Pacific Wind Energy Project DEIR - Appendix G · This report describes the geologic and soil...

Appendix G Geotechnical Report

KLEINFELDERBnght Popl,. Ri9h SoIuto,,s.

LIMITED FEASIBILITY LEVELGEOLOGIC HAZARD ANDSOILS EVALUATIONPROPOSED PACIFIC WIND ENERGYPROJECTKERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

March 10, 2010

This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonabletime from issuance. Non-commercial, educational, and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies isregarded as a “fair use” and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies ofthis document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. Thereprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received.

KLEINPELDERBright People. R;ght Selotioot.

A report prepared for

Mr. Eimon RaoofEnvironmental Compliance CoordinatorSapphos Environmental, Inc.430 N. Halstead StreetPasadena, California 91107

LIMITED FEASIBILITY LEVEL GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND SOILS EVALUATIONPROPOSED PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTKERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Kleinfelder Job No.: 106056

Prepared by:

rdFink,c.E.G.i46Principal Geologist

Justin J. Kempton, PE, GEArea Manager

KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.1410 F StreetFresno, California 93706(559) 486-0750

March 10, 2010

106056/FRE1OR11O March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERBright Popie. Right Sghtiortt.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

INTRODUCTION I1.1 GENERAL I1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2

2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 3

3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 43.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING 43.2 SITE SETTING, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 5

3.2.1 Geotechnical Soil Exploration and Testing 53.2.2 Site Characterization 73.2.3 Expansive Soils 73.2.4 Soil Erosion 7

3.3 REGIONAL VOLCANIC ACTIVITY 83.4 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER 83.5 FLOODING 93.6 TSUNAMI AND SEICHE 93.7 NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS 9

4 SEISMIC AND RELATED HAZARDS 114.1 REGIONAL FAULTING AND HISTORIC SEISMICITY 11

4.1.1 Faulting 114.1.2 LocalFaulting 144.1.3 Seismicity And Ground Motions 15

4.2 GROUND RUPTURE AND SHAKING 174.3 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING 174.4 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE INSTABILITY 18

5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION 195.1 GENERAL 195.2 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 195.3 FOUNDATIONS 20

5.3.1 Shallow Foundations 215.3.2 Deep Foundations 22

5.4 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS 235.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RETAINING WALLS 245.6 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE 25

5.6.1 Subgrade Preparation 255.6.2 Capillary and MoistureNapor Break 255.6.3 Conventional Slab Design 26

5.7 BURIED PIPE DESIGN 265.8 SITE EARTHWORK 26

106056/FRE1OR11O iii March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

(KLEINFELDERBrjght PopI. eight SoIut,o,,.

5.8.1 Stripping and Grubbing .265.8.2 Disturbed Soil, Undocumented Fill and Subsurface Obstructions 275.8.3 Over-excavation 275.8.4 Scarification and Compaction 285.8.5 Engineered Fill 285.8.6 Construction Considerations 30

5.9 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 305.9.1 General 305.9.2 Temporary Slopes 315.9.3 Shoring 31

5.10 CORROSION POTENTIAL 32

6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION 336.1 STATE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 336.2 COUNTY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS 33

7 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 367.1 PROJECTS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 377.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND SEISMIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONMEASURES 37

7.2.1 Fault Rupture Hazards 387.2.2 Seismic Ground Shaking 397.2.3 Seismic Related Ground Failure 397.2.4 Landslides 407.2.5 Septic Tank Usage 407.2.6 Flooding 417.2.7 Cumulative Effects of Impacts 42

8 LIMITATIONS 43

9 REFERENCES 44

TABLES

Table 4.1-1 Significant FaultsTable 4.1-2 Significant EarthquakesTable 5.2-1 2006 IBC/2007 CBC Seismic Design ParametersTable 5.3-1 Available Vertical Bearing CapacityTable 5.3-2 Estimated Settlement — Spread/MatTable 5.4-1 Lateral Resistance ParametersTable 5.4-2 Dynamic Passive PressureTable 5.5-1 Lateral Earth Pressures Against Retaining StructuresTable 5.8-1 Import Soil MaterialsTable 5.10-1 Corrosion Test Results

106056/FREIORIIO iv March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERmight Ptople. Right Solutirs.

PLATES1. Vicinity Map2. Topographic Map3. Regional Geologic Map4. Local Geologic Map with Boring Locations5. Regional Faulting and Seismicity

APPENDICES

A Field Exploration

B Laboratory Testing

106056/FRE1OR11O v March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERBright People. Right Solutions.

I INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report describes the geologic and soil characterization of the proposed Pacific

Wind Energy Project to be located in Kern County, California. The location of the site is

shown on Plate 1, Vicinity Map. The purpose of our study was to conduct a geologic

hazards investigation and limited geotechnical explorations to assess site surface and

subsurface conditions and evaluate their potential impacts to the site for inclusion in the

project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The regulatory setting and feasible

mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts also are discussed. The

services performed were based on discussions and correspondence with Sapphos

Environmental, CEQA criteria, and our experience with other alternative energy

projects.

This EIR support document addresses the following items outlined in the CEQA

Environmental Checklist Form (Item VI. Geology and Soils, CCR Title 14):

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, includingthe risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologistfor the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(Refer to California Geological Survey [formerly Division of Mines andGeology] Special Publication 42.)

• Strong seismic ground shaking

• Seismic-related ground failure, including potential liquefaction, and

• Landslides

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would becomeunstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-sitelandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;

d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property;

106056/FRE1OR11O 1 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERBr,ght Pop(e. Right 5ok,ti,,

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks oralternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for thedisposal of waste water.

As the project moves forward, additional work will be required to provide suitableinformation and recommendations to support the applicable technical sections of theApplication for Certification (AFC) with the California Energy Commission (CEC).

12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed project study area includes approximately 11,050 acres of mostly vacantproperty near the intersection of Rosamond Boulevard and 170th West in theunincorporated area of Kern County, California. The site is located approximately 20miles northwest of Lancaster and approximately 15 miles southwest of Mojave,California. The proposed project study area is in the southeastern foothills of theTehachapi Mountains in the Antelope Valley of the Mojave Desert in portions ofTownships 9 and 10 North, Range 15 West SBB&M. Plate 2, Topographic Map,presents the location of the site with respect to the 7.5 Minute Map Index Names.

The proposed Pacific Wind Energy Project is at the initial planning stages and isanticipated to involve construction of 250 1-megawatt (MW) or 84 3-MW wind turbinesand two (2) 19.5-MW solar energy sites. Each solar site will occupy approximately 320acres. The quantity of grading, need for sewage system, etc. have yet to bedetermined and are not addressed in this report. The site is comprised of gentlysloping to hilly terrain with site elevations that range from approximately 2,690 feet to3,640 feet above Mean Sea Level. Select graphics previously developed by Sapphoshave been incorporated into this report.

The assumption is made that power generated from the turbines and solar fields will becollected at a proposed substation(s), the voltage transformed, and the cumulativepower transmitted on a proposed transmission system to a third-party substation. Thealignment, distance and location of the transmission line and third-party substation are

yet to be finalized. The environmental impacts of this transmission system are notincluded in this study.


KLEINFELDEthight PopIe. Right

2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The geologic and seismic hazards evaluation generally follows the recommendedguidelines for geologic/seismic reports defined by the California Geological Survey

(CGS) Note 42, Guidelines to Geologic/Seismic Reports. The authorized scope of workfor this project was outlined in our proposal dated September 9, 2009. The scope ofwork consisted of:

• Researching readily available geologic and seismic reports and maps of thearea.

• Performing a brief reconnaissance of the site by a Certified Engineering

Geologist (CEG) to observe surface features and layout proposed soil borings.

• Analyzing a limited number of air photos for assisting the geologic interpretation

and identification of faults and other potential hazard-related features.

• Subsurface exploration including drilling eight hollow-stem auger borings.• Laboratory testing conducted on samples collected from the borings.

• Evaluating geologic conditions including the results of the soil borings andlaboratory testing of soil samples completed during the preliminary geotechnical

assessment.

• Evaluating the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) using the USGSwebsite and site coordinates.

• Providing conclusions regarding fault rupture, ground accelerations, and ground

failure potential.

• Providing conclusions regarding the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement

and compaction, seismically induced landslide, lurching and lateral spreading.

• Preparing this report including site-specific geologic and seismicity maps.

The purpose of the geotechnical assessment was to evaluate the general soilconditions of the different geologic units previously mapped by others in order toanticipate geotechnical engineering recommendations that may be appropriate in thefuture design level assessment of the site.

106056/FRE1OR11O 3 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfetder

KLEINFELDEiB,ight People Right Solutioos.

3 GEOLOGYAND SOILS

This chapter presents a preliminary geologic and soil characterization of the site.Future design level studies will be required to present more detailed and site specificdesign criteria. This initial study includes the potential geologic hazards, seismichazards (i.e. relating to or caused by a seismic shaking), seismic-related ground failure,liquefaction, soil erosion, and expansive and unstable soils. Due to the significance offaulting and seismicity of this area to future development, these discussions will beexpanded in Section 4. The regulatory setting and feasible mitigation measures thatwould reduce these impacts also are addressed. Additional descriptions of erosionand sediment impacts on surface water (e.g., turbidity) and mitigation measures arepresented in others portions of the project EIR.

3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING

The proposed project study area is located in the northwestern portion of the MojaveDesert Geomorphic Province of California. The Antelope Valley portion of the MojaveDesert, which encompasses the site, is bordered on the north and west by theTehachapi Mountains and the Garlock fault and to the south by the San Gabriel andSan Bernardino Mountains and the San And reas fault. These two active faults are nearvertical and have displacements that are primarily horizontal.

The linear mountains and valleys of the desert region have a distinct northwest trend,reflecting the late Cenozoic structural grain. Precambrian metamorphic and intrusivebasement rocks are overlain by a thick section of Paleozoic clastic and evaporiticsedimentary rocks. Mesozoic and early Cenozoic rocks include volcanic and graniticrocks. Quaternary soil deposits consist of materials that are derived from thesurrounding mountains bordering the Mojave Desert and the hills within it. Althoughthese sediments range from coarse alluvial to clay rich sediments, only coarse granularand non plastic sandy silts were observed at the site. The older alluvial soils, which areexposed in the upper foothills, spread out to the south and east of the mountain ranges.Recent alluvial deposits can be located in the bottom of dissecting drainages and flatterareas of the region. See Plate 3, Regional Geologic Map, from Jennings, 1977.Numerous near vertical faults are present in the Mojave block and are sub-parallel to

106056/FREIOR1IO 4 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 KeinfeIder

KLEINFELDER,ight Peoplo. Righ5oIotio,,.

the San Andreas fault with smaller horizontal displacements. The near vertical faults inthe Mojave block offset Quaternary deposits and are active or potentially active.

3.2 SITE SETTING, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS

The Pacific Wind site is primarily undeveloped land with limited access by moderatelyto roughly graded un-surfaced roads. The land form is primarily south to southeasterlysloped alluvial fan with numerous erosion channels. There are numerous smallerosional channels and relatively few larger drainages that are evidence of sheet flowand occasional flash flooding. Notable drainages are Cottonwood Creek andTylerhorse Canyon drainages. Vegetation is sparse and consists of scattered brush,grasses and small trees. Individual residential parcels with structures are scatteredacross the proposed project study area. The Los Angeles Aqueduct crosses the sitefrom the northeast to southwest. The culvert is a concrete box structure with accessmanholes at regular intervals at the top of the box. Other site improvements include(but may not be limited to) a buried gas line(s) parallel to the aqueduct on the uphill,northern side of the aqueduct, and numerous overhead power lines of various sizes.

More detailed geologic mapping by Dibblee (1963, 2008) indicates the site is located onthe flatter portions of a southeastward sloping alluvial fan. This is shown on Plate 4,Local Geologic Map. The upper, northwestern half of the site lies in older alluvial fanmaterials (Qoa) while the lower elevations and bottom of Cottonwood Creek are inyounger, recent alluvial soils (Qa) that are evidence that erosion has dissected the oldermaterials. These surface soils are comprised of silt, sand, and gravel with occasionalcobbles and boulders. A small area of bedded silt and clay (Qoc) has been mappedalong the southeast facing bluffs along the southern property boundary. A local areamapped as dune sand (Qs) is located in the southwest corner of the study area. Theaccumulation is believed to be a thin veneer due to blowing sand.

