The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03%20-%2041704-02%20Final%20Soil%20Management%20Plan%2C%20SR89%20Mousehole%20UPRR%20Pedestrian%20Undercrossing%2C%202013%20ESLs SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN • SR 89 • • Pedestrian Undercrossing Improvement Project , • , County, • Prepared on behalf of. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2121 N. California Boulevard, Suite 475 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Prepared by: Holdrege & Kull 10775 Pioneer Trail, Suite 213 Truckee, California 96161 Project No. 41704-02 February 4, 2014 Holdrege&Kull Nevada City.Truckee•Chico*Yuba City www.HoldregeatldKulf.com MSHOLDRE6E & KULL CONSULTING ENGINEERS • GEOLOGISTS Project No. 41704-02 February 4, 2014 California Environmental Protection Agency Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region 2501 Lake Tahoe Boulevard South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 Attention: Ms. Tamerle Lundquist, P.G. Reference: SR 89 Mousehole— UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing Improvement Project Caltrans Contract No. 03-1 C0804 Dist/Co/Route No. 03-PLA/NEV-89 Truckee, Nevada County, California Subject: Soil Management Plan Dear Ms. Lundquist: On behalf of HDR Engineering, Inc. and the Town of Truckee, Holdrege & Kull (H&K) prepared this work plan to describe soil management procedures for the State Route 89 Mousehole - Union Pacific Railroad Pedestrian Undercrossing Improvement Project located in Truckee, California. The soil management procedures outlined in this work plan pertain to excavation, stockpiling, sampling, analytical testing, reuse and disposal of soil that is affected by petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and motor oil range. H&K's original Soil Management Plan, dated December 9, 2013, was submitted to the Nevada County Environmental Health Department (NCEHD) for review and approval. In a letter dated January 17, 2014, the NCEHD requested that the plan be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), Lahontan Region (Lahontan). At the request of Lahontan, H&K's original soil management plan has been revised to reflect changes to Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) that were adopted by the CRWQCB in December 2013 after the plan was first submitted. HDR estimates that approximately 8,321 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the Project and transported to four temporary locations along the west shoulder of State Route 89 and/or the Town's corporation yard for characterization. Up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of excavated material may be returned to the site for use as embankment fill and structure backfill, provided that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations do not exceed the Project's soil reuse criteria set forth in this work plan. (530) 581-5156 • FAX (530) 581-5196 • E-mail: handkO HandK.net • 10775 Pioneer Trail, Suite 213 • Truckee, CA 96161 • A California Corporation Project No.41704-02 Soil Management Plan,3889 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undsrcrossing Febriaty 4,2014 Page iii Based on the volume estimates described above, at least 4,266 cubic yards of material excavated from the Project will be surplus, and will require off-site reuse or disposal. The volume of surplus material would be higher (approximately 7,121 cubic yards) if the material does not meet geotechnical specifications for structure backfill. Considering the large volume of surplus material to be generated from the Project, and the high cost of transport for landfill disposal, the intent of this work pian is to facilitate the reuse of excavated material to the extent practicable. This work plan was prepared to establish management practices and screening criteria for hydrocarbon impacted sail, for review by Lahontan and Nevada County Environmental Health Department. In addition to following the specific soil management procedures approved by the Regional Board and County, the contractor selected to construct the Project must also develop a site specific health and safety plan to protect their workers, site visitors, and neighbors from potential exposure to contaminants in soil during the Project. Please contact the undersigned with any comments or questions regarding the procedures outlined in this work plan. Sincerely, HOLDREGE & �D O10 9?,OFES OA,ft W. Prepared by: GN Reviewed by: �AMfA J.RAY#+IIIK -� 3 N07AD NO.001 s7 �P Exp Pa ela J ay ©F "� Jason W Muir, CAL 0 CR Senior Geologist Principal Engineer copies: Electronic copies in PDF format to Tamerle Lundquist (tlundquist@waterboards.ca.gov), Grant Eisen (Grant.Eisen @co.nevada.ca.us), Patrick Casey (Pat.Casey cx.hdrinc.com), and Becky Bucar(bbucar@towncftruckee.com) SAProject Datak4l700-41799WI704Wl7O4-021Revised Work Plan141704-02 Final Soil Management Plan,SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing.doox HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1 .1 BASIS FOR SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN.............................................. 1 1 .2 PURPOSE OF SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................... 2 1 .3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT............................................... 2 1 .4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS........................................................ 3 2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................... 5 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.................................................. 5 2.2 SITE HISTORY...................................................................................... 5 2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................ 5 2.4 PHYSICAL SETTING............................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Geologic Conditions ..................................................................... 6 2.4.2 Soil Conditions ............................................................................. 7 2.4.3 Groundwater Conditions............................................................... 7 2.4.4 Surface Water Conditions............................................................. 7 2.5 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SOIL CHARACTERIZATION..................... 7 2.5.1 Proposed MUP Subgrade Excavation .......................................... 8 2.5.2 Proposed Tunnel Excavation...................................................... 11 3. SOIL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ............................................................ 13 3.1 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 13 3.2 ARARs................................................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs.......................................................... 13 3.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs ........................................................... 14 3.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs............................................................... 15 3.3 MEDIA AND CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN ................................... 15 3.4 VOLUME ESTIMATE........................................................................... 15 3.5 SOIL MANAGEMENT GOALS............................................................. 16 4. EVALUATION OF SOIL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES .......................... 19 5. HEALTH AND SAFETY................................................................................. 21 6. SOIL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.......................................................... 22 6.1 EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL......................................... 23 6.1.1 Soil Excavation........................................................................... 23 6.1.2 Soil Characterization .................................................................. 24 6.1.3 Quality Control for Soil Characterization..................................... 25 6.1 .4 On-Site Soil Reuse..................................................................... 26 6.1 .5 Off-Site Soil Reuse..................................................................... 26 6.1.6 Landfill Soil Disposal .................................................................. 27 7. REPORTING .................................................................................................28 8. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................29 HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page v LIST OF ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Local Transportation Map —Areas A, B, and C, West Shoulder of SR 89 Figure 4 Local Transportation Map —Area D, West Shoulder of SR 89 Figure 5 Local Transportation Map — Town of Truckee Corporation Yard Figure 6 Landfill Transportation Map TABLES Table 1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Constituents in Soil Samples Table 2 Inorganic Constituents in Soil Samples Table 3 Pesticides, PCBs, and Asbestos in Soil Samples APPENDICES Appendix A Previous Assessment Lithologic Logs Appendix B Previous Assessment Laboratory Reports Appendix C Dust Mitigation Plan HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page vi LIST OF ACRONYMS ADL Aerially Deposited Lead ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement bgs Below the ground surface BMP Best Management Practice BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAM 17 California Assessment Manual 17 Metals Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CCR California Code of Regulations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHHSL California Human Health Screening Level COC Constituent of Concern COPC Constituent of Potential Concern CPRR Central Pacific Railroad CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board DMP Dust Mitigation Plan DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESL Environmental Screening Level Geocon Geocon Consultants, Inc. GPR Ground Penetrating Radar HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. H&K Holdrege & Kull HSC California Health and Safety Code HSP Health and Safety Plan Lahontan CRWQCB, Lahontan Region mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram mg/L Milligrams per liter MP Mile Post MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether MUP Multi-Use Path NCEHD Nevada County Environmental Health Department NOA Naturally occurring asbestos OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page vii STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound SWI Shannon & Wilson, Inc. TOT Town of Truckee TPH-d Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel TPH-g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline TPH-o Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Motor Oil TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration UCL Upper Confidence Limit UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USGS Unites States Geological Survey pg/kg Microgram per kilogram Pg/M3 Microgram per cubic meter VOC Volatile Organic Compound HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Holdrege & Kull (H&K) prepared this Soil Management Plan to describe procedures for conducting soil excavation, local transportation, temporary stockpiling, sampling and analysis for characterization, reuse and disposal associated with the State Route (SR) 89 Mousehole — Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Pedestrian Undercrossing Improvement Project (the Project) in Truckee, Nevada County, California. H&K's original Soil Management Plan, dated December 9, 2013, was submitted to the Nevada County Environmental Health Department (NCEHD) for review and approval. In a letter dated January 17, 2014, the NCEHD requested that the plan be submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), Lahontan Region (Lahontan). At the request of Lahontan, H&K's original soil management plan has been revised to reflect changes to Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) that