cover (2-dimensional) minus the sum of all the non-vegetated hits or non- vegetated percent cover (i.e., bare, litter). * Indicates exotic species. Additional plant species noted in the general area near the transect include Mimulus aurantiacus (bush monkeyflower), Eschscholzia ca1fornica (California poppy), Gnaphalium ca1fornicum (California everlasting), Salvia me1lfera (black sage), Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), Anagallis arvensis (scarlet pimpernél)*, Enceliafarinosa (brittlebush), Sonchus sp. (sow- thistle)*, Rhus inlegrfo1ia (lemonadeberry),Opuntia littoralis (coastal prickly-pear), Conyza canadensis (horseweed)*, Urtica urens (dwarf nettle)*, Ansinckia sp (fiddleneck). I I