3.2.1 Geotechnical Soil Exploration and Testing

The geotechnical subsurface exploration was performed to observe and log the generalsoil conditions across the proposed project study area. Soil borings (drilled on October12 and 13, 2009) were located in the different geologic units and at the two proposedlocations of operation and maintenance facilities (Borings PW-3 and PW-5) and twolocations of project substations (Borings PW-2 and PW-4). Drilling included eight soil


KLEINFELDERBright People. Right Solutiono.

borings with a hollow-stem auger drill rig and collecting soil samples to a maximumdepth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring coordinates were collected at eachlocation using a hand held GPS instrument with sub-meter accuracy. Coordinates arelocated at the end of each boring log in Appendix A, Field Exploration. Soil sampleswere collected using either the standard 2-inch diameter split spoon sampler (SPT) orthe California modified 2.5-inch inside diameter split spoon sampler. The approximateboring locations are shown on Plate 4 and the logs of borings are included in AppendixA.

The older alluvium soils (Qoa) explored at borings PW-6 and PW-7 were primarily verydense silty sand with varying percentages of silt and gravel to 50 feet with interbeddedpoorly graded sand between 40 and 45 feet bgs. Blow counts in this geologic unitonsite were nearly all in excess of 50 blows per 0.5 feet driven, reflective of partialinduration. The recent alluvial soils (Qa) were explored at boring locations PW-1 andPW-8. The surface five to seven feet of soil at these two locations consisted sandy siltwith blow counts in the medium dense to dense range, reflective of unconsolidated

sediments. These finer soils overlie silty sand at both locations. Silty sand was presentto 50 feet at PW-1. At PW-8, the boring encountered poorly graded sand fromapproximately 37 to 50 feet. The blow counts at PW-1 were medium dense to dense to50 feet deep in the unconsolidated soils. However, the low blow counts at PW-8extended to about 30 feet deep then increased to greater than 50 blows per 0.5 feetbelow that to the bottom of boring at 50 feet. This transition depth for the blow countslikely reflects the contact between the more highly indurated soils indicative of the olderalluvial geologic unit. Boring PW-2 was located near the contact between these twogeologic units and consisted of silty sand overlying poorly graded sand at approximately25 feet deep. However, the transition depth from lower to high blow counts (indicativeof the contact between the Qa and Qoa deposits) was encountered at about 15 feetdeep.

The soils observed in the three borings along Cottonwood Creek (PW-3 to PW-5) werequite variable in grain size and contained varying thicknesses of silty sand and poorlygraded sand with little to minor gravel and cobbles. Dense soils indicative of the olderalluvium were not encountered in these borings to the depths explored.

Select soil samples collected during drilling were mechanically tested in the laboratoryto evaluate their index and engineering properties. The testing program and

106056/FRE1OR11O 6 March 10,2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINPELDE’Bgf Pe,,ple. Right S&,#,o,,s.

geotechnical considerations resulting from the field exploration and laboratory testingprogram are discussed in Section 5.

3.2.2 Site Characterization

In developing site-specific seismic design criteria, the characteristics of the soilsunderlying the site are an important input to evaluate the site response at a given site.Based on the results of the field investigation, the site is generally underlain by denseralluvial soils to depths greater than 51 feet bgs.

Based on the site subsurface data, the site can generally be classified as Site Class C,as presented in Table 1613A.5.2 and Section 1613A.5.5 of the 2007 California BuildingCode (CBC). Site Class C is defined as very dense soil or soft rock profile with shearwave velocities between 1,200 feet/sec and 2,500 feet/sec, SPT-N greater than 50blows/foot, or Su greater than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) in the top 100 feet.

3.2.3 Expansive Soils

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service website(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/applWebSoilSurvey.aspx) was reviewed for soilcharacteristics. The northwestern site areas of the older alluvium (geologic unit) havebeen mapped in the Hanford-Ramona-Greenfield soils complex while the majority of theareas of recent alluvium are mapped as Cajon-Wasco-Rosamond soils complex. . Themajority of soils in the proposed project study area are coarser grained and thefines are typically non-plastic. These types of soils do not exhibit shrink-swell patternsand are not considered expansive soils. This is consistent with the soil observed duringthe drilling activities and the mechanical laboratory results.

3.2.4 Soil Erosion

Erosion, the natural process of chemical or mechanical breakdown of earthmaterials, is constantly at work, even in a desert environment. Erosion andsedimentation are natural processes that occur on slopes, hillsides, and naturaldrainages. Within the study area erosion is an ongoing process that will continueprimarily within existing drainage channels and washes where periodic flooding andsedimentation (transport) occur during and following periods of intense rainfall.

106056/FRE1ORIIO 7 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDEF?thight People. R,ght Solutio0,.

Continued erosion is anticipated where development structures are located within oradjacent to areas subject to flooding and/or surface water flow. Due to the presence ofthe numerous southeast trending washes and drainage channels across the site, thepotential for erosion is considered to be moderate to high within or adjacent to streamchannels and washes. Dune sand is present in the southwest portion of the siteindicating localized wind deposition.

3.3 REGIONAL VOLCANIC ACTIVITY

The site is not located in a region that has experienced historic volcanic activity.Recent sites of volcanic eruptions have been mapped by Jennings (1994). The closestmapped eruption sites are more than 100 kilometers northeast of Mojave along thevalleys east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the vicinity of Little Lake. Jennings(1994) indicates the age of the volcanic activity at 40,000 years or more.

3.4 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER

The project study area is located within the Antelope Valley Groundwater Basin. Thebasin is further divided into several sub-basins including the Willow Springs andNeenach subbasins located beneath the northern and southern portions of the studyarea, respectively. The Cottonwood fault and the Willow Springs fault have beenassumed to form a continuous fault structure based on differenced in groundwaterbetween the two groundwater subbasins. This “Cottonwood-Willow Springs fault” is theboundary between the subbasins. The primary water-bearing units within the basin arethe underlying Pleistocene- and Holocene-age unconsolidated alluvial deposits thatconsist of primarily of gravels, sand, silt and clay.

Depths to groundwater shown on groundwater contour maps (California Department ofWater Resources [DWR], 2006) are consistent with the well records discussed above.Groundwater levels within the Willow Springs subbasin were on the order of 400 deepbeneath the existing ground surface in 2006 (DWR, 2006) except near the CottonwoodWillow Springs fault where the fault acts as a subsurface barrier to groundwater and thedepth to groundwater was approximately 200 feet below the ground surface. South ofthe fault, groundwater levels were approximately 250 feet beneath the ground surfacein 2006.

106056/FRE1OR1IO 8 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 KeinfeIder

KLEINFELDERBright People. Right SolotioRt.

Groundwater data from the DWR website (http ://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/)

indicated several historic water wells in relatively close proximity to the site. Thesewere both north and south of the site. Of the five closest wells, the shallowest depthfrom ground surface to groundwater was 155 feet prior to 2000. This well was locatednorth of the site in Cottonwood Creek (well number iON 15W33D001S) and has gonedry with water greater than 170 feet. The other four wells in the area, when water waspresent, had depth to water greater than 200 feet. Other wells in the site vicinity areover a mile from the site and reflect similar depths to groundwater.

3.5 FLOODING

The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) in the site vicinity include map numbers 06029C3625E

and 06029C3975E, both dated September 26, 2008. These maps indicate the siteareas east of the Cottonwood Creek drainage and south of the Los Angeles Aqueductare within Special Flood Hazard Areas — Zone A. This designation indicates the areasare subject to inundation by 1% annual chance of flooding (100-year flood) with nobase elevation. The remaining areas are Zone X, areas subject to inundation by the0.2% annual chance flood (500-year), with a flood depth of less than one foot.

3.6 TSUNAMI AND SEICHE

Tsunamis are oceanic waves that are generated by earthquakes, submarine volcaniceruptions, or large submarine landslides. Since the study area is more than 100 milesfrom the nearest coastline, surrounded by mountainous terrain, and at an elevationabout 2,700 feet above sea level, the potential for this condition is considered nil.

Seiche is a standing wave condition whereby large bodies of water, when subjected toseismic accelerations, can generate significant waves that overtop the basinboundaries. There are no significant bodies of water located uphill (northwest) of thesite. Consequently, the potential for this condition is considered nil.

3.7 NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS

Naturally occurring asbestos minerals (NOA), formerly a valuable mineral resource inCalifornia and often associated with serpentinite, are recognized as a potential hazard


KLEINFELDERthight Peopit Right 5oh,t,or

when disrupted or agitated severely by activities such as earthwork, use for unpavedaccess roads, or quarrying. Rocks most likely to contain NOA are generally mappedacross the State by the CGS (Churchill, 2000). No areas of NOA are shown on thismap within 30 kilometers of the study area.

106056/FRE1OR1IO 10 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERBr,ght People. Right Soh,tiooo.

4 SEISMIC AND RELATED HAZARDS

4.1 REGIONAL FAULTING AND HISTORIC SEISMICITY

4.1.1 Faulting

Based on the information provided in Hart and Bryant (1997, 2007), the site is not

located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone where site-

specific studies addressing the potential for surface fault rupture are required. Although

not applicable to structures not intended for human occupancy, this zoning is an

indication of active seismic nature of the region bounded by such zones.

An active fault is a fault that has experienced seismic activity during historic time (since

roughly 1800) or exhibits evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (Hart

and Bryant, 1997, 2007). The definition of “potentially active” varies. A generally

accepted definition of “potentially active” is a fault showing evidence of displacement

that is older than 11,000 years (Holocene age) and younger than 1.7 million years

(Pleistocene age). However, “potentially active” is no longer used as criteria for zoning

by the CGS. The terms “sufficiently active” and “well-defined” are now used by the

CGS as criteria for zoning faults under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act. The

definition “inactive” generally implies that a fault has not been active since the beginning

of the Pleistocene Epoch (older than 1.7 million years old).

Plate 5 is the Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map and is based upon fault locations in

Jennings’ Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings, 1994, 2005) compiled in GIS

(Geographic Information Systems). Major or active fault zones near the site include:

• Garlock Fault Zone (Historic) - 10± kilometers northwest

• San Andreas Fault Zone - 26± kilometers southwest

This portion of the Mojave Desert region is bounded by the Garlock fault to the north

and west and the San Andreas fault to the south and southwest. Both faults are major

structural elements of California. They are near vertical active faults along which the


KLEINPELDERBright PeopI. Right SolutiR,,s

motions are primarily horizontal. The San Andreas fault motion is right lateral while theGarlock is left lateral displacement. Both faults are mapped within State-designated,Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, as defined by Special Publication 42 (1997,revised 2007) published by the CGS. A major seismic event on these or other nearbyfaults may cause substantial ground shaking at the site.

In this region, the locations of the seismic sources and associated parameterspresented on Table 4.1-1 are based on data presented by Jennings (1994), Frankel etal. (1996, 2002), and Cao et al. (2003). The maximum earthquake magnitudespresented in this table are based on Wells and Coppersmith (1994) and the momentmagnitude scale developed by Kanamori (1977). Significant shallow crustal faultswithin 100 kilometers of the approximate center of the site (34.9007 Lat., -118.4522Long.) and corresponding fault parameters are shown in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-1: Significant Faults

ClosestFault Distance to Magnitude of Recurrence

Slip Rate IntervalFault Name Length Site** Charac.(mmlyr) (yr)(km) Earthquake*

(km)

Garlock West 98 11 7.3 6.0 1000

San Andreas — All southernsegments 510 23 8.1 24-34 704

White Wolf 67 36 7.3 2.0 1186

Pleito Thrust 44 39 7.0 2.0 128

San Gabriel 72 43 7.2 1.0 2532

Holser 20 53 6.5 0.4 1912

SantaYnez—eastsegment 68 54 7.1 2.0 625

Sierra Madre—San Fernando 18 55 6.7 2.0 645

San Cayetano 42 57 7.0 6.0 312

Santa Susana 27 58 6.7 5.0 2242


KLEINFELDEF?Bright People. Right Solotloos.

Closest RecurrenceFaultDistance

Magnitude ofSlip Rate IntervalFault Name Length

to Site** Charac.(mmlyr) (yr)(km) Earthquake*

(km)

Garlock East 156 58 7.5 7.0 1000

Northridge 31 60 7.0 1.5 1172

Oak Ridge - onshore 49 61 7.0 3.0 427

Verdugo 29 63 6.9 0.5 3205

Simi—Santa Rosa 40 65 7.0 1.0 1965

Sierra Madre 57 70 7.2 2.0 1151

Lenwood-Lockhart-OId145 72 7.5 0.6 5000Woman Springs

Clamshell - Sawpit 16 78 6.5 0.5 1456

Mission Ridge-Arroyo Panda-Santa Ana 69 81 7.2 0.4 5714

S. Sierra Nevada 77 83 7.3 0.1 29,070

Puente Hills blind thrust 44 85 7.1 0.7 2841

Upper Elysian Park 20 85 6.4 1.3 437

Hollywood 17 85 6.4 1.0 625

Raymond 23 87 6.5 1.5 478

Helendale — S. Lockhart 97 88 7.3 0.6 5000

Ventura-Pitas Point 40 88 6.9 1.0 1597

Santa Monica 28 92 6.6 1.0 813

Malibu Coast 37 94 6.7 0.3 2907

Red Mountain 39 94 7.0 2 1012

Newport-lnglewood 66 95 7.1 1.0 1953

Cucamonga 28 97 6.9 5.0 649

Gravel Hills — Harper Lake 65 99 7.1 0.6 5000* Moment magnitude: An estimate of an earthquake’s magnitude based on the seismic moment (measureof an earthquake’s size utilizing rock rigidity, amount of slip, and area of rupture).