were adopted by the CRWQCB in December 2013 after the plan was first submitted. An estimated 8,321 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the Project and transported to temporary areas located along the shoulders of SR 89 and/or the Town's corporation yard for characterization. This excavation volume includes an estimated 3,800 cubic yards of roadway excavation for a multi-use path (MUP) and drainage basin; 2,152 cubic yards of structure excavation for the MUP tunnel and portals; and 2,369 cubic yards of structure excavation for retaining walls along the MUP. Up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of excavated material may be returned to the site for use as embankment fill and structure backfill, provided that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations do not exceed the Project's soil reuse criteria set forth in this Soil Management Plan. These volume requirements include an estimated 1,200 cubic yards of roadway embankment fill, 545 cubic yards of structure backfill for MUP tunnel portal and wing walls, and 2,310 cubic yards of structure backfill for retaining walls along the MUP. Structure backfill may be subject to more stringent geotechnical specifications than embankment fill, and excavated material to be used as structure backfill must satisfy both the soil reuse criteria and the Project geotechnical specifications for structure backfill. Based on the volume estimates described above, at least 4,266 cubic yards of material excavated from the Project will be surplus, and will require off-site reuse or disposal. The volume of surplus material would be higher (approximately 7,121 cubic yards) if none can be used as structure backfill, and higher still (approximately 8,321 cubic yards) if it cannot be used as either road embankment HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page ix or structure backfill. Considering the large volume of surplus material to be generated from the Project, and the high cost of transport for landfill disposal, the aim of this work plan is to facilitate the reuse of excavated material to the extent practicable. Soil management activities associated with the Project are expected to include: ■ Excavation of approximately 8,321 cubic yards of material, including existing UPRR embankment fill, existing roadway fill and undisturbed native materials. ■ Dust control during excavation and other activities that cause soil disturbance. ■ Local transport of the soil to four areas along the west shoulder of SR 89 and/or the Town of Truckee corporation yard, where it will be temporarily stockpiled for characterization. ■ Sampling and analysis of the stockpiled soil for petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and motor oil range. ■ Transport of up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of soil meeting the reuse criteria from the corporation yard to the Project site, and placement as roadway embankment and structure backfill. ■ Off-site reuse or disposal of the remaining stockpiled soil (estimated to range from 4,266 to 8,321 cubic yards), including: o Segregation of debris, if encountered. o Transport and disposal of debris (e.g., treated lumber), if encountered, at a licensed facility under manifest. o Transport of soil meeting the reuse criteria to an off-site location for reuse. o Additional soil sampling and laboratory analysis of significantly impacted soil, if required for disposal purposes. o Transport and disposal of impacted soil to a licensed solid waste disposal facility under manifest. Upon completion of the soil management activities, a report is to be prepared documenting compliance with this Soil Management Plan, presenting the results of soil sampling and analysis, and documenting the fate of the excavated material. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page x Based on the results of previous site characterization performed by others, this Soil Management Plan identifies petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel range (TPH-d) and motor oil range (TPH-mo) as constituents of potential concern (COPCs), and establishes numerical soil reuse criteria for these constituents: Soil Reuse Criteria COPC On-Site Reuse, On-Site Reuse, Off-Site Reuse Unrestricted Paved TPH-d 110 mg/kg 900 mg/kg 100 mg/kg TPH-mo 500 mg/kg 500 mg/kg 100 mg/kg mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram This Soil Management Plan contains a Dust Mitigation Plan (DMP), which is intended to reduce the potential for exposure to diesel and motor oil in soil during soil management activities. The DMP outlines engineering controls to be implemented during mechanical soil disturbance. Mechanical soil disturbance includes excavation, grading, fill placement, underground utility work, transportation, and disposal activities. In addition to following the specific soil management procedures approved by Lahontan and the Nevada County Environmental Health Department (NCEHD), the contractor selected to construct the Project must also develop a site specific health and safety plan to protect their workers, site visitors, and neighbors from potential exposure to contaminants in soil during the Project. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 1 1. INTRODUCTION At the request of HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and the Town of Truckee (TOT), Holdrege & Kull (H&K) prepared this Work Plan to outline soil management procedures to be employed during the State Route 89 Mousehole - Union Pacific Railroad Pedestrian Undercrossing Improvement Project (the Project) located in Truckee, California. H&K's services were performed in general accordance with our proposal dated February 23, 2012; Cost and Scope Revision No. 1, dated June 21 , 2013; a Subconsultant Agreement with HDR executed on January 3, 2013; and a Subconsultant Agreement Amendment with HDR executed on November 5, 2013. 1.1 BASIS FOR SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN Pursuant to Section 25356.1.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), the management of impacted soil shall be based upon: ■ Requirements established under federal regulation pursuant to Subpart E of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.400 et seq), as amended, which pertain to remedial action and selection of remedial alternatives; ■ Regulations established pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code, which pertain to state and regional water quality control; ■ Applicable water quality control plans adopted pursuant to Section 13170 of the California Water Code; ■ Article 3 (commencing with Section 13240) of Chapter 4 of Division 7 of the California Water Code, which pertains to water quality control plans and waste discharge requirements; ■ Applicable state policies for water quality control adopted pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 13140) of Chapter 3 of Division 7 of the California Water Code, to the extent that those policies are consistent with the federal regulations; ■ Applicable provisions of the HSC, to the extent those provisions are consistent with the federal regulations; and ■ The site characterization findings. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 2 1.2 PURPOSE OF SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN This Soil Management Plan, which is based on the findings of site characterization performed by others, was prepared to establish general management practices and screening criteria for hydrocarbon impacted soil. The management practices and screening criteria set forth in this plan are to be reviewed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), Lahontan Region (Lahontan) and Nevada County Environmental Health Department (NCEHD) and implemented under NCEHD oversight. This plan does not address worker safety and other jobsite safety issues, which are to be developed by the contractor selected to construct the Project. 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT Pursuant to Section 25323.1 of the HSC, this plan describes the contaminated soil detected at the Project site, the proposed soil management activities, the goals to be achieved by the soil management, and the rationale for consideration of alternative management options. This plan is organized in the following sections- 1. ections:1. Introduction. Includes an overview of the soil management activities and associated regulations, organization of the plan, and project goals and objectives. 2. Site Characterization. Includes description of the site, ownership information, soil characterization activities conducted by others, and nature and extent of contamination. 3. Soil Management Objectives. Includes a discussion of regulations; identification and review of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); identification of media and constituents of concern, volume estimates prepared by others, and soil management goals. 4. Evaluation of Alternatives. Includes a listing of alternative soil management measures and basis for selection of the recommended measures. 5. Health and Safety. Health and safety will be the responsibility of the contractor selected to construct the Project. 6. Soil Management Procedures. Includes a description of techniques and methods to be employed for soil management, including excavation, placement and compaction, storing, handling, transportation, and disposing of material on or off the site. 7. Reporting. Includes a brief description of the report that will summarize soil management activities and document compliance with this plan. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 3 1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The information provided in this plan is not meant to be comprehensive, to identify all potential concerns, or to eliminate the risk associated with environmental conditions. H&K used professional judgment and experience to arrive at the conclusions presented herein. Therefore, the conclusions are not to be considered scientific certainties. The recommendations provided herein are contingent upon H&K's review of future sampling results and any other pertinent information that becomes available. No environmental assessment can eliminate all uncertainty. H&K does not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, or the use of segregated portions of this plan. Furthermore, the concentrations detected in the samples collected during the site investigations, which were performed by others, may not be representative of conditions between the locations sampled. Other forms of contamination may be present within the site that the investigation did not detect. Professional judgment and interpretation are inherent in the process and uncertainty is inevitable. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this plan may need to be revised based on site conditions or regulatory requirements. Additional assessment may be able to reduce the uncertainty. H&K prepared and issued this plan for the exclusive use of our client. Any reliance on this plan by a third party is at the party's sole risk. H&K is not responsible for any other party's interpretations of the reported information. H&K performed this work in accordance with present, regional, generally accepted standards of care. This report does not represent a legal opinion. No warranty, expressed or implied, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for the purpose is made or intended in connection with the work. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property can occur with the passage of time. The changes may be due to natural processes or to the works of man, on the project site or adjacent properties. Changes in regulations, interpretations, and/or enforcement policies may occur at any time. Such changes may affect the extent of mitigation required. If changes are made to the nature or design of the Project as described in this plan, then the conclusions and recommendations presented in this plan should be considered invalid by all parties. Only H&K can determine the validity of the conclusions and recommendations presented in this plan. Therefore, H&K should HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 4 be retained to review all project changes and prepare written responses with regards to their impacts on H&K's conclusions and recommendations. H&K is not responsible for the health and safety of non-H&K personnel, on or off the project site. The contractor is responsible for work site conditions. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 5 2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of downtown Truckee in Nevada County, California. The Project includes the construction of a tunnel through an existing railroad embankment at State Route (SR) 89 at Mile Post (MP) 204.63, designated as the "Mousehole". A multi-use path (MUP) is to be constructed through the tunnel, approximately 25 feet east of the two lane SR 89, between West River Street to the south and Deerfield Drive to the north. A location map and site map are presented as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. 2.2 SITE HISTORY Construction of the Transcontinental Railroad route from Sacramento began in 1862 by the Central Pacific Railroad (CPRR). A wooden trestle bridge over Donner Creek was constructed in the late 1800s, approximately 125 feet east of the Project site. In the early 1900s, an earthen embankment was constructed around the wooden trestle to prevent the structure from catching fire. A rock and stone arched opening was created through the embankment to allow for passage along SR 89. The existing double track was constructed over the opening in the early 1900s, and the rock and stone tunnel was later replaced with the current concrete underpassing known as the Mousehole. 2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Project includes the construction of an approximately 10-foot high by 12-foot wide by 121-foot long tunnel through the existing 32- to 34-foot high railroad embankment, approximately 25 feet east of the Mousehole. The embankment reportedly consists of granular backfill, boulders, and debris (wood and organics). The new tunnel will be constructed by boring and jacking of precast concrete tunnel segments. A Class I multi-use pathway (MUP) is to be constructed through the new tunnel, extending from the intersection of West River Street and SR 89 (south of the new tunnel) to the intersection of Deerfield Drive and SR 89 (north of the new tunnel). The MUP will be approximately 1 ,400 feet long and 10 feet wide, and will be concrete paved. Other project elements include three retaining walls along the new MUP and a bus turnout. Wall 1 will vary between 4 to 8 feet in height and will extend between West River Street and an access driveway to the Donner Creek Mobile Home Park, HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 6 south of the new tunnel. Wall 2 will extend approximately 530 feet north of the new tunnel and range between 6 to 16 feet in height. Wall 3 is planned as an extension to the existing wall located near the intersection of Deerfield Drive and SR 89. HDR estimates that approximately 8,321 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the Project and transported to temporary areas located along the shoulders of SR 89 and/or the Town's corporation yard for characterization. This excavation volume includes an estimated 3,800 cubic yards of roadway excavation for a multi-use path (MUP) and drainage basin; 2,152 cubic yards of structure excavation for the MUP tunnel and portals; and 2,369 cubic yards of structure excavation for retaining walls along the MUP. HDR estimates that up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of excavated material may be returned to the site for use as embankment fill, and structure backfill, provided that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations do not exceed the Project's soil reuse criteria, which are set forth in this work plan. These volume requirements include an estimated 1,200 cubic yards of roadway embankment fill, 545 cubic yards of structure backfill for the MUP tunnel portal and wing walls, and 2,310 cubic yards of structure backfill for retaining walls along the MUP. Structure backfill may be subject to more stringent geotechnical specifications than embankment fill; excavated material to be used as structure backfill must satisfy both the soil reuse criteria and the Project geotechnical specifications for structure backfill. Based on the volume estimates described above, at least 4,266 cubic yards of material excavated from the Project will be surplus, and will require off-site reuse or disposal. The volume of surplus material would be higher (approximately 7,121 cubic yards) if none can be used as structure backfill, and higher still (approximately 8,321 cubic yards) if it cannot be used as either road embankment or structure backfill. 2.4 PHYSICAL SETTING The site is located within the northeastern Sierra Nevada physiographic province. Regional physiographic conditions generally consist of steep mountainous terrain to gentle subalpine and glaciated valleys. The site lies at an approximate elevation of approximately 5,900 feet above mean sea level. 2.4.1 Geologic Conditions According to previous subsurface investigation by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (SWI, 2013) and geologic maps pertaining to the site vicinity (Saucedo, 2005 and Sylvester et. al., 2012), the Project area is underlain by Quaternary aged alluvium HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 7 and glacial till deposits. The alluvium is characterized as consisting of moderately to poorly sorted silt, sand, gravel and boulders. The glacial till consists of unconsolidated silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. 2.4.2 Soil Conditions Due to previous grading at the site, native soil has generally been disturbed within most of the project area. SWI (2013) indicates that near-surface soil typically consists of silty sand with gravel and variable cobble and boulder content. 2.4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 44 feet below the ground surface (bgs) in one on-site boring (SWI, 2013). 2.4.4 Surface Water Conditions Donner Creek is located approximately 115 feet east of the Project, and passes beneath the UPRR embankment in a 20-foot wide, 200-foot long culvert. After flowing through the culvert, the creek continues around the Donner Mobile Home Park and travels under West River Street, where it discharges into the Truckee River 1,500 southeast of the Project site. Based on H&K's understanding of the project and communications with Town staff, the project is not located within a 100- year flood zone. Retaining wall 3, located north of the existing embankment, will be constructed adjacent to the 100-year flood plain associated with Donner Creek, but not within the flood plain. H&K understands that construction of retaining wall 3 is intended to significantly reduce impacts to the flood plain footprint in this area of the project. 2.5 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SOIL CHARACTERIZATION Previous site investigation was performed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (SWI 2009, 2011 and 2013) and Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Geocon 2009a and 2009b). The findings of these previous investigations are summarized below. The approximate mapped locations of previous SWI and Geocon borings are depicted on Figure 2. Analytical data are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. Appendix A presents boring logs in which environmental samples were collected from the Project site by SWI (2009 and 2011) and Geocon (2009b). Appendix B presents analytical laboratory reports associated with the previous investigations. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 8 2.5.1 Proposed MUP Subgrade Excavation Along the proposed MUP alignment outside of the railroad embankment, diesel and oil have been reported in fill material at maximum concentrations of 530 mg/kg and 2,900 mg/kg, respectively. Arsenic was reported in samples collected from fill material along the proposed MUP at a maximum concentration of 4.6 mg/kg, which is generally considered to be within the range of background soil arsenic concentrations for the region. Low concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected in horizontal boring HB1 (Geocon, 2009b) as footnoted in Table 1. Other constituents of potential concern such as asbestos, poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, or gasoline range hydrocarbons were not detected in samples collected from the embankment or the proposed MUP alignment. SWI (2009 and 2011) encountered fill to depths ranging from 7 to 23 feet bgs in borings drilled along the proposed MUP alignment. The fill was generally described as silty sand with gravel and varying amounts of cobbles and boulders. Native soil was encountered beneath the existing fill in borings BV-3 through BV-9, and was generally described as granular material (silt, sand and gravel with varying amounts of cobbles and boulders). Samples of the fill were collected from borings BV-4 through BV-9 by SWI (2011) from a reported depth of approximately 3 feet bgs. The following notable concentrations of TPH-d were reported: ■ TPH-d: 96 mg/kg, sample BV4-A, south of existing embankment, 05/25/11 ■ TPH-d: 250 mg/kg, sample BV5-A, north of existing embankment, 05/25/11 ■ TPH-d: 340 mg/kg, sample BV6-A, north of existing embankment, 05/25/11 ■ TPH-d: 530 mg/kg, sample BV8-A, north of existing embankment, 05/25/11 ■ TPH-d: 96 mg/kg, sample BV9-A, north of existing embankment, 05/25/11 The following concentration of TPH-o exceeding the ESL of 2,500 mg/kg was reported: ■ TPH-o: 2,900 mg/kg, sample BV8-A, north of existing embankment, 05/25/11 As discussed below, the SWI (2011) borings were drilled through asphalt pavement, and the boring log for BV-6 indicated that chips of asphalt were observed in the material sampled. Samples were collected from air rotary drill cuttings; thus, it is possible that asphalt fragments within the fill or from the existing pavement section contributed to the detection of heavy petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil samples. A revised draft report (SWI, 2013) found that review of gas HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 9 chromatograms for samples reported to contain TPH-d and TPH-o by SWI (2011) more likely reflected a motor oil signature than a diesel signature. SWI, 2009 In November 2008, SWI (2009) performed a geotechnical investigation that included four horizontal borings (BH-1 through BH-4), three vertical borings (BV-1 through BV-3), ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey, and four test pits (TP-1 through TP-4). Borings BH-1, BH-2, BV-3 and BV-5, and Test Pits TP-1 and TP-3 were located in the area of the proposed pedestrian tunnel and MUP, east of SR 89. The remaining exploratory borings and test pits (BH-3, BH-4, BV-1, BV-2, TP- 2, and TP-4) were located west of SR 89, outside of the Project area. According to SWI (2009), portions of the old wooden trestle were encountered near the middle of the embankment at a location approximately 53 to 60 feet from the southern wall in Boring BH-1 . SWI (2009) reported that the embankment materials consisted of granular fill composed of silty sand with gravel, cobbles, and scattered boulders up to 5 feet in diameter. Zones of boulders were reported to occur in lenses 15 to 25 feet thick within the embankment. Soil underlying the embankment generally consisted of silt, sand, gravels and boulders consistent with alluvial deposits affiliated with the nearby Donner Creek. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 44 feet below the embankment in boring BV-3, located near the southern base of the embankment in the project area. Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining borings or test pits excavated by SWI (2009). At the time of the SWI (2009) investigation, several different alternatives were under consideration for the new pedestrian tunnel, including widening the existing Mousehole. The main purpose of the SWI (2009) report was to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering data for evaluation of proposed tunnel construction alternatives that were currently under consideration for the project at that time. As part of the SWI (2009) investigation, soil samples collected from borings BV-1 through BV-3 were analyzed for the presence of selected metals. No other environmental sampling was completed in other site excavations during the SWI (2009) investigation. No metal concentrations were reported in embankment and native soil samples collected from borings BV-1 and BV-3 at levels exceeding their respective Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2008 (CRWQCB, 2008). Elevated concentrations of copper and zinc were reported in a soil sample collected from BV-2 at a depth of 0.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs) adjacent to the railroad tracks, west of the Project area. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 10 Geocon, 2009a Geocon (2009a) performed an aerially deposited lead (ADL), traffic paint, and asbestos investigation at the site to evaluate potential health and safety impacts to construction workers. The investigation included the collection of 45 samples from 18 hand-advanced borings located along both shoulders of SR 89. Paint samples were collected from inside the Mousehole tunnel, as well as from the centerline and shoulders of SR 89. Total lead was detected in 32 of 45 soil samples at concentrations ranging from 5.1 to 52 mg/kg. Two of the 45 soil samples had reported total lead concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg (ten times the STLC value for lead of 5.0 mg/1). Geocon (2009a) concluded that the soil did not require special soil handling and disposal procedures based on lead content, and can be reused or disposed of as non-hazardous soil since the calculated 90% and 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) values for the arithmetic mean of total lead concentration were less than 50 mg/kg. Asbestos was not detected at or greater than the laboratory reporting limit of 0.25%. Based on the lack of reported asbestos in soil at the site, Geocon (2009x) concluded that engineering controls to minimize the aerial dispersion of asbestos are not required. SWI, 2011 and 2013 SWI (2011) advanced six vertical borings (BV-4 through BV-9), excavated seven test pits (TP-5 through TP-11), and excavated 22 vactor truck potholes along existing underground utility lines within the project area. Borings BV-4 through BV- 9 were drilled along the proposed MUP alignment both north and south of the existing UPRR embankment. Soil samples were collected from each boring at depths of approximately 3 feet for analysis of TPH-g, TPH-d, TPH-o, California Title 22 (CAM 17) metals, and PAHs. No TPH-g nor PAH were detected in soil samples collected from BV-4 through BV-9. TPH-d and TPH-o were detected at concentrations ranging from 25 to 530 mg/kg and 130 to 2,900 mg/kg, respectively. The SWI (2011) borings were drilled through asphalt pavement, and the boring log for BV-6 indicated that chips of asphalt were observed in the material sampled. Samples were collected from air rotary drill cuttings; thus, it is possible that asphalt fragments within the fill or from the existing pavement section contributed to the detection of heavy petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil samples. A revised draft report (SWI 2013) found that review of gas chromatograms for samples reported to contain TPH-d and TPH-o by SWI (2011) more likely reflected a motor oil signature than a diesel signature. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 11 2.5.2 Proposed Tunnel Excavation The findings of previous site investigation indicate that, in the proposed tunnel alignment, the embankment material contains diesel and motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbons at maximum concentrations of 1 ,600 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 2,200 mg/kg, respectively. The contamination was identified predominantly in the shell of the embankment, and to a lesser extent within the interior of the embankment. Geocon, 2009b Geocon (2009b) advanced a horizontal boring (HB1) through the UPRR embankment along the approximate alignment of the proposed MUP tunnel to further characterize soil conditions and evaluate disposal options. Boring HB1 extended approximately 80 feet into the embankment from south to north. Soil samples were obtained from the boring at 5 to 15 foot intervals. The samples were analyzed for TPH-g; TPH-d; TPH-o; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively referred to as BTEX); chlorinated pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); VOCs, including methyl tert-butyl ether [MTBE]; SVOCs; CAM 17 metals; PAHs; pH and asbestos. Geocon (2009b) detected TPH-d, TPH-o, and some metals in the soil samples. Other analytes (TPH-g, BTEX, VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, and asbestos) were not detected. None of the metals concentrations exceeded their respective ESLs. TPH-d was detected at concentrations ranging from 3.3 to 1 ,600 mg/kg, and TPH-o was detected at concentrations ranging from 6.9 to 2,200 mg/kg. Geocon (2009b) concluded that the outer shell of the embankment (first and last 15 feet) appeared to be impacted with TPH-d and TPH-o, whereas the inner embankment materials may not be. Geocon (2009b) identified two landfills that would accept the diesel and oil impacted embankment material, suggesting that transportation and disposal costs may range from $50 to $95 per ton. A disposal facility for treated wood waste was identified near the site, and disposal fees were estimated to be $80 per ton. Geocon (2009b) reported the following notable concentrations of TPH-d in embankment material. Concentrations in parenthesis represent laboratory test results following silica gel cleanup. ■ TPH-d: 1 ,500 mg/kg (1,100 mg/kg), sample HB1-5, inside embankment 5 feet from southern wall, 08/24/09 ■ TPH-d: 1 ,200 mg/kg (1,600 mg/kg), sample HB1-10, inside embankment 10 feet from southern wall, 08/24/09 HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 12 ■ TPH-d: 810 mg/kg (80 mg/kg), sample HB1-65, inside embankment 65 feet from southern wall, 08/25/09 ■ TPH-d: 130 mg/kg (180 mg/kg), sample HB1-80, inside embankment 80 feet from southern wall, 08/25/09 TPH-o was not reported by Geocon (2009b) at concentrations exceeding the ESL of 2,500 mg/kg. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 13 3. SOIL MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 3.1 OVERVIEW This section is intended to specify contaminants and media of concern, potential exposure pathways, and soil management goals, to establish acceptable exposure levels that are protective of human health and the environment; and to consider ARARs under federal and state environmental regulations. 3.2 ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) include federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, and standards that can be chemical-specific, location-specific, or action specific. Chemical-specific ARARs are health-based or environmentally-based numerical limits. Location-specific ARARs may pertain to environmentally sensitive or historically significant areas. Action-specific ARARs may pertain to specific procedures or byproducts of a procedure. 3.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 3.2.1.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) RCRA Subtitle C, contained in 40 CFR, pertains to the characterization of hazardous waste. The existing laboratory data indicate that the soil to be managed would not likely be classified as hazardous waste with respect to the constituents analyzed. 3.2.1.2 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Section 66261 of CCR Title 22 pertains to the characterization of hazardous waste. The existing laboratory data indicate that the soil to be managed would not likely be classified as hazardous waste with respect to the constituents analyzed. 3.2.1.3 California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) CHHSLs established by Cal/EPA are applicable to the proposed soil management activities as a screening tool. Arsenic concentrations detected at the site exceed the CHHSL values for arsenic in soil; however, the management of arsenic in soil is typically based on background concentrations because background soil arsenic concentrations commonly exceed the CHHSLs for arsenic. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 14 3.2.1.4 California Water Code Division 7 of the California Water Code establishes priorities for the CRWQCB. CRWQCB guidance and numerical limits are presented in various documents. The CRWQCB Basin Plan, Designated Level Methodology for Waste Classification and Cleanup Level Determination, Antidegradation Policy, and A Compilation of Water Quality Goals establish policies, procedures and numerical limits for protection of surface water and groundwater quality. H&K's opinion is that significant water quality impact is not considered likely, because the constituents of potential concern (heavy petroleum hydrocarbons) are relatively immobile in soil, and best management practices for erosion control are to be implemented during the Project. 3.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs 3.2.2.1 National Historic Preservation Act The National Historic Preservation Act, as set forth in Sections 65 and 800 of CFR Title 36, pertains to cultural resources and historic sites. H&K understands that the proposed improvement project is not expected to result in the disturbance of significant cultural resources or historic sites. 3.2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as set forth in Section 6.302 of CFR Title 40, pertains in part to wetlands protection and flood management. H&K understands that the construction Project has been designed with consideration of these regulations. 3.2.2.3 Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act, as set forth in Section 230 of CFR Title 40, pertains to flood- prone areas and wetlands. Based on H&K's understanding of the project and communications with Town staff, the project is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Retaining wall 3, located north of the existing embankment, will be constructed adjacent to the 100-year flood plain associated with Donner Creek, but not within the flood plain. H&K understands that construction of retaining wall 3 is intended to significantly reduce impacts to the flood plain footprint in this area of the project. 3.2.2.4 RC RA Section 264.18 of CFR Title 40 pertains to the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. The soil at the site is not anticipated to be RCRA waste, and HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 15 therefore this regulation is not likely applicable. Disposal characterization sampling and analysis is to be performed if required for off-site disposal, and shall comply with RCRA Subtitle C requirements. 3.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs 3.2.3.1 California Water Code The California Water Code governs the characterization of waste for disposal to land. Waste disposal must comply with the provisions of the California Water Code. 3.2.3.2 Air Resources Board Regulation 93105 Under California law, disturbance of soil and rock that contains ultramafic rock, serpentinite or naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) minerals must be handled as described in Cal/EPA Air Resources Board Regulation 93105, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Based on the lack of reported asbestos in soil at the site, Geocon (2009a) concluded that engineering controls to minimize the aerial dispersion of asbestos are not required. 