KLEINFELDERBright PBopIe. Right SBlutior.

4.1.2 Local Faulting

Three smaller northwest oriented and one northeast faults have been mapped in closeproximity to or cross the subject study area (Plate 4) based on observable evidence.The Cottonwood fault was mapped by Dibblee (1963, 2008) as a right lateral fault andis clearly present on aerial photographs as extending southeastward from the foothillstoward the site. It appears to terminate or be obscured by recent alluvial materials

before extending across the study area. Dibblee mapped a possible extension of thisfault as crossing the northern portion of the site. Review of aerial photographs (1952,1975, and 1991) show a short topographic lineament in the mapped area but the originof the lineament is unclear. It is located at the edge of recent flood channel depositsand may be due an erosional feature rather than an extension of the Cottonwood fault.

The DWR (2006) has concluded that the Cottonwood fault likely is continuous andconnects with the Willow Springs fault to form a groundwater barrier responsible fordifferences in ground water elevations in local water wells. The DWR (2006) alsotransects this continuous, southeast oriented fault structure with another assumed faultthat is called the Randsburg-Mojave fault. This second assumed fault is orientednortheast and is also concluded to exist based on depth to water in the local waterwells. No surface expressions for either the combined fault structure or the RandsburgMojave fault are documented. The CGS, however, does not include the connection ofthe two southeast oriented faults or the existence of the northeast oriented faults ontheir current published maps.

Dibblee (p. 207, 1963) states that the Cottonwood fault cuts through older alluvium andslightly offsets several minor washes and therefore he concludes “The fault has beenactive in Recent time....” The older alluvium is considered less than 1.6 million yearsold and by current definition by the CGS, an active fault is considered to have displacedmaterials within the last 11,000 years (Recent or Holocene displacement). Therefore,the fault would not be considered active by definition. However, since the offset ofHolocene deposits can not be confirmed or denied by the current level of information,the Cottonwood fault should be considered active for this study, having a potential forsurface displacement during a future seismic event.

Dibblee has also mapped a small, un-named fault in older Pleistocene alluviumdeposits (Qos and Qoc) along the southern study area boundary. This reverse fault

106056/FRE1OR1IO 14 MarchlO,2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLE!NFELDER,ight PopIe. Right 5ohtior,t.

breaks across the southeastern flank of what he names the Sand Hills anticline (1963).

The short fault is mapped for about a mile and there is no discussion as to its activity.

However, like the Cottonwood fault, this fault would not be considered active by

definition. However, since the offset of Holocene deposits can not be confirmed or

denied by the current level of information, this short fault should be considered active,

having a potential for surface displacement during a future seismic event.

The Tylerhorse fault is located approximately two kilometers north of the site and has

many similar offsetting features as the Cottonwood fault. Dibblee (1963) states that this

fault has also experienced Recent, right lateral displacement. The comments in

reference to the Cottonwood fault are applicable to this fault. The Willow Springs fault

is approximately five kilometers east of the site. It is mapped across Recent alluvial

soils and by definition would be considered active. The Willow Springs fault was

mapped as exhibiting normal fault displacement.

4.1.3 Seismicity and Ground Motions

The proposed project study area and its vicinity are located in an area characterized by

moderate seismic activity. Earthquakes have occurred infrequently in this area during

historic time (since 1800). Significant relatively nearby events with a magnitude greater

than 6.5 are shown below in Table 4.1-2. Epicenters of some significant earthquakes

(M 4.0) within the vicinity of the site are shown on Plate 5. This plate is intended toshow significant epicenters and not to label or show all significant faults in the area.

The earthquake database used in the epicenter search contains in excess of 5,500

seismic events and covers the period from 1800 through October 2008. The

earthquake database is primarily comprised of an earthquake catalog for the State of

California prepared by the CGS. The original CGS catalog (Real et. al., 1978) is amerger of the University of California at Berkeley and the California Institute of

Technology instrumental catalogs (Hileman et. al., 1973). The combined catalog

contains earthquake records from January 1, 1900 through December 31, 1974.

Updates prepared by the CGS in 1979 and 1982 extend the coverage through 1982.

In addition to CGS updates, the data for earthquakes that occurred during the period

between 1910 through October 2008 have been obtained from a composite catalog by

the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). The ANSS network includes the

Northern and Southern California Seismic Networks, the Pacific Northwest Seismic

Network, the University of Nevada, Reno Seismic Network, the University of Utah


I KLEINFELDER,ight Po eight SoIuti,,

Seismographic Stations, and the United States National Earthquake Information

Service. The earthquake database also consists of earthquake records between 1800

and 1900 from Seeburger and Bolt (1976) and Toppozada et. al. (1978, 1981). In

addition, also utilized was the data from CGS Map Sheet 49 (Toppozada et. al., 2000).

Table 4.1-2: Significant Earthquakes

Year Latitude Longitude Magnitude

1812 34.37 -117.65 7

1952 35 -119.0167 7.5

1971 34.4112 -118.4007 6.6

1994 34.213 -118.537 6.7

To evaluate a preliminary Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE, 2% in 50 years

probability of exceedance) for the site, this study used the site-specific spectrum for the

northeast corner of the site (which is closest to the Garlock fault) and the 2007 CBC

spectrum developed using SMS and SM1 values. The SMS and SM1 values are based onmapped spectral acceleration values at 0.2 sec (Ss) and 1.0 sec (Si) and the Site Class

and can be computed as follows.

SMS = Fa SSM1 = F SiSs = mapped acceleration value at 0.2 secS1 = mapped acceleration value at 1.0 secwhere Fa and F are estimated from 2007 CBC Tables 11.4-1 and11.4-2

This assessment calculated the mapped spectral response acceleration values using

the Java calculator at the U.S. Geological Survey website

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/designl) and for Site Class C; the values

are as follows:

106056/FRE1OR11O 16 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelcler

KLEINFELDER&ight People. Right SOIUtiR,t.

34.94048°N Lat, -118.41212°W Long coordinatesS = 1.50g and S1 = 0.60gSite Class = CFa= 1.0 and F= 1.3SMS = 1.5gSM1 = 0.78g

The relationship SMS/2.5 estimates the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for the MCE ofapproximately 0.6g. Future design level studies will refine this ground motion value forstructural purposes.

4.2 GROUND RUPTURE AND SHAKING

Based on the information provided in Hart and Bryant (1997, 2007), the site is notlocated within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone where site-specific studies addressing the potential for surface fault rupture are required for humanoccupied structures. Although not applicable to structures planned for this site, thiszoning is an indication of the active seismic nature of the region bounded by suchzones. A major seismic event on the Garlock or San Andreas faults (and possibly otheractive faults in the region) would likely cause moderate to significant ground shakingat the site.

A possible extension of the Cottonwood fault has previously been mapped across aportion of the site as depicted on Plate 4 and discussed in section 4.1.2. Since themapped offset of Holocene deposits can not be confirmed or denied as being faultrelated by the current level of information, the Cottonwood fault should be consideredactive, having a potential for surface rupture during a future seismic event.

4.3 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING

Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated, granular soils undergo a substantialloss of strength and deformation due to pore pressure increase resulting from cyclicstress application induced by earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires mobilitysufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements if the soil mass is notconfined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, non-plastic,uniformly graded, and fine grained sand deposits. If liquefaction occurs, foundations


KLEINFELDERPeight People. Right SOlutiprO

resting on or within the influence of liquefiable layer may undergo settlements. This willresult in reduction of foundation stiffness and capacities.

Groundwater was not encountered during drilling performed for this investigation, and,based on available data, has a historic high at a depth greater than 100 feet. Thepotential for the site soils to experience liquefaction during a seismic event isconsidered low due to the high relative density of the soil and the absence ofgroundwater from the ground surface to a depth of 50 feet.

Lateral spreading is a potential hazard commonly associated with liquefaction whereextensional ground cracking and settlement occur as a response to lateral migration ofsubsurface liquefiable material. These phenomena typically occur adjacent to freefaces such as slopes and creek channels. Considering the general topography of theterrain and the absence of liquefaction, lateral spreading would be unlikely.

Seismically induced settlement is dependant on the relative density of the subsurfacesoils. Most of the older alluvial soils are very dense and the potential for thesematerials to settle due to seismic shaking is very low. The younger, looser soils,especially those in the recent drainages and Cottonwood Creek would possibly havethe greatest potential for seismically induced settlement.

4.4 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE INSTABILITY

Strong shaking has the potential for activating landslides on hillsides, slope failures oncreek banks (lurch cracking) and tension cracking in areas underlain by loose, low-density soil such as uncompacted fill. The channel banks along Cottonwood Creek andthe bluffs present in the southwest portion of the study area are locally steep enough toexperience landslides or slope failure from earthquake-induced ground shaking.However, the site conceptual plan does not currently suggest that turbine foundation

pads are close to the edge or toe of these steeper areas of the study area. Much of theremaining areas of the study area are slightly sloping to relatively level, and there areno known areas of extensive fill, the potential for landslides or other slope failures fromearthquake-induced ground shaking in these areas is considered low.


KLEINFELDERBright People Right Solutions.

5 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

5.1 GENERAL

This section presents general feasibility level geotechnical design consideration for theproject. A design level geotechnical investigation will be required for this project toprovide designers with the appropriate geotechnical recommendations as the projectmoves forward.

The site soils encountered in the limited geotechnical field explorations generallyconsist of silty sand, sandy silt, poorly graded sand, with fine to coarse gravel and somecobbles. The upper soils (3 to 6 inches) are in a loose state as a result of desiccationor wind deposition. This condition will require removal of the upper soils andreplacement as engineered fill in areas to receive fill or under structure foundations. Amore detailed discussion of the site surface conditions can be found in section 3.2.

5.2 SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

As discussed in Section 3, liquefaction, seismic settlement, expansive soils, andcollapsible soils do not appear to be significant geotechnical constraints at the site. It ishowever recommended that a detailed investigation be performed to confirm thesefindings for the specific structures. Other seismic and geologic hazards were discussedin further detail in Sections 3 and 4.

There are no anticipated geotechnical factors at this study area that are unique andwould necessitate special seismic consideration for design of the structure. Use of the2006 1BC12007 CBC design criteria would be appropriate, unless the structural engineerdeems more specific data necessary. The site class, estimated maximum consideredearthquake (MCE) mapped spectral accelerations for 0.2 second and 1 second periods

(Ss and Si), and associated soil amplification factors (Fa and F) based on 2006 IBC/2007 CBC are presented in Table 5.2-1. Corresponding site modified (SMS and SM1)

and design (SDS and SD1) spectral accelerations are also presented in Table 5.2-1.


TABLE 5.2-12006 lBC12007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters

Parameter Value

Ss 1.5g

S1 0.6g

Site Class C

Fa 1.0

F 1.3

SMS 1.500

SM1 0.780

SDS 1.000

SD1 0.520

(KLEINFELDERmight People. Right Soltioos.

As a point of information, while the bedrock is relatively shallow, the characteristics of

the surface soil and the code weighting procedures result in the Site Class of C.

The peak horizontal ground accelerations (PHGA) associated with the MCE and design

earthquake are 0.6g and 0.31g, respectively.

5.3 FOUNDATIONS

Generally, two geotechnical issues determine the recommended design bearing

pressure for conventional spread footing or mat foundations: (1) available soil bearing

capacity based on the strength of the soil and foundation geometry and/or (2) tolerable

settlement based on compressibility of the soils. For moderate to large or deep spread

foundations, the available shear bearing capacity is very large and settlement

considerations or necessary foundation geometry will govern the contact bearing.

Various types of foundations will be utilized across the site for the different types of

structures. Shallow spread foundations underlain by engineered fill and/or competent

native soils are should be suitable for support of minor auxiliary structures buildings and

walls. For the wind turbines, this study anticipates that a deep foundation such as the

Patrick and Henderson (P&H) pier foundations could be considered. The use ofconventional deep Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles or driven precast piles is not

106056/FRE1OR110 20 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERBright Peoplo. R,ght Solrdions.

recommended for the design of deep foundations for wind turbine support due to the inplace density of the soils as well as the soils susceptibility to caving. For the solar

panels and associated pipe-racks, this study anticipates that the use of either shallow

spread foundations, shallow CIDH piles: and! or shallow driven H-piles. It may also beconsidered to use helical type anchor piles to support solar panel equipment.

5.3.1 Shallow Foundations

5.3.1.1 Bearing Capacity

The available gross bearing capacity of the foundation soil is dependent upon theeffective foundation width and depth of embedment and the shear strength of the soil.

Table 5.3-1 provides the expressions for the available allowable bearing capacity forstatic loading (D+L loads) and total combined loading (D+L÷transient loads). Alsoprovided is the ultimate (unfactored) capacity for use with Load Factor Design. In these

expressions, B represents the effective foundation width (least dimension), and D is the

total foundation embedment below the lowest adjacent grade. There are nogeotechnical considerations which would necessitate specific minimum foundationdimensions or embedment. Therefore, foundation depths and dimensions need onlysatisfy structural and constructability considerations.

TABLE 5.3-1YA!ABLE VERTICAL BEARING CAPACITY

Loading Gonditioná Available Bearing Gapaci flStatic 1000B + 2000D

Total Combined 1500B + 3000D

Ultimate 3000B + 6000D

5.3.1.2 Settlement of Shallow Foundations

As can be seen from the bearing capacity expressions in Table 5.3-1, deep or large

foundations can have extremely high available bearing capacity. The design of suchfoundations would normally be governed by tolerable settlement. The foundation soil isconsidered to have relatively low compression characteristics.


KLEINFELDER,ght Peoplo. RigMSoIut,o,,.

Table 5.3.-2 provides the estimated settlement for assumed loading on conventionalfooting foundations and equipment mat foundations. A range of design bearingpressures has been assumed to provide designers an indication of the variability insettlement. Settlement evaluation is based on methods by Schmertmann. If furnishedwith information on foundation loads and geometry, additional data can be providedregarding foundation settlement.

Due to the granular and gravelly nature of the underlying foundation soil, the estimatedsettlements are anticipated to occur very rapidly with load application.

TABLE 5.3-2ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT — SPREADIMAT

Shape or Estimated EstimatedFoundationItem DimensionL d Contact Settlement

(feet)oa

Pressure (pst) (inch)

Shallow Spread Continuous UtO104000 0.25 or less

Footing Unto 100Square . 5000 0.4kips

500 Less than 0.2550x50

1000 0.25Mat Foundation

500 Less than 0.2550x100

1000 0.25

5.3.2 Deep Foundations

5.3.2.1 Axial Capacity of P&H Piers

P&H pier foundations may be considered for wind turbine support. The axialcompressional capacity versus depth of embedment could be very high with respect tothe actual axial loading from the wind turbine.

106056/FRE1ORI1O 22 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Keinfeder

5.3.2.2 Settlement of P&H Piers

(KLEINFELDER8r,ght Poopio. Right 5OIutrn

The total settlement of P&H piers should be considered to be negligible as long as thebottom of the foundation is placed on undisturbed native material.

5.3.2.3 P&H Piers Construction Considerations

The excavation of the P&H should be properly re-compacted according to therecommendations found in the compacted fill section 5.8.6.

Considering the presence of relatively dry granular soil, gravel, and cobbles, thecontractor should be prepared to set back the excavation to prevent caving.Groundwater is not anticipated to impact the construction of P&H piers.

The base of excavations should be inspected and approved by the geotechnical

engineer prior to installation of reinforcement.

5.4 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS

Lateral loads applied to foundations can be resisted by a combination of lateral bearingand frictional resistance. Table 5.4-1 provides the ultimate and allowable passivepressure and frictional coefficient for use in evaluating resistance to lateral loading onstructures.

TABLE 5.4-1LATERAL RESISTANCE PARAMETERS

AllowableI Ultimate

Static Total Combined

Frictional Coefficient 0.5 0.6 0.75

Passive Pressure (psf/ft) 500 650 1000

Lateral TranslationNecessary to Develop 0.009D 0.0170 0.0430

Passive PressureNote: D is the foundation depth below lowest adjacent grade. Lateral translation will bein the same units as D.

106056/FRE1OR1 10Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

23 March 10, 2010

KLEINFELDEF?&,ght People. R,ghtSolotiooo

The static values are for use with D+L loads and the total combined values are for

resistance of D+L+transient loads other than seismic. The allowable parameters

include a safety factor and, as such, can be used for direct comparison of driving and

resisting loads. If design approaches use a prescribed ratio of resisting loads to driving

loads greater than unity, ultimate values can be used. Passive resistance is strain

related (deformation necessary to mobilize shear resistance). If the translation

necessary to develop the passive pressure is within structure tolerance, the frictional

resistance and passive pressure can be used in combination without any reduction.

Otherwise, passive pressure needs to be reduced to be compatible with tolerable

deformation.

Table 5.4-2 provides the passive dynamic increment. When considering seismic

effects, this dynamic increment should be subtracted from the total combined or

ultimate values in Table 5.4-1.

TABLE 5.4-2DYNAMIC PASSIVE PRESSURE

Condition Passive Dynamic Increment (psflft)

Total Combined 195

Ultimate 290

5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls

Table 5.5-1 provides the lateral earth pressures against buried structures and retaining

walls. Data are presented for active, braced and at-rest conditions for structures/walls

supporting level ground surface. Lateral earth pressures are strain related and based

on drained conditions. The active pressure would be applicable for walls capable ofrotating 0.0005 radian. The braced values are for walls restrained at specific pointsfrom translation, but are capable to rotate 0.0005 radian at the midpoint between

restraints (e.g., a 10-foot high wall restrained at the top and bottom, but capable todeflect 0.03 inch at its midpoint would be designed for the braced pressure). The at-rest pressures are applicable to walls fully fixed against translation or rotation. The atrest pressures include the Jaky solution for normally consolidated soil plus


KLEVNPELDER&ight PopIe RighSoIuflnn.

consideration for the locked-in pressure associated with the pre-stressing due to backfillcompaction (over-consolidation).

TABLE 5.5-1LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AGAINST RETAINING STRUCTURES

Condition Lateral PressureStatic

Active (psf/ft) 34

Braced (psf) 22H

At-Rest (psf/ft) 80

Note: H is the retained height in feet

Where design considers seismic effects, the dynamic increment for the active, bracedand at-rest conditions, which would be added to static values, is 26 psf/ft of depth. Theresultant force determined for the dynamic increment should be applied at 0.6H abovethe bottom of the wall. To evaluate the stress distribution along the wall, the dynamicincrement pressure diagram can be considered an inverted triangle.

The uniform lateral pressure against a retaining structure due to a uniform surchargecan be determined by multiplying the surcharge pressure by 0.25.

5.6 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE

5.6.1 Subgrade Preparation

Slabs-on-grade should be supported on recompacted soils or engineered fill placed asdescribed in Section 5.8 of this report. The slab subgrade, to a depth of 12 inches,

should have a moisture content of at least optimum immediately prior to pouring theslab or placing a vapor retarding membrane.

5.6.2 Capillary and MoistureNapor Break

Considering the depth to ground water and the soil types, a capillary break (i.e. cleansand or gravel layer) may not be necessary.

106056/FRE1OR11O 25Copyright 2010 Kleinfelcier

March 10, 2010

(KLEINFELDERThight People. Right Solotiooo.

In buildings where equipment or other components are moisture-sensitive, it isrecommended that the slab subgrade be covered by vapor retarding membrane, suchas 10-mu polyorfin.

5.6.3 Conventional Slab Design

Slab concrete should have good density, a low water/cement ratio, and proper curing topromote a low porosity. It is recommended that the water/cement ratio not exceed0.45.

The thickness and reinforcement of slabs-on-grade should be determined by structuralconsiderations and should be designed by the project structural engineer.

5.7 BURIED PIPE DESIGN

Trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finishedsubgrade) and structure backfill may consist of onsite excavated soil, which is free ofdeleterious material. The on-site sands may also be used as bedding provided thatthey are free of gravel and deleterious materials

Pipe zone (bedding, haunching, and initial backfill) backfill compaction and materialshould be compatible with the pipe type and tolerable deformation. Randomlyexcavated site soil would result in a Class Ill backfill material as described in AmericanSociety of Testing Materials ASTM D2321.

5.8 SITE EARTHWORK

Site earthwork may be performed using conventional grading equipment, except whererock exposures are present. There are occasional cobbles and boulders that arescattered at the site. Soils at the site are generally granular.

5.8.1 Stripping and Grubbing

At the time of the field exploration, light to moderately heavy growth of desert vegetation

occupied the site. The density of surface vegetation varies significantly and couldchange substantially prior to the time of grading. All surface vegetation and any

106056/FRE1OR11O 26 March 10, 2010copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

(KLEINFELDERBright Peopio. Right SRIutior,

miscellaneous surface obstructions should be removed from the project area, prior toany site grading. It is anticipated stripping of brush, seasonal vegetation and variousother desert trees and vegetation could involve the upper 2 to 3 inches. Grubbingshould include removal of brush root-balls and isolated roots greater than 0.5 inch indiameter. Surface strippings should not be incorporated into fill unless they can besufficiently blended to result in an organic content less 3 percent by weight (ASTMD2974).

5.8.2 Disturbed Soil, Undocumented Fill and Subsurface Obstructions

Initial site grading should include a reasonable search to locate any disturbed soil,undocumented fill soils and abandoned underground structures that may exist withinthe area of construction. Any obstructions should be removed from the project area.Any disturbed soil, void spaces created by burrowing animals or undocumented fill,which are encountered, should be excavated to approved firm native material.

5.8.3 Over-excavation

Observation of exposures in the excavations indicates the upper approximately 3 to 6inches of material are unsuitable for support of fill or structures due to desiccation

and/or wind deposition. It will be necessary to over-excavate and recompact these soilsbeneath areas to receive fill or where structure foundations or pavement subgrade donot extend more than approximately 12 inches below existing grade. The gradingshould result in any required over-excavation extending beyond the perimeter offoundations or paving subgrade to a minimum of 5 feet.

Over-excavation should extend to a depth of at least 1 foot below the existing groundsurface. Representatives of the project geotechnical engineer or project geologistshould determine the exposed soils are suitable for receiving compacted fill.

The depth of over-excavation may be modified if grading utilizes equipment (e.g. Rex760 open-hub compactor) which is capable of efficient deeper in-place compaction.

1O6O56IFREIORIIO 27 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERB,igIt People. R,ght Solutiooe.

5.8.4 Scarification and Compaction

Following site stripping, grubbing and/or any required over-excavation, it isrecommended that areas to receive engineered fill or to be used for support of shallowfoundations, concrete slabs, and pavements be scarified to a minimum depth of 8inches, uniformly moisture-conditioned to at, or above, optimum moisture content, andcompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density.

Reference to maximum dry density and optimum moisture is in accordance to ASTM(American Society for Testing and Materials) Test Method Dl 557.

5.8.5 Engineered Fill

5.8.5.1 Materials

All engineered fill soils should be nearly free of organic or other deleterious debris andless than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The native soil materials, exclusive ofdebris, may be used as engineered fill provided they contain less than 3 percentorganics by weight (ASTM D2974).

Although not anticipated, recommended requirements for any imported soil to be usedas engineered fill, as well as applicable test procedures to verify material suitability areprovided in Table 5.8-1.


KLEINFELDERBright Pop(e Bight Solot,ogg.

TABLE 5.8-1IMPORT SOIL MATERIALS

Gradation Test Procedures

Sieve Size PercentASTM1 Caltrans2

Passing

76 mm (3100 C136 202inch)

19 mm (3,480—100 C136 202inch)

No.4 60-100 C136 202

No.200 20—50 C136 202

Plasticity

Liquid PlasticityLimit Index

<25 <9 D4318 204

Soluble Sulfates

<l500ppm - 417

Soluble Chloride

<300 ppm - 422

Resistivity

>2000 ohm-cm - 643

Notes:1American Society for Testing and Materials

tandards (latest edition)State of California, Department of Transportation,

Standard Test Methods(latest edition)

Any imported materials to be used for engineered fill should be sampled and tested bya representative of the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to being transported to thesite.

106056/FRE1OR1IO 29 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfeider

KLEINFELDER&.ghtPop(o. Right 5oh#int

5.8.5.2 Compaction Criteria

Soils used for engineered fill should be uniformly moisture conditioned to at, or above,

optimum moisture, placed in horizontal lifts of 6 to 8 inches in thickness generally, and

compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Disking and/or blending may berequired to uniformly moisture-condition soils used for engineered fill. Lift thicknesses

should be compatible with the compaction equipment to produce uniform compaction

throughout the lift.

5.8.6 Construction Considerations

Site soil has relatively low natural moisture content. It should be anticipated significant

quantities of water will be necessary to facilitate compaction.

If construction is performed during dry, hot or windy weather, it may be necessary toperiodically apply surface watering to counter evaporative loss or re-establish moistureprior to continuing fill operations after an interruption or constructing improvements.

Should site grading be performed during or subsequent to wet weather, surface soilsmay be significantly above optimum moisture content. These conditions could hamper

equipment maneuverability and efforts to compact site soils to the recommended

compaction criteria.