3.3 MEDIA AND CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN The medium of concern at the site is soil, and the constituents of potential concern (COPCs) are petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and motor oil range (TPH-d and TPH-o). Potential exposure pathways include dermal absorption through direct contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation of soil dust. 3.4 VOLUME ESTIMATE HDR estimated that 8,321 cubic yards of soil will be excavated from the Project and transported to temporary areas located along the shoulder of SR 89 and/or the Town's corporation yard for characterization. This excavation volume includes an estimated 3,800 cubic yards of roadway excavation for the MUP and drainage basin; 2,152 cubic yards of structure excavation for the MUP tunnel and portals; and 2,369 cubic yards of structure excavation for retaining walls along the MUP. Up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of excavated material may be returned to the site for use as embankment fill and structure backfill, provided that petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations do not exceed the Project's soil reuse criteria set forth in this Soil Management Plan. These volume requirements include an estimated 1,200 cubic yards of roadway embankment fill, 545 cubic yards of structure backfill for the MUP tunnel portal and wing walls, and 2,310 cubic yards of structure backfill for retaining walls along the MUP. Structure backfill may be subject to more HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 16 stringent geotechnical specifications than embankment fill, and excavated material to be used as structure backfill must satisfy both the soil reuse criteria and the Project geotechnical specifications for structure backfill. Based on the volume estimates described above, at least 4,266 cubic yards of material excavated from the Project will be surplus, and will require off-site reuse or disposal. The volume of surplus material would be higher (approximately 7,121 cubic yards) if none can be used as structure backfill, and higher still (approximately 8,321 cubic yards) if it cannot be used as either road embankment or structure backfill. 3.5 SOIL MANAGEMENT GOALS The goal of the soil management activities is to segregate the excavated soil into four management classifications- On-Site Reuse, Unrestricted Soil meeting the On-Site Reuse, Unrestricted criteria may be placed at the Project site as general embankment fill or structure backfill, provided that they meet the Project geotechnical specifications for the proposed reuse. On-Site Reuse, Paved Soil meeting the On-Site Reuse, Paved criteria may be placed at the Project site in accordance with the following restrictions: ■ Covered with at least one foot of clean soil or a pavement structure; ■ Outside of areas that may contact groundwater or surface water, ■ At locations that are protected from erosion; and ■ At least 5 feet above the highest groundwater elevation (all proposed soil placement locations associated with the Project appear to meet this requirement). Off-Site Reuse Soil meeting the Off-Site Reuse criteria may be transported to off-site locations for reuse. This soil must not contain debris such as asphalt or concrete. Prior to any proposed off-site soil reuse, the results of soil characterization and the location and description of the proposed off-site reuse will be presented in a work plan for NCEHD and Lahontan review. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 17 Landfill Disposal Soil that does not meet the criteria described above is to be disposed at a licensed solid waste disposal facility under waste manifest. Soil excavated from the railroad embankment and MUP alignment shall be managed according to the following numerical criteria: Soil Reuse Criteria COPC On-Site Reuse, On-Site Reuse, Off-Site Reuse Unrestricted Paved TPH-d 110 mg/kg (1) 570 mg/kg (3) 100 mg/kg (5) TPH-mo 500 mg/kg (2) 1,000 mg/kg (4) 100 mg/kg (6) mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram The soil reuse criteria are based on the following benchmark concentrations: (1) 110 mg/kg TPH-d: Environmental Screening Level (ESL; CRWQCB, 2013, Table B-2) for TPH diesel in shallow (less than 3 meters) commercial soil, ceiling value. (2) 500 mg/kg TPH-mo: ESL (CRWQCB, 2013, Table B-2) for TPH motor oil in shallow (less than 3 meters) commercial soil, ceiling value. (3) 570 mg/kg TPH-d: ESL (CRWQCB, 2013, Table G) for TPH diesel, soil screening level for leaching concerns when groundwater is a potential drinking water resource. This value is lower than the construction worker direct exposure value (900 mg/kg; Table K-3). (4) 1,000 mg/kg TPH-mo: ESL (CRWQCB, 2013, Table H-3) for TPH motor oil in commercial soil, ceiling value. (5) 100 mg/kg TPH-d: ESL (CRWQCB, 2013, Tables A-1 and H-2) for TPH diesel in residential soil, ceiling value. (6) 100 mg/kg TPH-mo: ESL (CRWQCB, 2013, Tables A-1 H-2) for TPH motor oil in residential soil, ceiling value. Statistical Evaluation Statistical evaluation may be performed to estimate mean values for comparison to the numerical soil reuse criteria. Pursuant to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, ProUCL software (EPA, Version 5.0, September 2013) will be used to evaluate the laboratory data for the presence of HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 18 outliers and to calculate the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) based on the arithmetic mean value of the constituent concentrations. If outlying values are detected, the soil represented by these outlying values will be isolated from the remainder of the excavated soil and disposed separately. Additional soil samples will be obtained to confirm that the outlying contaminant concentrations have been removed, and the stockpile will be reused as determined by comparison of the 95% UCL of the remaining laboratory data to the soil reuse values described above. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Pae 19 4. EVALUATION OF SOIL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES H&K reviewed potentially applicable alternative soil management methods, including No Management, Onsite Placement, and Off-Site Disposal. The three alternatives were reviewed with respect to effectiveness, implementability and cost. The evaluation is summarized below. A combination of On-site Placement and Off- Site Disposal is the preferred soil management method. Alternative Effectiveness ImplementabRity Cost No Does not provide adequate Administratively No direct costs, Management protection of human health. infeasible. unknown future costs. Burial and cover effectively Readily implemented. Low direct costs eliminates potential exposure Labor, material and associated with pathways. equipment readily excavation, dust Short-term impacts reduced available. control, local by provisions set forth in DMP In some cases, requires transportation, and contractor's health and cover with clean soil or placement, safety plan. pavement to reduce the compaction and quality On-Site Compliant with ARARs for chance of routine assurance. Placement soil that meets the reuse exposure and surface criteria. water infiltration. Project will allow for onsite placement of up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards (approximately half of the total excavation volume). Landfill disposal is intended Readily implemented. High direct costs to protect human health and Labor, material and associated with landfill the environment in equipment readily disposal, estimated to accordance with applicable available. An estimated be $50 to $95 per ton. regulations. 4,266 to 8,321 cubic No ongoing costs Off-Site Landfill disposal is compliant yards will be reused off- anticipated. with ARARs. Reuse is site (if reuse criteria are Disposal compliant with ARARs for soil satisfied) or disposed at that meets the reuse criteria. a licensed solid waste Short-term impacts reduced facility. by provisions set forth in DMP and contractor's health and safety plan. A combination of On-site Placement and Off-site Disposal is the preferred soil management alternative because this option limits the cost of soil disposal and is considered to be protective of human health. Up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of the excavated soil (approximately half of the excavated volume) will be HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 20 used as embankment fill or structure backfill, provided that the soil meets the reuse criteria and the Project's geotechnical specifications. The remaining soil will be removed from the site and either reused at an offsite location (if reuse criteria are satisfied) or disposed at a licensed solid waste facility. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 21 5. HEALTH AND SAFETY The contractor is responsible for health and safety, and must develop a site specific health and safety plan to protect their workers, other site personnel, site visitors and neighbors from potential exposure to contaminants in soil during the Project. The health and safety plan should conform to requirements of Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Title 8 CCR, Section 5192 and Title 8 CCR, Section 5155. During the soil management activities, soil moisture content is to be maintained to reduce the potential for dust generation and the need for respiratory protection. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 22 6. SOIL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Soil management activities associated with the Project are expected to include: ■ Excavation of approximately 8,321 cubic yards of material, including existing UPRR embankment fill, existing roadway fill and undisturbed native materials. ■ Dust control during excavation and other activities that cause soil disturbance. ■ Local transport of the soil to four areas along west shoulder of SR89 and/or the Town of Truckee corporation yard, where it will be temporarily stockpiled for characterization. ■ Sampling and analysis of the stockpiled soil for petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and motor oil range. ■ Transport of up to approximately 4,055 cubic yards of soil meeting the reuse criteria from the corporation yard to the Project site, and placement as roadway embankment and structure backfill. ■ Off-site reuse or disposal of the remaining stockpiled soil (estimated to range from 4,266 to 8,321 cubic yards), including: o Segregation of debris, if encountered. o Transport and disposal of debris (e.g., treated lumber), if encountered, at a licensed facility under manifest. o Transport of soil meeting the reuse criteria to an off-site location for reuse. o Additional soil sampling and laboratory analysis of significantly impacted soil, if required for disposal purposes. o Transport and disposal of impacted soil to a licensed solid waste disposal facility under manifest. Upon completion of the soil management activities, a report is to be prepared documenting compliance with this Soil Management Plan, presenting the results of soil sampling and analysis, and documenting the fate of the excavated material. Lahontan and NCEHD must be allowed to review any proposed ground disturbing activities if the activities are to be performed prior to the implementation of the recommended soil management procedures. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 23 6.1 EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL 6.1.1 Soil Excavation The soil excavation may include mechanical excavation using rubber-tired or track- mounted backhoe excavators. Soil shall be transported to four temporary areas along the west shoulder of SR 89 and/or the local corporation yard owned by the Town of Truckee. Four possible soil stockpile locations (Areas A, B, C, and D) were selected by the Town of Truckee based on their close proximity to the Project and size to adequate store soil for characterization. Each area is located within right-of- ways owned by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) and will be subject to permitting and regulations set forth by this agency. Area A is located across SR 89 and west of the Project. Areas B and C are located approximately 0.35 mile and 0.9 mile south of the Project. Area D is located approximately 1.9 miles south of the Project. Soil transported to temporary areas along the west shoulder of SR 89 will be placed on top of and covered with plastic sheeting in accordance with Caltrans Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stockpile Management (WM-3) and Contaminated Soil Management (WM-7), as set forth in the Construction Site Best Management Practices Manual (Caltrans 2003). A linear sediment barrier (such as straw wattles) and temporary orange fencing will be placed around the base of each stockpile. In the event that stockpiles will need to be stored over the winter season, a berm will be placed around the base of each stockpile to prevent runoff from leaving the area. Each stockpile will be monitored a minimum of once per month over the winter season to evaluate and maintain the BMPs. Detailed information regarding erosion control and stockpile management can be found in the Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Local transportation route maps for stockpiles located along the west shoulder of SR 89 are presented as Figures 3 and 4. Soil to be transported to the Town of Truckee corporation yard will be placed in windrows for sampling, and covered with plastic sheeting. A local transportation route map for stockpiles located at the Town of Truckee corporation yard is presented as Figure 5. During excavation, stockpiling and loading, soil shall be moistened as necessary to reduce dust generation using water trucks or hoses. Soil shall be segregated from pavement, flatwork and debris. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 24 6.1.2 Soil Characterization Sampling and analysis for landfill characterization is to be performed for the stockpiled soil at a frequency no less than one four-point composite sample for every 250 cubic yards of material. The composite samples shall be analyzed by a California-certified laboratory for total petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel range (TPH-d) and motor oil range (TPH-mo) using EPA Test Method 8015M or approved equivalent. Disposable plastic scoops or a pre-cleaned stainless steel trowel, decontaminated between sampling locations, will be used for soil sample collection. Samples will be placed into laboratory supplied glass jars with Teflon-lined caps. For composite sampling, a four point sample will be collected from the stockpile, transferred into a pre-cleaned glass bowl, mixed, and transferred into laboratory supplied glass jars with Teflon-lined caps. Samples will be identified with a label affixed to the sample jar. The following information will be specified on each label: ■ Project number; ■ Date and time of sample collection; and ■ Sample identification number. Individual sample containers will be placed in sealed plastic bags to prevent intrusion of moisture into sample containers and damage to sample labels. Sample containers will be labeled and placed on ice in a thermally insulated container for transport to the analytical laboratory under chain-of-custody protocol. Chain-of- custody forms will include the following information: ■ Sample identification number; ■ Signature of collector; ■ Date and time of collection; ■ Site name and project number; ■ Sample matrix, ■ Sample container description; ■ Analyses requested; ■ Special analytical procedures requested, if applicable, ■ Remarks (expected interferences, hazards, unusual events at the time of sampling), if applicable; ■ Preservatives added, if any, HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 25 ■ Special sample preparation, if applicable; ■ Destination of samples (laboratory name); ■ Signature of persons involved in chain of possession (relinquished by and received by); and ■ Date and time of sample receipt at laboratory. When transferring samples, the individuals relinquishing and receiving the samples will sign, date, and record the time on the chain-of-custody form. A separate chain- of-custody form will accompany each sample shipment. The method of shipment and courier name(s) will be entered on the chain-of-custody form. 6.1.3 Quality Control for Soil Characterization The following procedures are specified in an effort to maintain consistent quality of field and laboratory data. Special Trainings and Certifications The contractor is responsible for compliance with applicable health and safety regulations and for training construction personnel who are to perform soil management tasks. Personnel performing soil sampling shall be certified under OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (29 CFR 1910). Analytical laboratories will be certified by the State of California. Documentation and Records The project manager will distribute the work plan to the project staff. Project staff will review the pertinent sections of the work plan prior to performing the relevant tasks. Chain-of-custody documentation, field maps and photographs will be maintained for a period of five years following the project completion. Sample location maps, sample collection methodology and quality control procedures, laboratory reports, chain-of-custody documentation, as-built drawings of on-site soil placement locations and waste disposal manifests will be included in a summary report. Laboratory Quality Control The laboratory will perform laboratory quality control procedures such as method blanks and matrix spike samples to assess accuracy and bias. The laboratory reporting limits will be lower than the corresponding benchmark values as set forth in this plan. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 26 Data Validation Data review will be performed to assess the accuracy of data recording, processing and transmittal. Field and laboratory quality control data will be reviewed for completeness. Sample preservation and holding times will be verified. Based on a review of the quality control data with respect to the data quality objectives (precision, bias, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity), the laboratory data will be accepted, accepted with qualification, or rejected. 6.1.4 On-Site Soil Reuse Soil meeting the criteria for On-site Reuse, Unrestricted will be transported and placed at the Project site as roadway embankment or structure backfill, provided that the soil meets the Project geotechnical specifications for such reuse. Debris such as asphalt and concrete must be removed prior to reuse. Soil meeting the criteria for On-site Reuse, Paved will be transported and placed only in areas to be paved at the Project site, generally as structure backfill, provided that the soil meets the Project geotechnical specifications for such reuse. Debris such as asphalt and concrete must be removed prior to reuse. During loading, trucks shall not inhibit traffic on public roads. After loading and before leaving corporation yard, and also after unloading and prior to leaving the site, the trucks and loading equipment shall be decontaminated by removing visible soil, especially from the tires, using brooms, brushes and shovels according to the provisions of the DMP. Local transportation route maps are presented as Figures 3, 4, and 5. The soil is to be placed and compacted per the Project specifications. The DMP shall be followed so that dust is not generated during placement and compaction On-site placement areas shall be recorded on the as-built plans and shall be submitted as described in Section 7, Reporting. 6.1.5 Off-Site Soil Reuse Soil meeting the criteria for Off-site Reuse will be transported off-site for reuse. This soil must not contain debris such as asphalt or concrete. Prior to any proposed off-site soil reuse, the results of soil characterization and the location and description of the proposed off-site reuse will be presented in a work plan for NCEHD and Lahontan review. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 27 6.1.6 Landfill Soil Disposal Soil not meeting the reuse criteria will be transported to a licensed solid waste facility for disposal, using either closed-top bins or tarp covers. During loading, trucks shall be parked in a staging area at the site and shall not inhibit traffic on public roads. After loading and before leaving the site, the trucks and loading equipment shall be decontaminated by removing visible soil, especially from the tires, using brooms, brushes and shovels according to the provisions of the DMP. Manifest records shall be maintained for transportation and disposal of the soil. Soil may be transported to Ostrom Road Landfill in Wheatland, California, provided that the soil meets the landfill acceptance requirements. Transportation and disposal of soil shall be conducted in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations. Safe work practices and traffic control measures shall be employed. Truck drivers shall have Class A licenses. A transportation route map is presented as Figure 6. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 28 7. REPORTING A report shall be prepared to describe the soil management activities and document compliance with this Plan. The report shall present: ■ A summary of soil management activities; ■ A description and basis for deviations, if any, from this Plan, ■ Approximate limits of excavation and volume of soil excavated, ■ Results of sampling and analysis; ■ Disposal manifests and records of final soil disposition for all impacted soil; ■ As-built drawings depicting the location of on-site soil reuse; and ■ A summary of quality control activities performed during soil management. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 29 & REFERENCES California Department of Transportation, Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual, March 1, 2003. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. Regulation 93105, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, June 1989. The Designated Level Methodology for Waste Classification and Cleanup Level Determination. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, August 2003. A Compilation of Water Quality Goals. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, October 28, 1968. Resolution No. 68-16, Policy with Respect to Maintaining Higher Quality Waters in California. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 2013. User's Guide: Derivation and Application of Environmental Screening Levels, Interim Final, December 2013. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 2008. Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. May 2008. Geocon, 2009a. Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL), Traffic Stripe Paint, and Asbestos Site Investigation Report, 03-PLA-89 PM 21 .4/21.7 and 03-NEV-89 PM 0.0/0.4, Placer and Nevada Counties, California. Geocon Consultants, Inc., September 2009. Geocon, 2009b. Site Investigation Report, Union Pacific Railroad Embankment at Br. 17-16 — "Truckee Mousehole" 03-NEV-89 Post Mile 0.133, Nevada County, California. Geocon Consultants, Inc., December 2009. HDR, 2009. Multi-Use Path Tunnel Construction, APS Technical Memorandum. HDR Engineering, Inc., August 25, 2009. MADEP, 2002. Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Department of Environmental Protection, Policy #WSC-02-411 , October 31 , 2002. HOLDREGE & KULL Project No. 41704-02 Soil Management Plan, SR89 Mousehole UPRR Pedestrian Undercrossing February 4, 2014 Page 30 Saucedo, 2005. Geologic Map of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 4, George J. Saucedo, California Geological Survey. SWI, 2009. Geotechnical Report, Preliminary Assessment of State Route 89 Mousehole Tunnel Replacement with Twin Tunnels, Truckee, California. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2009. SWI, 2011 . Draft Geotechnical Design Report, Mousehole Pedestrian Undercrossing and Multi-Use Pathway on State Highway 89, Placer and Nevada Counties in and Near Truckee, California. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., December 28, 2011 , draft. SWI, 2013. Draft Geotechnical Design Report, Donner Creek (Mousehole) Pedestrian Underpass and Multi-Use Pathway on State Highway 89, Placer and Nevada Counties in and Near Truckee, California. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., February 1, 2013, draft. Sylvester, et al., 2012. Geologic Map of the North Lake Tahoe - Donner Pass Region, Northern Sierra Nevada, California, Map Sheet 60, Arthur Gibbs Sylvester, et. al., California Geological Survey. TPHCWG, 1998. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series. Amherst Scientific Publishers, 150 Fearing Street, Amherst, Massachusetts 01002, ISBN 1-884-940-14-5, March 1998. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, http-//websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. United States Geological Survey, 1992. 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Series, Truckee, California. HOLDREGE & KULL FIGURES Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Local Transportation Map —Areas A, B, and C, West Shoulder of SR 89 Figure 4 Local Transportation Map — Area D, West Shoulder of SR 89 Figure 5 Local Transportation Map — Town of Truckee Corporation Yard Figure 6 Landfill Transportation Map RONNER PA55 Rd I-H/SR--B9 SEPARATION { ROUTIF &D 4p e:-ERF:Fll] pr Sfcl A2" 317+35 CONKER CREEK Br END CONSTRUCTION Sta A2 313+59.80 PM 0.4 � .�h e�;# TRUCKEE Y~} C�)YNER CREEL[ UNDERPASS Br No. 17-00116 `� TOwNE_oF ISUC EEADA YLIMIT$ PLACER COUNTY "Al" 2 00+00.00 BK A 300+001.00 PM A HEAD ' BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Ste "A7 191+28.05 PM 21.4 Begin Work { St4 "Al" 165+00 NO SCALE BASE MAP FROM CALTRANS 2013 MHOLDREU & KULL LOCATION MAP FIGURE (911SILTINE ENGINEERS • GEOM STS SR 89 MOUSEHOLE - UPRR PEDESTRIAN 'I AVFNUE.NEVADA CITY.CALIFORNIA$3954 UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENT ..vrH.HOLDREGE-dWLLcom (530)478-1019 fa. NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 2013 CD N W w of W Z) co 2 g LL w U W U / U � u m W a w ¢ N ZW x LL / nf X y W ~O m LU Ljj w 2 02 J LL p X Q Z, OW LL' OJ rA ya F ¢ F W 0 Qc7Q ❑ m O J � 0 0 O W O oWo � �F A� m L LU u~iw z Zo DW LL, d� 0 W ¢ LL,p (j � o d d U 4 Z wWW w � ui ?C7 x "x � H war W Wz Z a..� -Iv" O ¢ � J A Z d w Lu W ae 2 Q s' N O w Z w ,W� m 1 W u ..q�E. 1 1 M A i 1 a O Z J J O ¢ m Q ON N U Z F v■ OLU of W UW W J ti�1 � o x 0a 0a a O a O a0 a0 z o � v - O e a m o J o� �p W r W � W 0 J = 2 0 N W DM in LL w U W � p N 0 N; J U O Q ._E c o O N Z a N GY t9 16 E E x x o n a` d 4 U co Q U) = w LL O Q LU LU 0 J 0 U) U W U W a F- w Q LU H U � W � 0 a 0 z O Z) LL J CO -i 0 z aW _ F- O z U) U)U) Z W Of Ov a0 ~ Q �W p H 0 > U)Z w a Zz O U) z U) Z o o LLIO U) w z LU J LL r 0 U J • m ii U ° 0 p - LL a Gs Z w • w M C7 LU or Q a a .22 2 Q � a E E w LU p O O VJ� ) Y a` U WLL 0 • z .. Q 0 F- m J p W w LU U mea= a V7 W W Q Q J m O W = U K 0 LU LU / � § / R �z \ $ E U) \ E 2 2 ¥m / \ i° O \ a- _ \ \ § < \ p \ }\ } \\ j / CL _ 2/ D i0 ± %§ & � O \ 000 Z \ }\ \ _ Q z °7 § 2 z < ) _ ± F- 0 j w m s z ` < i ( / ± < LU g \ \ 0 § m § LUj \ 4 @ / / 1 : . . LU \ & L( ' LU \ .. o ( 3= 1! \ �� : 'LEGEND! ESTIMATED HAUL ROUTE FROM PROJECT SITE NEN' CORP 'ARD 2.6 VALES NEW OORP\\YARD x`ST MM+.W rI.M� 'ST.]P�hLRE'5T SPRINGS Ad . .LINcoLI+.HwY.._ -- '--...w RROCtPiAT Rd --------'�.�. -- / '}f I 1 r 1 PROJECT SITE--- .� PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED MATERIAL HAUL ROUTE N NO SCALE BASE MAP FROM CALTRANS 2013 ®H OLD REU & KU L L LOCAL TRANSPORTATION MAP FIGURE EONSNLTING ENGIN€EkS • GEOEOGISIS SR 89 MOUSEHOLE - UPRR PEDESTRIAN 5 i92$EARL$AVENUE,NEVADA CITY,CALIFORNIA 95959 UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENT (§3Q)-078-13Q§G1'Ane wvrN.Hl7LC)REGEandKllLlcom (§341)-076-IQ19(.:- NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 2013 I/ ll LI/// 0 TRUCKEE it\�U IIIIIIII I�� nlll \ !\ \^l \I Ostrom Road Sanitary Landfill COLUSA 5900 Ostrom RdGRASS VALLEY Wheatland,CA 0 Project Site � � SR 89 M -UPRR Pedestrian an UnderUndercrossing �\ Improvernent ect r uckee,lCA (J YUBA CITY BEALE AFB COLFAX LAKE S BEALE Rd 0 _¢ TAHOE OSTROM Rd 70 S1ERI D- MEADOW VSTA 0 LINCOLN SOUTH LAKE AUBURN TAHOE 80 49 \ ROSEVILLE 50 /0 PLACERVILLE WOODLAND 99 RIO LINDA FOLSOM O 0 0 80 SACRAMENTO DAVIS 0 0 N NO SCALE BASE MAP FROM CALTRANS 2013 MHOLDREU & KULL LANDFILL TRANSPORTATION MAP FIGURE [(INSULTING ENGINEERS • GEOEOGISTS SR 89 MOUSEHOLE - UPRR PEDESTRIAN 6 +.AVENUE.HOLD- t"I'Y.CAIfEhR^JIA 951• bene www.HOLD-. : UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENT ., . NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 2013 TABLES Table 1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Constituents in Soil Samples Table 2 Inorganic Constituents in Soil Samples Table 3 Pesticides, PCBs, and Asbestos in Soil Samples N O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 =Y z Q z Q Z Z Q Q Q Z�� Ln 10 Qas 'V'V zz vzzv v v ZZZ Zv v v V* V 0 00 0 N N N N N tm^ Q > o o Z Z o Z Z o 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U) 00 0 000 00 O O v v v v N O 000 O O O O N 0Y 0�aaoaa000 aaazzazzzzzz Ow OZz O z zzz z > s 000 Lo Lo A Z Z Z Z0K ZZZZZ V V 7v v V V V V V V 0--0000000 N ~ Z U N a d cd dY o00000000o ZQQQQZCCQQQQ 0 s o� am f"D 200'°'°000 ZzzzzZzzzzzz = T V V V V V V V V V V V N y L N= E W Ua > N O d.-, QQ QQQQQQ QQQQQQ QQ o N N C O O O O O O O O O O O Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O Eo E 0 a 7 a 1n 1n l0 10 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n ZZ C �p O 1 V V v V V V V V V V C O (p N y 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q¢¢Z Q Z Z Z Z Z Z p o Q (� N dl O LO LO Lo 10 0 0 0 In 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z 0 o N> i O 1 O V V V V V V V V V V N = Gx Nr W c N F = 0 5 Rm� O W of 00000000000 QQQ o cU mY Oiri 0 iri iri�iri iri0iri iri�aZZZ¢Q¢¢QQQ¢ ri in Nm R Z a V V V V V V V V V V Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N I- L R N > a O w'o -000 N N? z=>5Eym00Oa U(0M200moo� 000QQQ rop co � MU� OhNZZzzzZ N_ O00� 00)(00 CL VV "CO 3d m - - tn O DF �N ESE a I - mm Z=s aa� y',� � o� Fd 2Y VrI�m�MNNN= o00Lo <<<QQQ m _ y O- com N 0 0 M N M N Lo T Z Z Z Z Z Z 00 T O O O O F E o o h �M �.M mtN a� �WE �Od' 2Y 0000000000 OOOOOOQQQQQQ ro ao N F E V v v v v v v v v v v v v V v v Z Z Z Z Z Z N — m — �x5 W m D M d a C C C C C C C C C C C C U C C C C C C C C C C C C E T N N N N N N N N N F F F F F F F F F F F F V d y L L L L L y L L L L L �N MM V V CON a ... C C C C C C C C C C C O O O O O O O O O O O O R N N N N N N N N N N (nZ ZZZ Z(nZ ZZZ Z - � - O C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m s o Ra (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 �� 1oL C E W EEEEEEEEE � � GGau°iIDu°iu°iIDQ)ia) a�•,�-o� E W W W W W W W W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a s a s C1 D_ C1 C1 m m u a �`o`o`o`o`o`o`o`o`o p000000O 0000 E` E r N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n 3 5 C C C C C C C C C C C C 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O QQQQQQQQQQQQ Emoy �E rn - -- w 00 0 E2 ,0 -- -ar oay rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn o -- d (r� N N N N N N N N N N In In In In In In In In In In In In v00pO 00000000000 O W W O co co co 00 00 00 00 00 0 E o 0` c o EO _ = m r r r r R in in in in in in in in in in in in N r r r m of E o `EEE��`o �Z`Z`Z`m Z, ca to y --or�- -- mi•`o2 E2 E 0ommomommo d mmmmmmmmmm � °ommN E > :mdCZ _ WrovvcomQowm m v n com' U) CmddEEd w`> p. _________= mm mmm mmm mmmm W WI —ow U ` C7 ===m U Ox" z w o v m N J -MMM gEsv o ��!?,, U N z z z z z z F v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a v v v, v v„ o0-------- vvvvvv E v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v - a N a o 0 0 o N o E v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a z E a � N N N N N N 0000000000 000000 x a E v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a 0 z z z z z z -0000-- E z z z z z z v v v v v v v U � v v 'p E c m � O � G L1 U. z z z z z z r= N f0 Q 22 m oN o E+�-'C 7 E a O a 7 0 a a a .O r i f6 ax m 0000000000 m . o 0. V v v v v v c v v v v v v v v v v U v v v v v v E a O O N V E f6 d N a N a E wY 00E v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v > V a2 _~ FAN p -�#�#�#�# 9999 _ N m z z z z z z -y t E a - � N � 7 a EO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 mmmnm � aE V vvvvvvvvvv «^« o v v v v v v _ mo w` � a - ya E v v v v v v v v v v v v = E r > > �.EEEE ?-mo E a` a w w `o =U O mug mug mug mugm �5000o E N at—at R' " ......... 'o'o z c% 4.4 6 Q o a m m" Y E E E E E E E E E a s a a a s lo ma aw0-w aw 0-w Eo Em m--w ...... gg.... Ua xO1�zin� w �` ~zmz~zmz`m `m Wwwwwwwwww .E IS - v. =m a=a aE E m000000000 0m-m-m-m-m - E E E oo E w w -dom m-do-°'o-00-0100010 a`a`mmmm > N fn fn N fn fn fn U)fn fn fn E w z z 0cccccccc0 - lo E w w w ¢¢¢¢¢¢ - m m x a _mE U no _ LD > m ?�o E U O = �E6in o ui o ui o i0��NnMevmm QQQQQQ E � "�o� oE - `o m . . . . . . . w N N mmmmmmmmmm »»» _ S - V E - G ; ; _ m m m m m m U 4Q m m U U U m U z z z m - Cl) E m m m m m m Z �+ N w co w Mu.-0-68DEv 7z, U U \ « z z 0\ ))))))))0 0 ( 00 0 ®\z zzzz</««\« )\ /oz a ) § / a § } � 5,f\\ .5 )) §) 2 §# # # # # # # # # # # 2 £]�2 ; ƒ§ § § § § § § § § § § )}}) § sot , j )! \ \ \ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ] -t ) $ /7IX$ ` ` ECL $ \ \� ± 2 % - ) oj k ) ! \ 3 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } ! \ - o \ \\ oLD \ , k\o ) , \j0 \ 7 ¥ _ - E - $ 2 -) r o J/))) / z ( /\v/ ; § APPENDIX A Previous Assessment Lithologic Logs SWI(2009) BORING LOG FOR BV-3 Total Depth: 60 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Air f2a ar ry_ Hole Dam.: 6 In. Top Elevation: •-5900A Easting: Drilling Company: PCExntoratfon Rod Dlam.: Vert.Datum: WGS 1964 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: HD 90 MK if Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 501E DESCRIPTION zt= y L 4r PENETRATION RESISTANCE Twowsifoot) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the Z -a a � °; � A Hammer Wt.8 Drop: 140lbs/30 knhes_ subsafte materials and diAng methods. The stratification p E. E a fines Indicated below represent the approximate boundaries Cn a f ,?: S between rnaterlat types,and the transition maybe gradual, 0 20 40 60 Medium dense.brown,silty,gravelly SAND: ;: ' I E :... ..:...:. _....:............. moist;(Hfl SM. t.5 :. .. ..:......:....:. :.... ... ......... ........... Dense,brown,slily,sandy GRAVEL;moist; .. ....:... .:...:.......:... .:.......:... ......:. . :. (Quaternary Alluvium)GM. 5 10 2 :. 11.5 .. . . . : . : .. . F2- own,silty SAND,trace gravel;moist: =------------- t3.0 �.:.....:.._. ..' uarternary Alluvium)5M. 3®to 5-foot basalt boulders in a brown,silty 15 .. .........:.. .. ... ..:..:...:...:............:..... .:...........ND matrix;GP. p u 6 4G a 20 a SA oo Very dense,brown,silty,sandy GRAVEL; 25.0 ° seZ 25 moist;(Quaternary Alluvium)GM. .... ........ .:.................... ..._.................:._... 30 6A 33.0 ..._........ :._:..:.. Very dense,reddish-brown,slightly sandy, :..:..:..: '.:..:...:..:.... ........_.:..:..: ...:.....:_:..:.....;..;._:...:.:.. clayey SILT;moist;trace of basalt chips; °a -r 35 (weathered basalt)MUGP. O :......... :.:. ...:..:.: .:._.... °Q '- ...... ............. O an .......- .. Q 7 . . . Gray to black,slightly silty GRAVEL and 5-to 44'4 " '' 6-foot basalt and granite boulders;(Quaternary o Alluvium)GP. a C0KnNMD'W-XT SHEET 0 24 40 LEGEND 0 %Fines(<8.o75mm) � • Sample Not Recovered 3Z Ground Water Level ATD • %Water Content E Envlronmental Sample Obtained 1 Standard Penetration Test 0 � ® Grab Sample SR-69 Tunnel Replacement NOTES Town of Truckee,Califorina c°3 1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and defiNtions. oer 2.The stratification lines PP types,and represent the approximate boundaries between soil t n ft transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-3 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a propel understanding of the LU nature of the subsurface materials. o 4.Grourdwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may wary. January 2009 21-1-21072-001 w 5.USCS designation Is based on visuaMnanual Gasditcation and selected lab testing. SHANNON&WILSON,INC. FIG.A-8 GeotevWlcal and Envkonnm d Conwltsnts Sheet 1 of 2 Total Depth: 60 R. Northing: Drilling Method: AkRotary Hole Diam.; Bin. Top Elevaflon: 5900ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC-Ex claration Rod Diam: Vert,Datum; -WGS ?984 $18tion: Drill Rig Equipment: HD 90 MK 11 Hammer Type: Automate Horiz.Datum: Offset Other Comments: SOIL DESCRIPTION ra= o m PENETRAMON RESISTANCE (blowslfoot) Refer to rhe report text fora proper understanding of the � � Q � � c ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 fbs/30 inches subsurface mererrais and drift methods. The stratification n €, E co Anes Indicated below represent the approximate boundaries a U)between material types,and the b amltion my be gradual. 