5.9 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS

5.9.1 General

All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations

including the current the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is theresponsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means,

methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Kleinfelder is providing theinformation below solely as a service to the client. Under no circumstances should theinformation provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibilityfor construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not beingimplied and should not be inferred.


KLEINFELDERar,ght People. Right Solutioos.

5.9.2 Temporary Slopes

Near-surface soils encountered during the field investigation consisted predominantly of

sandy silt and silty sand with some interbeds of poorly graded sand. These soils would

be considered as a Type C soil with regard to OSHA regulations. According to OSHA

regulations, the maximum allowable slopes for Type C soil is 1.5:1 (horizonal:vertical)

for excavations less than 20 feet deep. Use of higher or steeper cut slopes for

temporary excavations will require specific evaluation of strength, moisture content, and

homogeneity of the soils and associated stability analysis.

5.9.3 Shoring

Shoring may be required where space or other restrictions do not allow for an

adequately sloped excavation. A braced or cantilevered shoring system maybe used.

A temporary cantilevered shoring system should be designed to resist an active earth

pressure of 32 psf/foot of depth. Braced excavations should be designed to resist auniform horizontal soil pressure of 21H psf, where ‘H’ is the excavation depth in feet.

The values assume a level ground surface adjacent to the top of the shoring and no

surcharging.

Equipment or spoil placed within a horizontal distance equal to the shoring height mayresult in a lateral surcharge load. Twenty-five percent of a uniform areal surcharge

placed adjacent to the shoring may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure

against the shoring. Special cases such as combinations of slopes and shoring orother surcharge loading geometry would require specific evaluation to determine the

surcharge effect. These conditions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Shoring must extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to provide the

required lateral resistance. The allowable passive pressure against solid shoring, which

extends below the level of excavation is 425 psf/foot of depth. It is recommended that

required embedment depths for cantilevered shoring be determined using methods for

evaluating sheet pile walls and based on the principles of force and moment

equilibrium. Isolated soldier piles with a spacing greater than 3D, where ‘D’ is the width

of the shaft, may be designed for an allowable passive pressure of 800 psf/foot of

depth. This value already considers arching. Consequently, no additional increases


KLEINFELDEF?8right PeopI. Right 5oIut,,.

should be considered. The Contractor should be responsible for the structural designand safety of all temporary shoring systems.

5.10 CORROSION POTENTIAL

Chemical analyses were performed on two samples of near surface soils to estimatepH, resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride contents in general accordance withCaltrans Standard Test Methods 643 (pH and resistivity), 417 (sulfates), and 422(chlorides). The results of the corrosivity testing are provided in Table 5.10-1.

TABLE 5.10-1CORROSION TEST RESULTS

Sulfates Chloride MinimumSample ID pH Resistivity

(ppm) (ppm)(ohm-cm)

PW-2 @ 0-5 ft. 7.3 36 8.9 7873

PW-6@0-5ft. 4.9 17.9 8.9 4286

The test results suggest that relatively low levels of soluble sulfate content and lowlevels of soluble chloride content are present in on-site soils. Normal Type II cement isanticipated to be adequate in foundation concrete that comes in contact with thefoundation soils in areas of low levels of soluble sulfates and soluble chlorides. Furthertesting should be performed if Type II cement could be used throughout the entire site.

The minimum electrical resistivity is generally representative of an environment thatcould normally be increasingly mild to buried unprotected metals. Corrosion isdependent upon a complex variety of conditions, which are beyond the geotechnicalpractice. Kleinfelder does not practice corrosion engineering. It is recommended that acompetent corrosion engineer evaluate the corrosion potential of the site to theproposed project, to recommend further testing as required, and to provide specificcorrosion mitigation methods appropriate for the project.

106056/FRE1OR11O 32 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Keinfelder

KLEINPELDEQnght PopIe. Right 5oIutios.

6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION

The following are State and local regulations that apply to development projects and

are designed with the objective of protecting health and safety from geologic hazards.

No federal policies or regulations relating to geologic hazards are applicable.

6.1 STATE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

California State regulations that are applicable to geologic, seismic, and soil hazards

may include Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and updates (AP,

2007), state published Seismic Hazard Maps, and provisions of the 2007 California

Building Code (CBC) Vol. 2. There are no specific Earthquake Fault Zones as per the

AP Act at or adjacent to the proposed project study area. Therefore, procedures and

regulations recommended by the CGS do not specifically apply. Additionally, the statehas not published a Seismic Hazard Map for this quadrangle.

Sections of Volume 2 of the CBC specifically apply to select geologic hazards. Thesections give design criteria for construction of earthquake resistant foundations andstructures. Information typically required for design include soil profile, ground shaking,

and proximity to significant faults. County of Kern implements these provisions. In

addition, the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 65302 g) requires a Safety

Element for the protection of the community including geologic hazards assessment,

and must include features designed to minimize risks associated with these hazards.

6.2 COUNTY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

The 2008 Kern County Building Code (Section 17.04 of the Kern County Code ofRegulations) is available on the County’s website athttp://www. co. kern. ca. us/bid/pdfs/2008CodeOfRegs. pdf. It is partially comprised of the2007 CCR Title 24 and 2006 International Building Code (IBC) for the purpose of

promoting the public safety and welfare by the adoption of minimum building standards.

106056/FREIOR11O 33 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfeider

(KLEINFELDER&ight People. RigheSlutlo.

Sections of the code pertinent to the project include but are not limited to site grading,foundations, soil conditions, and construction.

Kern County adopted its General Plan containing the Safety Element (Chapter 4 of thePlan). The proposed project will be designed to comply with the Safety Element.Issues discussed include seismic hazard, liquefaction, expansive soils, landslides,erosion, shallow groundwater and other potential hazards and conditions.

The Kern County Zoning Ordinance can be accessed on the websitehttp :Ilwww. co. kern .ca. us/planning/pdfsfKCZOMarO9. pdf. Specific to the site are ZoningMaps 216 and 233. The majority of the areas of the site fall into Zone A, areas ofexclusive agriculture. The area encompassing the Cottonwood Fault, including thesoutheastern extension with the site and a small un-named fault at the southern siteboundary are mapped Zone GH and A, GH designating the area of Geologic HazardCombining. Primary and secondary flood plains, Zones FP and FPS cover much of thesoutheast areas of the site and Cottonwood Creek.

The purpose of the Exclusive Agriculture (A, Section 19.12) district is to preventencroachment of incompatible uses into the district as well as premature conversion ofthe lands to nonagricultural uses. This zoning classification can support mostdevelopment with the proper permitting as per Sections 19.12.020 and 030 of theordinance. There are no height limitations unless the area falls in to military air spaceas per Section 19.08.160B.

The purpose of the Geologic Hazard Combining (GH, Section 19.68) district is toprotect the public’s health and safety by designating areas subject to or potentiallysubject to surface faulting, ground shaking, ground failure, landslides, and othergeologic hazards by establishing land use restrictions in such area. Residential orhuman occupancy development in these areas requires a setback of at least 50 feetfrom a known active fault trace and 100 feet from a fault that is not precisely located oran ‘inferred’ fault on the Kern County Seismic Hazard Atlas.

Floodplain Combining (FP) districts are designated to protect public health and safetyand are areas potentially subject to flooding. These areas lie within Zone A on theFlood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or areas of flooding determined by Kern County.As discussed in Section 3.5 above, the site areas east of the Cottonwood Creek


KLEINFELDERBright Peopit. Right SoIt,oot.

drainage and south of the Los Angeles aqueduct are within Special Flood Hazard Areas—Zone A.


KLEINFELDERBright Propk Right SoIutiRRs.

7 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

A discussion of specific geologic hazards that could impact the site is included below.The hazards considered include: surface fault rupture; seismic shaking; seismicallyinduced ground failures consisting of liquefaction, lateral spreading, and dynamiccompaction; landslides; tsunami; and expansive soil. Other potential geologic hazardslisted in CGS Note 48 are not considered applicable to this site or are covered underdifferent sections of this document.

The Pacific Winds project is currently in the preliminary stages of design and subject tomodification as to areas of development and structure placement. Scenarios can beincorporated into the design to minimize the impacts of the geology and soil conditions.The proposed project study area is located on Kern County Zoning Maps No. 216 and233 (plus local detailed section maps). These maps indicate the majority of the site isExclusive Agricultural and Geologic Hazard Combining Districts. The southeasternareas and Cottonwood Creek are also zoned Flood Plain and Secondary Flood Plain.The following are typical, generalized considerations to minimize or mitigate typicalphysical conditions.

• All structures should be designed for the anticipated seismic ground shaking

as determined from the design level geotechnical investigation for the project.

• Steep slopes: locate structures to avoid areas with slopes of 30% or greater

whenever possible. Such areas of steeper slopes are found in Cottonwood

Creek and bluff areas in the southwest portion of the site. When these areas

cannot be avoided, specific geotechnical design of foundation will be needed

for the site specific structures.

• Structures should be sited at least 10 feet away from all watercourses to

prevent potential impacts flood inundation (including areas in FIRM map Zone

A) or provide flood protection by County approved flood control devise as per

Kern County Floodplain Combining District (Section 19.70.070) and

associated developments requirements.


KLEINFELDER8right People. RighSoluCioo.

• Structures for limited human occupancy, such as the Operations and

Maintenance facilities, should be set back at least 100 feet from the

Cottonwood fault as per the Geologic Hazard Combining District zoning

(Section 19.68.150) and associated developments requirements.

7.1 PROJECTS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts from the project would beconsidered significant if the project would:

• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including

the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent

Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State

Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a

known fault.

o Strong seismic ground shaking

o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction

o Landslides

• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil

• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become

unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site

landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

• Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property.

• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for

the disposal of wastewater.

7.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND SEISMIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The majority of the site is undeveloped with scattered structures on residential zonedparcels and unimproved roadways. Observed utilities or improvements include (but


(KLEINFELDER8,ight PeopI ighSoIutio,s

may not be limited to) the Los Angeles Aqueduct (a concrete box culvert), buried gasline(s) parallel to the aqueduct on the uphill, northern side of the aqueduct, andnumerous overhead power lines of various sizes. The development of the site for thewind turbines, solar power areas, etc. is still preliminary. Site-specific conditions ofconcern will be evaluated during the design level geotechnical investigation(s) of thesedevelopments, which would include mitigation design recommendations.

Liquefaction, expansive soils, volcanic activities, tsunamis, and naturally occurringasbestos are discussed in the above sections. These are considered insignificantimpacts (Class Ill). The following geologic hazards or issues are of concern:

• Fault Rupture

• Seismic Ground Shaking

• Seismic Related Ground Failure

• Landslides

• Septic Tank Usage

• Flooding

• Cumulative Effects of Impacts

7.2.1 Fault Rupture Hazards

GH Impact 7.2-1. Strong seismic activity on the Garlock fault or Cottonwood fault coulddamage wind turbines and their associated facilities. The damage to the non habitablestructures could harm or injure workers in the area. This impact would be consideredsignificant. There is no definitive evidence of active faulting on the proposed projectstudy area. However, as discussed in Section 4.1.2 above, the available data does noteliminate the possibility that the Cottonwood fault and the small southern boundary faulthave experienced activity in recent times and should be considered active for this study.

Mitigation Measures MM 7.2-1. At or about the design stage of this project, theapplicant will have a site-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by aregistered engineering geologist or soils engineer to evaluate soil/foundation conditionsand potential geologic hazard conditions on the proposed project study area. Thisreport will address the subsequent conditions of concern.


KLEINFELDERBright Peoplt. Thght SrlutioBs

The applicant shall not locate project facilities on or immediately adjacent to the faulttraces shown on Plate 4 and Zone Maps 216 and 233. Since the fault traces are notlocated with accuracy, structures will be offset at least 100 feet from the mapped traces.An alternative to the offset is to perform a detailed fault trenching investigation toaccurately locate the fault traces to avoid sighting improvements on these faultstructures and to evaluate the risk of fault rupture.

Residual Impact. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, significantbut mitigable. The above recommendations shall be incorporated into final projectplans submitted for approval by the design engineer. Such plans will be used to obtainbuilding permits.

7.2.2 Seismic Ground Shaking

GH Impact 7.2-2. Seismic ground shaking has the potential to cause settlement of fill,slope instability, and cause physical damage to site improvements.

Mitigation Measures MM 7.2-2. This issue will be addressed by the applicant in thesite-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered engineeringgeologist or soils engineer. This report will evaluate the maximum consideredearthquake and the associated ground accelerations for structure design in accordancewith the building code in effect in the County at that time and in accordance with of theCounty Safety Element. At this time, the evaluation would be performed as specified inthe Kern County Building Code. MCE ground accelerations are expected on the orderof 0.6g with a 2% chance in 50 years probability.

Residual Impact. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, significantbut mitigable. The above recommendations will be incorporated into final project planssubmitted for approval by the design engineer. Such plans will be used to obtainbuilding permits.

7.2.3 Seismic Related Ground Failure

GH Impact 7.2-3. Seismic ground shaking is not anticipated to induce liquefaction dueto the dense condition of the majority of the older alluvium at the site. The younger,

106056/FRE1OR11O 39 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelcier

I KLEINFELDERBright PeopI. Right 5oIti,tt

looser granular sediments in the active drainage channels and creeks may be prone toseismic settlement.

Mitigation Measures MM 7.2-3. This issue will be addressed by the applicant in thesite-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered engineeringgeologist or soils engineer. This report will evaluate the potential settlement of thelooser soils following the evaluation of the ground acceleration.

Residual lmract. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, significantbut mitigable. The above recommendations will be incorporated into final project planssubmifted for approval by the design engineer. Such plans will be used to obtainbuilding permits.

7.2.4 Landslides

GH lmract 7.2-4. Landslides or slope instability is a risk associated with the steeperbluffs along the southern study area boundary and along Cottonwood Creek. Thispotential condition may be more prone to failure following construction activities.

Mitigation Measures MM 7.2-4. Siting the project improvements as recommended inthe site specific geotechnical investigation and grading recommendations will mitigatethis potentially significant impact. This issue will be addressed by the applicant in thesite-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered engineering

geologist or soils engineer. Potential considerations will include cut slope ratios relativeto stability analyses, methods of stabilization, structures set back from the slopes, andsubsequent design recommendations.

Residual Impact. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, significantbut mitigable. The above recommendations will be incorporated into final project planssubmifted for approval by the design engineer. Such plans will be used to obtainbuilding permits.

7.2.5 Septic Tank Usage

GH Impact 7.2-5. The current project description does not address the potential use ofseptic systems or other waste waster facilities associated with the Operations and

106056/FRE1OR11O 40 March 10 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERBright Popl Bight Soh,tio,tt.

Maintenance or other support facilities. If located in the older alluvial soils, leach linewastewater infiltration is expected to be very slow due to the dense soils. The youngeralluvial, sandy soils are anticipated to experience moderate to fast wastewaterinfiltration. Such structures and leach lines would be located away from surfacedrainages and protected from potential surface runoff. Proper siting and design willminimize potential for a health impact from flooding.

Mitigation Measures MM 7.2-5. The applicant will perform site specific testing in orderto design the system(s) in accordance with County recommendations and will acquirepermits from the Kern County Environmental Health Department. Sewage systems willbe set back from fault traces and drainages as per the zoning ordinance.

Residual Impact. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, significantbut mitigable.

7.2.6 Flooding

GH Impact 7.2-6. The Safety Element and the FEMA flood maps indicate that thesoutheastern portion of the site and Cottonwood Creek areas are zoned to addressflooding. In addition, the surface of the alluvial fans are intensely eroded by smallchannels. Such sporadic flooding and erosion will damage access roads andfoundations.

Mitigation Measures MM 7.2-6. This issue will be addressed by the applicant in thesite-specific design level geotechnical report prepared by a registered engineeringgeologist or soils engineer. Site drainage/flooding assessment and protectionrecommendations in the geotechnical investigation and grading recommendations willmitigate this potentially significant impact. Potential considerations will includestructures or site grading acceptable to Kern County.

Residual Impact. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, significantbut mitigable.

1O6O56IFRE1ORIIO 41 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERght People. Right Solutions.

7.2.7 Cumulative Effects of Impacts

Development of the proposed project in addition to projected future development in the

area will alter the landforms in the region and expose workers and structures to thegeologic hazards of the region. Site specific geologic and construction issues will be

addressed and potential impacts mitigated by implementation of recommendations

contained in site specific geotechnical investigation(s) as the project and improvements

proceed through the permitting processes. The consideration of geologic and soil

impacts and mitigation efforts of each project in the area will result in cumulative

impacts that are less than significant.


KLEINPELDERth,ght People. Right Soh,tio,ts.

8 LIMITATIONS

Recommendations contained in this report are based on the field observations andlimited subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and present knowledge of theproposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond

the points explored. Future design level investigations will provide site specificrecommendations. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed

loads or structure locations, changes from that described in this report, therecommendations should also be reviewed.

This report has been prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted

engineering geology and geotechnical engineering practices as they exist in theproposed project study area at the time of the study. No warranty, either express orimplied, is made.

This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within areasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions or other factors maychange over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Anyparty other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of suchintended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require thatadditional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliancewith any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder fromany liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.


KLEINPELDERBright Peopit. Right Soh,tioot.

\

9 REFERENCES

1. Advanced National Seismic System, ANSS. Available:http://www.quake.geo.berkeley.edu/cnss.

2. California Building Code (2007), California Building Standards Commission.

3. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 20,Appendix G., http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/Appendix_G.html.

4. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) website for soils data(http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/).

5. DWR (2006), in Luhdorff & Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers, BoundaryConsiderations Antelope Valley Groundwater Adjudication(http://www.scefiling.org/filingdocs/2 14/896/1 604 ScalmaninixExhibits. pdf).

6. California Geological Survey (2000) Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation ofSeismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.

7. California Geological Survey (2000, updated 2005) GIS Data For The GeologicMap of California, CD #2000-007.

8. California Geological Survey (2000), Digital Images of Official Maps of AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California; CD 2000-003.

9. Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J. (2003), TheRevised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps, CaliforniaGeological Survey, June 2003. Available at website:http :/Iwww. consrv. ca.gov/CGS/rghm/psha/fault_pa rameters/pdf/2002CA_Hazard_Maps.pdf.

10.Churchill, R.K. and Hill, R.L. (2000), A General Location Guide for UltramaficRocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos,California Geological Survey Open File Report 2000-19, scale 1:1,100,000.

11.Dibblee, T.W. (2008), Geologic Map of the Neenach and Willow Springs 15Minute Quadrangles, Dibblee Geology Center Map DF-383, Scale 1:62,500.

12.Dibblee, T.W. (1963), Geology of the Willow Springs and RosamondQuadrangles, California, USGS Bull. 1089-C.

106056/FRE1ORI1O 44 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINPELDERBright Pop]. Right 5r,htirr,t

13. Environmental System Research Institute, Inc., FEMA Flood Insurance RateMaps #06029C 3625E and #06029C 3975E, September 26, 2008, Scale1:24,000.

14.Frankel, A.D., Mueller, C.S., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D.M., Leyendecker, E.V.,Dickman, N., Hanson, S., and Hopper, M., 1996, National Seismic Hazard Maps,

June 1996 Documentation, USGS Open File Report 96-532, Denver, CO.:available at web site: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq.

15.Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Hailer, K.M., Wheeler, R.L.,Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R.L., Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M.,

and Rukstales, K.S. (2002), Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National

Seismic Hazard Maps, USGS Open File Report 02-420,Denver, CC: available atwebsite: http://pubs. usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-420/OFR-02-420. pdf

16. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. (1997), Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California:California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, 2007 revisededition.

17.Hileman, J. A., Allen, C. R., and Nordquist, J. M. (1973), Seismicity of SouthernCalifornia Region, 1 January 1882 to 31 December 1972, California Institute ofTechnology, Seismological Laboratory Contribution 2385.

18.lnternational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 2006), Uniform Building

Code.

19. Jennings, C.W. (1994), Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas withLocations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Minesand Geology.

20.Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., and Rogers, T.H., (1977), Geologic Map ofCalifornia: California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map SeriesMap No. 2 (1 :750,000).

21.Kanamori, H. (1977), The Energy Release in Great Earthquakes: Journal ofGeophysical Research, Vol. 82, pp. 2981-2987.

22. Kern County Planning Commission (2004) Kern County General Plan, Chapter 4.


NKLEINFELDER

&ight People. RiphtSolotiooo

23. Kern County Aerial Photographs: 1952: flight lines ABL-13K-104, ABL-14K-12and 14 (1:20,000); 1975: flight lines 8M-832-8917 to 8918, 8923 to 8926, and8941 and 8941 (1:12,000); 1991: 1-8, 1-9, I-Il, and 1-19 (1:20,400).

24. Kern County Building Code (2008).

25.Real, C.R., Toppozada, T.R., and Parke, D.L. (1978), Earthquake Catalog ofCalifornia, January 1, 1900 to December 31, 1974, First Edition: CaliforniaDivision of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 52.

26. Sapphos Environmental, Incorporated (2009), Phase 1 Environmental SiteAssessment, Pacific Wind Energy Project, August 20, 2009.

27.Seeburger, D. A. and Bolt, B. A. (1976), “Earthquakes in California, 1769-1927”,Seismicity Listing Prepared for National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, University of California, Berkeley.

28.Toppozada, T., Branum, D., Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C., andReichie, M. (2000), “Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by M 5 CaliforniaEarthquakes, 1800-1999”, CDMG Map Sheet 49.

29.Toppozada, T. R., Real, C. R., and Parke, D. L. (1981), “Preparation ofIsoseismal Maps and Summaries of Reported Effects for Pre-1900 CaliforniaEarthquakes”, California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 81-11SAC, pp. 182.

30.Toppozada, T. R., Parke, D. L., and Higgins, C. T. (1978), “Seismicity ofCalifornia, 1900-1931”, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report135, pp. 39.

31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Servicewebsite (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/applWebSoilSurvey.aspx).

32. U.S. Geological Survey (2007 update), Quaternary Fault and Fold Database forthe United States, accessed October 2008, from web site:http//earthq uakes. usgs.gov/hazards/qfauIts!.


VICINITY MAP

Proposed Pacific Wind Energy Kern County, California

PLATE

1

FILE NAME: Vicinity

DRAWN BY: RCF

PROJECT NO. 106056

DATE: 10/20/09

Graphic adapted from Sapphos, 2009

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP


PLATE

2

FILE NAME: Vicinity

DRAWN BY: RCF

PROJECT NO. 106056

DATE: 10/20/09

Graphic adapted from Sapphos, 2009

The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information.

SITE

SCALE (miles)

0 6 PROJECT NO. 106056

DRAWN BY:

FILE NAME:

Plate

DRAWN:

3

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP


10/21/09

RCF

PLATE3 Adapted from Jennings, 1977


Site generally encompassed within this line

��

SCALE (miles)

Adapted from Dibblee, 2008

Qa Alluvial silt, sand, and gravel of valley areas

Qoa Alluvial gravel and sand

Qs Loose wind-blown sand deposited on alluvium

Qos Gray-white arkosic sand and pebble conglomerate

Qoc Older clay and silt with interbedded Qos

��

��

��

PW-8

PW-3

PW-2

PW-1

PW-5

PW-4

PW-7

PW-6

PW-8 Approximate Boring Location

PROJECT NO. 106056

DRAWN BY:

FILE NAME:

Plate

DRAWN:

4

LOCAL GEOLOGIC MAP With Boring Locations

Proposed Pacific Wind Energy

Kern County, California

10/27/09

RCF

PLATE4

@@

@@

M

M

MM

M

MM

M M

MM

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M M M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M M

M

M

MM

MM

M

M

M M

M

MM

M MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

MMM

M

MM

MMM

M M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

F

FF

F

FFF

F

F

F F

F FF

F

F

FF

F

F

F F

F FF

F

F

F

F FF

FF F

F

F

F

F

F F

F F

F

F

F

F FFF

FF

FFFF

FF

FF

FFF

FF

F

F

F

F

F

F

FF

F F

F

F

F

F

FF

FF

FF

F

FF

F

FF

F

F

F

FFF

F FF

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F F

F

FF

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F

F FF

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MMM

M

M

M

M

M

M M

M MM

M

M

M

F

F

F

FF F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F FF

F

FF

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F F

F

FF

F

!!

!!! !

!

!

!

!

!! !

!! !

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

! ! !!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!! ! !

!

!

!!

! !!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! ! !

! ! !!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!!!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!!

!

! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!! !

! ! !!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

! ! ! !

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

! ! !!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

! ! ! !!

!

!

!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!! ! !!

!

!!!!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

! !!

!

!!!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!! !!

!!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!

!

! !

!

!! !!!!

!!

!

!!

!!! !!!

!

! !!!!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!

!!

!

!!!!!

!

!! !!

!! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !!

!!! ! !! !

! !!

!!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!!!! ! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!! !

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

! ! !

!!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

%2

Willard fault

Elsinore fault

Clark fault

Aguanga

Adams Avenue fault

La Nacion fault

Coron

ado f

ault

Earthquake Valley fault

Rose Canyon fault

Span

ish B

ight fa

ult

Buck Ridge fault

Murrieta Creek fault

San Diego fault

Coronado Bank Fault Zone

Thirty Mile Bank faultSan Clemente Fault Zone

Newport-Inglewood

Rose Canyon Fault Zone

San Jacinto Fault Zone

San Diego Trough Fault Zone

Santa Cruz

Santa Catalina Ridge Fault Zone

Garlock fault zone, Eastern Garlock section

Garlock fault zone, Western Garlock section

Helendale-South Lockhart fault zone

Lenwood-lockhart fault zone

Pleito ThrustSan Andreas fault, Cholame-Carrizo section San Andreas fault zone

San Andreas fault zone

San Gabriel fault

South

ern Si

erra Na va

da fa

ult zo

n e

White Wolf

San Clemente fault zone

100 Km

LosAngeles Metro Area

100 Km Radius

REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY1898 - OCTOBER 2008

PROPOSED PACIFIC WIND ENERGY KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

5

106056

10/19/09I.McGovern

R.Fink

Plate5

Seismicity LegendANSS EarthquakesMagnitude

4.0 - 5.05.1 - 6.06.1 - 7.07.1 - 8.08.1 - 9.0

35 0 35 70Kilometers

PROJECT NO.DRAWN:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:FILE NAME:www.kleinfelder.com

PLATE


Faulting LegendHistoric displacement (< 200 years)

Mapped Fault Location

Dashed were Approximated

! ! ! ! ! Concealed

Holocene displacement (< 11,000 years)Mapped Fault Location


! ! ! ! ! Concealed

Late Quaternary displacement (< 750,000 years)Mapped Fault Location


! ! ! ! ! Concealed

Quaternary displacement (< 1,600,000 years)Mapped Fault Location


! ! ! ! ! Concealed

Pre-Quaternary Geologic Structures (CGS, 2000)fault, approx. located

@@ fault, approx. located, queriedfault, certainfault, concealedfault, concealed, queriedfault, inferred, queried

Source:Seismicity - Compiled ANSS Database

Quaternary Faults (Bryant, 2005; USGS, 2007)

RFink

TextBox

SITE

IKLEINFELDER

aright PoopI Right S&,t,on,.

APPENDIX AFIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface exploration program for the proposed facility consisted of theexcavation and logging of a total of eight borings; (8) hollow-stem auger borings (PW-1through PW-8) with a truck-mounted drill rig. The auger borings were advanced todepths ranging from approximately 34 to 51.5 feet below existing grades. All boringswere backfilled using the soil from cuttings and tamped when the drilling and excavatingwas completed. The boring locations were located using a hand held GPS.

The Logs of Borings are presented as Figures A-i through A-8. An explanation to thelogs is presented as Figure A. The Logs of Borings describe the earth materialsencountered, samples obtained, and show field and laboratory tests performed. Thelogs also show the boring number, drilling date and the name of the logger and drillingsubcontractor. The borings were logged by a geologist using the Unified SoilClassification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs areapproximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Bulkand intact samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the boringsand test pits.

A California Sampler was used to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of the soilencountered. This sampler consists of a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch l.D. split barrel shaft thatis driven a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil wasretained in one (1)-inch brass rings for laboratory testing. An additional two (2)-inchesof soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded aftervisually classifying the soil. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final12 inches is presented on the boring logs. The California sampler was driven by a 140-pound hammer with a drop height of 30 inches.

Disturbed samples were obtained using a Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT). Thissampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1.4-inch l.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced intothe soils at the bottom of the drill hole a total of 18-inches. The number of blowsrequired to drive the sampler the final 12-inches is termed as the blow count and isrecorded on the Logs of Borings. Where the sampler was not driven the full 12 inches,due to refusal, the number of blows and the penetration length are shown on the logs.

106056/FRE1ORIIO A-I March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

KLEINFELDERThight People. Right Solotioo

The SPT sampler was with a 140-pound hammer at a drop height of 30 inches. Soil

samples obtained by the SPT were stored in plastic Ziploc bags.

Bulk samples of the sub-surface soils were retrieved directly from the soil cuttings.

106056/FRE1OR11O A-2 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

LOG SYMBOLS

GENERAL NOTES

0

(9

(90>-Ui

NKLEINFELDER

LOG KEY PLATE

Bright People. Right Solutioni PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECT

Drafted By: Project No.. 106056KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA A

Date: File Number:

BULK? BAG SAMPLE

MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER(2 1/2 inch outside diameter)I

LI CALIFORNIA SAMPLER(3 inch outside diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATIONSPLIT SPOON SAMPLER(2 inch outside diameter)

NX SIZE CORE BARREL

PERCENT FINER-4 THAN THE NO. 4 SIEVE

(ASTM Test Method C 136)

PERCENT FINER-200 THAN THE NO. 200 SIEVE

(ASTM Test Method C 117)

LL LIQUID LIMIT(ASTM Test Method D 4318)

P1 PLASTICITY INDEX(ASTM Test Method D 4318)

DS DIRECT SHEAR(ASTM Test Method D 3080)

CONTINUOUS SAMPLER(3 inch outside diameter)

WATER LEVEL(level after completion)

WATER LEVEL(level where first encountered)

SEEPAGE

COLLAPSE POTENTIAL

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION

CCL

UC

MC

NFGWE

MOISTURE CONTENT

NO FREE GROUND WATERENCOUNTERED

1. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual.

2. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample locations.

3. Logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.

4. In general, Unified Soil Classification designations presented on the logs were evaluated by visual methods only.Therefore, actual designations (based on laboratory tests) may vary.

5. A temporary benckmark for relative elevation was located at:

Copyright Kleinfelder, nc. 2009

Surface Conditions: FLAT WITH SPARCE VEGITATIONDate Completed: 10112/09

Logged By: R.SHIPLEE Rig Type: CME 55 Auger Type: 6” H.S.Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered.

Total Depth: 51.5 feet

FIELD LABORATORY4i

.

I DESCRIPTION)44 (1)

— U) —. 4_i )O\0

U)

U) H 4-lU) O Cl)4i C Cl) U)4 U) 4_i -

Q 0 >,0ll-l•H0 Q,4-)Q Cl)C)) (U ‘H )U)000 Q.,(UH 4-) U) (1)

Cl) C) o\Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):

SANDY SILT (ML) - gray brown, moist, mediumdense, fine to coarse grained sand

fine grained sand

- 1 98.4 3.9

1 21

SILTY SAND (SM) - light brown, moist, mediumdense, fine grained

10—-—

113

15- 109. 1.3 ... fine to coarse grained -

23

20 —

... fine grained —

I 20

25- 1 128.8 7.2 ... fine to coarse grained -

i 23

30

BORING PW-1 PROJECT NO. 106056

/ PACIFIC WiND ENERGY PROJECTPLATEI’ KLEINFELDEl? KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2

Bright People. Right Solutions.\%Al

some gravel to 0.5 inch in diameter

Notes:1.) Bottom of boring at 51.5 feet.2.) No free groundwater encountered.3.) Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 10112109.4.) Location: 34.870807 N, -118.432436W

BORING PW-1 PROJECT NO. 106056fêb\PACIFIC WiND ENERGY PROJECT

PLATE! KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2

Bright People. Right Solutions.

Al

FIELD LABORATORY4J DESCRIPTION(44 U)

>, -4-J .

U) — 4- Z <IUo\O

‘H 5) ‘H -l-U) OQ 5) Ci)i-J U) 4J -

Q E 0 >-H0 QJ0 0 5) 0U) U) CI) 0 0 0 Q U) -H CI) U) (Continued from previous plate)m Q.ZUo\oU)4) 0 H

fine grained

red brown, fine to coarse grained

light brown

I

I

I

I

I

17

28

27

40

27

35

40 —

45-

50 —

55

60 —

• .. red brown, dense, with gravel up to 1 inches in

diameter


f PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATEI KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2

Bright people. Right Solutions.

A2

Surface Conditions: FLAT WITH SPARCE VEGITATIONDate Completed: 10112109

Logged By: R.SHIPLEE Rig Type: CME 55 Auger Type 6” H.S.Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered.


r FIELD F LABORATORY.4J

I IDESCRIPTION

> 4)) Cl)- ci) i X(i)o\ .1-)

• ,-H (I) H -I-G) O 4 U)4J U) CII4J l-I ci) 4) -

Q E 0 >-•H0 Q4JQ .0 Cl) 0cu II) C—H WO00 Q,(ci-H -I] ci) Cl) Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):

I

I

I

]

I

123.8

123.1

13

39

5013”

5015”

5014”

3.9

1.8

5

10 —

15 -

20 —

25

30

::: SILTY SAND (SM) -gray brown, moist, medium

:: dense, fine to coarse grained

:::..... very dense

E •.. gray brown, decrease in fines content

:::: POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -light brown, moist,

S..S.:E very dense, fine to coarse grained, with gravel up

,.- BORING PW-2 PROJECT NO. 106056

f PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATE

KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2Bright People. Right Solutions.

A2

FIELD LABORATORY

DESCRIPTIONN> -i4J CO

Cl) — -P Z >COo\° 4). - CO -H 4)C)) O4 P CO4) 5 CO [04-) Ci) -4JQ 0 >04--d0 Q4J0 £ CO 00) P U 0 0 Q .H 4) 1) (Continued from previous plate)cn m ZUs\0 l)D -4-a 0 H

to 2.5 inches in diameter

- - light red brown

50/6”

51

50/6”

50/6”

5012”

I

35

40— j

45- i

50— j

55 -

60 —

Notes:1.) Bottom of boring at 51.5 feet.2.) No free groundwater encountered.3.) Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 10112109.4.) Location: 34.884969 N, -118.438611 W

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -gray brown, moist,medium dense, fine to coarse grained

medium dense

SILTY SAND (SM) -gray brown, moist, mediumdense, fine to medium grained

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -gray brown, moist,dense, fine to coarse grained

SILTY SAND (SM) -gray brown, moist, mediumdense, fine to medium grained, with gravel largerthan 1 inch

, BORING PW-3 PROJECT NO. 106056/

PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATEKLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 of 2


A3

Surface Conditions: FLAT WITH SPARCE VEGITATIONDate Completed: 10112/09

Logged By: R.SHIPLEE Rig Type: CME 55 Auger Type 6” H.S.Groundwater No free groundwater encountered.


FIELD LABORATORY4)

IDESCRIPTION(44 ci)

U). ci) Z

,c ,—4 U) •H 4Ji)) O4 4 (I)4-I Q U) (1)-I) ci) -I-IQ E 0 >,0--H Q.,1J0 U)ci) ci) ,-1 -4WUO0 Q1Ti•H -I-) U) i)

H Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):

0.5

0.6

113.7

114.9

.dense

I

I

I

I

I

25

32

23

11

40

5

10

15

20

25

30

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -gray brown, moist,medium dense, fine to coarse grained

SILTY SAND (SM) -gray brown, moist, mediumdense, fine to coarse grained, with gravel largerthan 1 inch

SANDY SILT (ML) - dark gray, moist, dense, fine tocoarse grained sand

... gray brown, medium dense



( PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATE

XLE/NFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2. Bright PeoPle. Right Solutions.

A3

FIELD LABORATORY

DESCRIPTION4- 4J U)> . U)

- U) .IJ—i U) H -4-U) Q U)

4J U) U)-l-) U) 4) -

Q 0 >1-4H0 QJO C U) 0Cl) (Cl Cl) 0 0 0 Q (U 4-i Ci) (Continued from previous plate)LI) m Q ,11 Cl) -I--) 0 H

I

]

I

I

I

106.2

114.0

29

29

18

32

21

1.6

2.4

35 -

40

45 -

50 —

55 -

60 —


Logged By: R.SHIPLEE Rig Type: CME 55 Auger Type: 6” H.S.Groundwater: No free groundwater encountered.


FIELD LABORATORY4_i 4i

.

DESCRIPTIONci-1 ci-l cii

.- (Ii - 4-’ Z cii 4_i.c ,—l cci H 41(i) O4 4 U)4i Q Co U)4_) l 4)Q 0 >,0’l-OHO Q4J0 0 ([1 0(ii Cii H l-o(i1000 0hiiH 4i Cli (ii

Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):

SILTY SAND (SM) - light brown, moist, medium:: dense, fine to coarse grained

H-

1 19

10115! 1.5

J 18

15113

20— 1 116.2 1.6 ... dark gray to red brown

i 25

25 :: gray brown

18

30

BORING PW PROJECT NO. 106056

I PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATE

KLEINFELDEF? KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2Bright People. Right Solutions.

\ A4

gray brown, medium dense

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -gray, moist,dense, fine to coarse grained

very dense



PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECT

‘KLLINFELDER KERN COUN CALIFORNIA 2 of 2PLATE


A4

FIELD LABORATORY‘- DESCRIPTION4- 4) 5)

-4 >‘ . SDU) . -l- >r5

,— SD ‘r4 4J5) Q SD-IJ Q SD SD)-) U) )-)Q 0 >,04-I-H0 Q4J0 0 SD 0ci) i) C) U 0 0 0 ri) •H )) (Continued from previous plate)C!) Q ZUo\° Cl) -4— 0 F-f

dark gray, very dense, decrease in fines content-I

I

I

I

I

106.9

51

26

40

31

50

1.3

35

40 —

45 -

50 —

55 -

60 —

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -light brown, moist,medium dense, fine to coarse grained -

SILTY SAND (SM) - redbrown, moist, dense, fine tocoarse grained, with rock up to 2.5 inches

•— .- BORING PW-5 PROJECT NO. 106056


KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2Bright People. Right Solutions.

A5

Date Completed: 10112109Surface Conditions: FLAT WITH SPARCE VEGITATION



FIELD LABORATORY4J 4.J DESCRIPTION4- U)

> ._4J . U)s U) .. -1-) ><(o\ .4-). U) -‘-4 4JU) O 4-4 U))J Q U) U)4) Cl) .4)Q E 0 >-4-H0 0)-0 .0 U) 0u r —i U) LI 0 0 0 U) -H ) Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):U) m QQZJo\o .IJ 0 H

SILTY SAND (SM) - brown, moist, dense, fine tocoarse grained, with gravel up to 1.5 inches

red brown, very dense

]

I

I

I

I

123.

44

30

56

25

37

0.9

5

10

15

20 —

25

30

Notes:1.) Bottom of boring at 34 feet due to augerrefusal.2.) No free groundwater encountered.3.) Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 10112109.4.) Location: 34.903721 N, -118.464764W


f PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATE1 KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2


A5

I

FIELD LABORATORY

DESCRIPTIONl-l 0L4 > 4J •1 (1)

0 . 4-i 4-i,H cn -H 4JG) O

4) !) (l]4J 5) 4-iQ E Q >4-l-- Q4JO - C!)5) 5) 4 5) U 0 0 . 5) -H W (Continued from previous plate)C.!) 0 (Jo\° O Cl) 4.4 0 El 0-I

50I6”

very dense

35 -

40 —

45

50 —

55

60 —




FIELD LABORATORY —

-I-) 4)

IDESCRIPTION•q 144

S J - Z Xniio\U)4J

r— U) H -Pci) OP P U)U) U)4) O Cl) 4)

Q E 0 >-4r- 04)0 -0 U) 0cii cci PWCJ00 cci--1 -i-J Cl) ci)

P H Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):

SILTY SAND (SM) - red brown, moist, very dense,fine to coarse grained

5

5013”

10_I 124.8 3.5

5014”

15 —

5016”

20— 1O3. 2.7

5016”

25- :: dense1

30

BORING PW-6 PROJECT NO. 1060567’’’\ PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATE

KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2Bright People. Right Solutions.

A6

• light red brown

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -brown, moist, verydense, fine to coarse grained

Notes:1.) Bottom of boring at 51.5 feet.2.) No free groundwater encountered.3.) Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 10113/09.4.) Location: 34.891699 N, -118.484347W

BORING PW$ PROJECT NO. 106056


KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2Bright People. Right Solutions.

A6

FIELD LABORATORY

- DESCRIPTIONH ci) 4-c4-4 > 44J 1 U)

- (I) - 4J Z <(i)o\O .4], ‘—1 CI] H 4-)U) 04] 4] U)4] Q U) U)4 00 ci) 4-) -

Q 0 i04-4H0 Ø.4-)O 0 U) 0ci) (U ,- 4] ci) Ci 0 0 Q (U -H (Continued from previous plate)Cl] ZUo\c (I] .4] Q E

light brown, very dense, fine grained-I

I

I

I

58

61

5016”

50/5”

5016”

35

40 —

45 -

50 —

55 -

60 —

SILTY SAND (SM) - red brown, moist, very dense,fine grained




FIELD LABORATORY.4) 4) DESCRIPTION4- j)

— Ci ._)

‘-H H 4-)C) O-4 I)

0 U) Cf)4-) SHZO C) 4j -

Q E 0 >-10 Q,1Jo 0 Ci)

C) (C ‘—H HC1)UO0 0(C-H -C-) (I) C) Approximate Surface Elevation (feet):


1 122.5 5.2

J 60

10dense

I

15 1 123.4 2.7 browni 48

20 -

1 41

25 1 gray brown, verydenseJ 60

30


f PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTPLATEI KLEINPELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2

Bright People. Right Solutions.\%A7

60 —

5015”

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -brown, moist, verydense, fine to coarse grained


. BORING PW-7 PROJECT NO. 106056f’\ PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECT

PLATEKLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2

Bright People. Right Solutions.\_

A7

FIELD LABORATORY

DESCRIPTION(44 414 > J •1 fl

5) 41 41£ ‘H 5) -H 4-)5) O- ci)41 Q (I) cfl4) (I) 41Q E 0 >-,04-4-H0 QcO . cic

cv cv u 0 0 Q cv -H 4) 5) cv (Continued from previous plate)C’) 0ZUo\orJlJ 0 E—i

-. red brown

54

5016”

62

5016”

120.1

114.0

6.4

2.6

I

35- ]

40 — -

I

45 ]

50 —

55


Surface Conditions: FLAT WITH SPARCE VEGITATIONDate Completed: 10/13/09



FIELD LABORATORY.4_i .4i

• IDESCRIPTION4-i 4-4 (Ii

S .4i Xio\0 .4_ir-H (I) H 4JQ) O4 $ Cl)

.4_i Cl) C!)4J (I) .4_i -

Q E 0 >,04-4-,-1 4J0 Cl) 0cji ni ,—l $WU00 Q.l)iH .4_i W W

HApproximate Surface Elevation (feet):

SANDY SILT (ML) - gray, moist, dense, finegrained sand, with rock up to 1 .5 inches

5 -

1 31

SILTY SAND (SM) - red brown, moist, very dense,fine to coarse grained, with rock larger than 2.5inches

10— 1 128.1 1.4

1 5016”

15... medium dense

I 17

20— 1 113.7 0.9 ... dense

i 32

25 - -

•.. light brown, fine grained

33

30 — -

. BORING PW-8 PROJECT NO. 106056

f . PACIFIC WiND ENERGY PROJECTPLATE( KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA I of 2

Bright People. Right Solutions.—

A8

• red brown, very dense

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) -light red brown,moist, very dense, fine to coarse grained

light brown

Notes:1.) Bottom of boring at 51.5 feet.2.) No free groundwater encountered.3.) Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 10/13109.4.) Location: 34.91 3950 N, -118.422582W

<— BORING PW-8 PROJECT NO. 106056//\PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECT

PLATEI KLEINFELDER KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA 2 of 2Bright People. Right Solutions.

A8

FIELD LABORATORY4J DESCRIPTIONH 4J W

t4l >1 44J •1 (I)

•• W -I-) 4J• ‘—1 Cl) -H 4J) O C’)4-’ C 5 C!) Cfl4J W 4JQ E 0 >-H0 QJO C’)) ( ci) 0 0 0 Q Cl) -H (Continued from previous plate)Cl) 0- Uo\° ‘C Cl) 4-’ 0 H

106.3

50/5”

5016”

50I5”

50/5”

50I5”

0.5

j

35- I

40

—

45 - -

I

50— ]

55 -

60 —

KLEINPELDE.’Orght Popl. R,ghtSoft,tkn.

APPENDIX BLABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed soilsamples to estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materialsencountered. Testing was performed in accordance with one of the following

references:

1) Lambe, T. William, (1951), Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York.

2) Laboratory Soils Testing, U.S. Army, (1970), Office of the Chief ofEngineers, Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1906.

3) ASTM Standards for Soil Testing, latest revisions.

4) State of California Department of Transportation, Standard Test methods,

latest revisions.

LABORATORY MOISTURE AND DENSITY DETERMINATIONS

Natural moisture content and dry density tests were performed on several relativelyundisturbed samples collected. The moisture content was performed in generalaccordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. The results are presented on the Logs ofBorings.

SIEVE ANALYSES

Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples of the materials encountered atthe study area to evaluate the grain size distribution characteristics of the soils and toaid in their classification. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM TestMethod D 422. Results of these tests are presented as Plate B-i through B-3.

106056/FRE1ORIIO B-i March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder

(KLEINFELDERmight People. Right Solotions.

DIRECT SHEAR

Direct shear testing was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample to determine thesoil shear strength and cohesion values in accordance with ASTM Standard TestMethod D 3080. Samples soaked to near saturation. The results are presented inPlates B-4 through B-6.

CORROSIVITY TESTS

A series of chemical tests were performed on selected samples of the near-surface

soils to estimate pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride contents. Test results may be usedby a qualified corrosion engineer to evaluate the general corrosion potential withrespect to construction materials. The results are presented in Table 5.10-1.

106056/FRE1OR11O 8-2 March 10, 2010Copyright 2010 Kleinfelcter

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

GRAVEL SANDSILT CLAY

coarse fine coarse medium fine

Symbol Sample Depth (ft) Description Classification

• PW-2 5.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SMX PW-2 35.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SMA PW-3 10.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SM* PW-3 45.0 Sandy Silt ML

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLATE

KLEINFELDERPACIFIC WiND ENERGY PROJECT

Bright People. Right Solutions. KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA B-IPROJECT NO. 106056

luu

90

80

70

60

50

0zU)U)

0IzU-IC.)

U-I0-J

0I-

I SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES3” 1.5” 3/4” 3/8” #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200- . —

. L — . . - — . . — . . -—

‘ Ez E40

:U :zz

-

‘Hrrrn Tfl F

40

30

20

UIzI-LU

IzUIC.)

Lii0-J

0I—

10

010 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER

GRAIN SIZE (mm)


• PW-5 20.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SMI PW-7 10.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SMA PW-8 5.0 Silty Sand SM

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLATE

KLEINFELDER PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTBright People. Right solutions. KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA B-2

PROJECT NO. 106056

1.5” 3/4” 3/8”U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

#4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

.:::

3”

100

90

80

70

60

50

An

C,zU)U)

aIzLii0Lii0-J

0I-

:z--—

10

20

30

-fly

30

20

10

0

EEEEEEEEE EEEEEE__ HEEEE

10 1 0.1 0.01



0.001

SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER I


• PW-1 15.0 Silty Sand SM

I PW-5 10.0 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SM

A PW-6 35.0 Silty Sand SM

PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE PLATE

I, KLEINFELDER PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECTBright People. Right Solutions. KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA B-3

PROJECT NO. 106056

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES1.5” 3/4” 3/8” #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

,‘, I n

In

3”

100

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0zCl)Cl,

IzUi0

Ui

-J

I0I-

In

-

0-I

40-D‘ii

50z-

>zni

70

10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001GRAIN SIZE (mm)



DIRECT SHEAR I

.4-0

U)U)Ui

IU)

U.’IU)

Source:

Depth:

Test Type:Soil Description:

NORMAL STRESS (psf)

Pw-1

5.0 ftConsolidated - DrainedSandy Silt (ML)

/ DIRECT SHEAR TEST PLATE

KLE!NFELDER PACIFIC WiND ENERGY PROJECTBrightPeopk. Rht5rluons KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA B-4

PROJECT NO. 106056

6,000

5,500

5,000V

4,000

3,

V

7 ann

72

_

V

-

1,500—

1,00C

500

(0 1,00Ii 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Friction Angle =

Cohesion =

6,000

34 deg

2325 psf

Dry Density (pcf) 77.7 76.0 73.8

Initial Water Content (%) 3.9 3.9 3.9

Final Water Content (%) 31.6 34.7 38.3

Normal Stress (psf) 1000 3000 5000

Shear Stress(psf) 2970 4413 5674

DIRECT SHEAR

NORMAL STRESS (psf)

Source:

Depth:

Test Type:Soil Description:

PW-4

10.0 ftConsolidated - DrainedSilty Sand (SM)

DIRECT SHEAR TEST PLATE

KLEINFELDER PACIFIC WiND ENERGY PROJECTBrightop. htius KERN COUN CALIFORNIA B-5

PROJECT NO. 106056 .1

:‘:r —

t,DUb1

5,006

/.IHII

-

A--

0

U)U)LIJ

I-U)

LiiIU)

.,---

3,500 — — -

/3,006

2,500

2,006—

1500

, /1,006 7 — -

500—

0_______ — — —

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Friction Angle =

Cohesion =

37 deg

725 psf

Dry Density (pcf) 115.5 115.5 115.5



Normal Stress (pst) 1000 3000 5000


00.

U)U)Ui

I-Cl)

UiIU)

DIRECT SHEAR

Source:

Depth:

Test Type:

Soil Description:

PW-7

15.0 ft

Consolidated - DrainedSilty Sand (SM)

DIRECTSHEARTEST PLATE

KLEINFELDER PACIFIC WIND ENERGY PROJECT&ht People RlhtSeiuto,o. KERN COUNTY CALIFORNIA B-6

PROJECT NO. 106056

NORMAL STRESS (psf)

Friction Angle =

Cohesion =

39 deg200 psf

Dry Density (pcf) 108.0 104.3 115.4



Normal Stress (psf) 2000 4000 6000


Date post:	19-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanhanh
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Pacific Wind Energy Project DEIR - Appendix G · This report describes the geologic and soil...

Documents