0 20 40 60 BASALT bedrock(black,slightly silty,gravelly ^ " AAA" •...:..:.....:...:..•...•. .. :. SAND cuttings) s o ... . An OI ... .......... _...._'..C... A A .0 A A A A A A 55 A n ^n"A 10 Drill rig failure :�� ,:..... _...... ... :. . BOTTOM OF BORING 60.0 " " 60 COMPLETED 11/2112008 . ......:.... .. .. .......:.... ..._ ...:...:....._ _...:...:..;.._...... -77 65 70 7. 75 80 85 U 90 j; . . . - 95 . . 3 LEG EtJD 0 20 40 60 • Sample Not Recovered Gkound Water Level ATD O %Flnes(ao w5mm) E Environmental Sample obtained i %Water Content Z Standard Penetration Test a Grab Sample gJ SR-89 Tunnel Replacement fe NOTES Town of Truckee,CalPforina t.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions, 2.The stratification Ones represent ft approximate boundaries between soil types,and the transition maybe gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-3 N 3.The discussion In the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the W nature of the subsurface materials. oa.Groundwater level,it Indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. January 2009 21-121072-001 X 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual ctaswcation and selected lab testing. SHANNON&wILsoN,INC.TFIG.A-8 GOMI" Env"Wents conauwwls Sheet 2 0l 2 k to CD (6 LL k $ C14 Ef 2 k / > O & $ ZA p W � @ @ @ / Q A c U) oa § § k \ / § k 11 3,1 ( k 0 �§ 2 v� w\ 2 \ U .6k /ƒ % ƒ \ '0 k / k m �2 � \ . k k z $ m , / / � -.2 s $j /ƒ§ � E7 ^#ƒ~ uj � cn k \� � J7 22jou k so mRd ° f k rL k ƒ > £ Cl) ` CD k 0 E in 2 � + f fE � � ~ f k � U_ ± § $ k q2 02 ; . 2 zgU) A % ƒ . / k §G ¥ . Co k / / E0 \ co \ /U . / e \ t 0 C� 32� ` \,2 = @ ■ e 7 2c 0 99 m a Ef # § � 0 (L r . , o . o / \) { ƒ k \/ 2 � 2 . £ n ƒ . .0 02\ // RD\ wm k/ . i ! \ a K 0 H w 2 a $ >-+. 7 z . 6u . - ( § g B 8 S S g \ $ 2 2 2 2 2 / �®UO��1 \ FIG. 6 L GEOCON (2009b) BORING LOG HBI PROJECT NO. 59300-06-82 w HORIZONTAL,BORING NO. HBI z a DATE DRILLED 8/24425/09 WATER LEVEL(ATD) N/A sp1� 11EADSPACE a � a EQUIPMENT ODER DRILLERS FsNPLORATIa lusts) 0"D SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 EMBANKMENT FILL SP 2 .;- Loose,dry,moderate yellowish-brown(101YR 5l4)to dark 3 � Uowish-brawn(l0YR 412)Gravelly SANT)with cobbles and, 5 1-5 Loose,motet,dirk ye�lawish-brawn(IOYR-412)Gravelly' SP 0.06 1220 SAND with cobbles and boulders 8 9 11 UBI-10 fI.(} 12 1235 13 14 15 HBI-15 16 - 0.0- 0.0 17 18 - . - 19 2Z 13417 23 24 26 xsl-25 0.0 27 1410 28 29 3 HSI-34 - 0.0 32 1435 33 34 37 145n 0.0 38 40 I1S1 411 — -cv—bbles and boulders decrease _y —-- - - 41 1s10 Loose,moist,lxloderate yellowish-browsl(lOYR Sl4)Sandy— CL 0.0 42 CLAY with.gravel 43 44 41>�1-4s Loose,moist,moderate yellowish-brown(10YR 514)Silty 6 ———- _ SM 0.0 47 1535 i SANT.)with gravel 49 Log of Horizontal Boring HSI,page 1 of 2 ENV N4 WELL 11WY 89 TRUCKEEMMSMIOLP-GPJ/2101/44 HORIZONTAL.BORING EI.EVA-'TION: ENGINIffiWGEOLOGIST- GEAMU REI3LANDQ N(7TE:TA@LMOPSMSUUACBC(lhIDS77MSKGW 3MREMAMURSIDNI.YATME$I+ONCBpRIWCyOPnW NLMArONAMATUCRATEMDM,kMD.TPI$WGTWAikkpMMTQ9EtWHOTATIVFor SUBSUREACFCMDfMNSA:rGrIM LOCAMOMANDTMM PROJECT NO. 59300-06-82 w HORIZONTAL,BORING NO. HBI O DATEDRILLED 81244/25109WATER LEVEL{A'ID) SOIL D)C3 a�sPCs) (ppm) a EQUIPU ENT ODEX DRILLBRPC KXPLORA7I0 SOIL DESCRIPTION 51i-so Loose,moist,moderate yellowish brown(10YR 514)Sandy CL 0.0 52 1550 CLAY 53 54 56 Imi-ss / Loose,moist,dark yellowish-brown(10YR 412)Clayey SANE?_- SC 0.0 57 osos f with gravel 58 , 59 60 63 /' 64 — .� 66 x 835 Loose,moist,Mark yellowish-brown(I OYR Q)Silty SAND - SM 0 .0 67 as3s j with gravel 68 (. E 69 70 71 73 1 � E 74 755 77 '� 78 -- ! 1' 79 80 �1 BaR17+Ttrr TFJUMIlVATED AT 80 FEET 0.0 0850 Log ofHorizantal Boring HB 1,page 2 of 2 Fav NO_%ML 14WY99TRUCOMMOUSEHOLE.GPJ 0a,U2aA79 HORIZONTAL BORING ELEVATION: EMCiiNEEMEOLOGIST: GEMMA RE$LANDO NOW:TIM LOC OPRMWRFACLCOI377MMiS&ROWNURAWN APPIAS ON[.YATTRF SPECOWAMIM CJR7R C8 MrArdw AND ATTAS DATE @i=AT6ILins NIXl'WARRAt3=TunE ItF.P=wrArVzcF WBWRFACHCCftMn fNSATCnRERLOCAT@EMANDTIUES. SWI(2009) BORING LOGS BV-4 THROUGH BV-9 Total Depth: 25 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Air Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: -5884 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC Exploration Rod Diam.: Vert.Datum: NGVD 29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: A-400 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 5-inch ODER Hammer SOIL DESCRIPTION 4� o ai a � PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowstfoot) to the report text for a proper understanding of the .r- Refer a a 3 r ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratificationp E E O p lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries � c 0 between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 ASPHALT CONCRETE(6.0") 0.5 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM);medium :...:...:...:...:.......:...:...:......................:...:............... dense;brown to dark brown;moist;little fine .7 ' ' GRAVEL; little fines;trace of cobbles; (FILL). ;: t= 5 COBBLES and BOULDERS;BASALT;trace 7.0 ` of fines. 2 G 10 3G ........................................................ 15 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . : : :. :. .. .. .. .. .. .. ................................................................................................... ...G 20 " 5G Bottom of borehole at 25.0 ft. 25.0 25 :......:...:...:............:...................................._.._..........................._......... . Boring terminated,at planned depth on 5/25/11 ............................ 30 ............................................................................... 35 ii .............. 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... 45 ............................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : J 0 20 40 60 LEGEND M Sample Not Recovered O % Fines(<0.075mm) o E Environmental Sample Obtained 0 %Water Content CD J I Standard Penetration Test ® Grab Sample z State Route 89 Mousehole Pedestrian IL Undercrossing and Multi-Use Path C-4 NOTES Truckee,California 1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. N 2.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types,and the transition maybe gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-4 N 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the W nature of the subsurface materials. 0 4.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. December 2011 21-1-21072-002 W 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. N SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-9 q� Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Total Depth: 45 R. Northing: Drilling Method: Air Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: -•5902 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC Exploration Rod Diam.: Vert.Datum: NGVD 29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: A-400 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 5-inch ODEX Hammer SOIL DESCRIPTION o a _ i*� PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of thea � °3 t ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 1401bs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratificationa E E o n lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries 4) (j) (� � between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 ASPHALT CONCRETE(6.0") 0.5 SILTY SAND(SM); medium dense;dark brown to reddish brown;moist;some fines; E ............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . trace o fine RAVEL;with scattered roots; : : : : : : : : :• ; (FILL). �I :...:...:...:...:.......:...L X. 77 2I 10 :.L...:...:.... COBBLES and BOULDERS; BASALT. 13.0 . . . . . . . .........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.. 3 * 15 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0 :...:._:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.. SANDY SILT(ML);very stiff;dark brown to " " " " ' " " " " " .................................................................................................................... . . . . yellowish brown;moist;trace of fine GRAVEL; 20 . . . . . . . . . '. ' • ' • • ' ' • • ' ' 4� . . . . . . trace of cobbles and boulders. ��LLL :...:...:...:...:..:..:..:..:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:..... :..:..91./8° COBBLES and BOULDERS; BASALT;trace 23'0 5 fines. G 25... V'^ 77 77 sG 30 " 'G . . . . . ... ........................... 35 " . . . . . . . . . . ....................................._.. ............. .......: a . ......................................................... 40 " :...:...............:...:.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................................... 9G :....:........................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom of borehole at 45.0 ft. 45.0 45 ^ Boring terminated at planned depth on 5/23/11 . .................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . .................................................................................................................... J 0 20 40 60 LEGEND M * Sample Not Recovered % Fines(<0.(375mm) o E Environmental Sample Obtained • %Water Content Standard Penetration Test Plastic Limit I----) Liquid Limit ® Grab Sample Natural Water Content z I State Route 89 Mousehole Pedestrian Undercrossing and Multi-Use Path NOTES Truckee,California N1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. N 2.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types,and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-5 N 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the W nature of the subsurface materials. 0 4.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. December 2011 21-1-21072-002 W 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and•selected lab testing. SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-10 ¢ Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Total Depth: 40 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Air Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: •-5894 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC Exploration Rod Diam.: Vert.Datum: NGVD 29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: A-400 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 5-inch ODDCHammer SOIL DESCRIPTION o a) -0 - i= PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowsifoot) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the r Q Q. cz .2 Z ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification n E E o m a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries t j D between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 ASPHALT CONCRETE(6.0") 0.5 . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : SILTY SAND(SM);very dense; brown to :...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.. reddish brown;moist;some fines;trace of fineE : : : . . . . . GRAVEL;trace of cobbles;with scattered • l asphalt grindings;(FILL). ;. :......:............:......:......:...:...:...:...:.:...:...:...:....................... dense;brown. ; �� 2I 10 . . . . . . . . ................................................................................ . . . . . . . . . COBBLES and BOULDERS; BASALT;trace 15.5 � � s 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of fines. ..................................................................................................................... ............................................ 20 " 5G 25 . .: .: .: .: G ......:........ . .......:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....: ... 30 7G ........................................._........ 35 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:............:............................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " Bottom of borehole at 40.0 ft. . � • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boring terminated at planned depth on 5/26/11 45 :...:...:.........:..........:......................................... o :...:...:...:...:...:....._....... J 0 LEGEND 0 20 40 60 M * Sample Not Recovered 0 % Fines(<0.075mm) o E Environmental Sample Obtained • %Water Content o_ = Standard Penetration Test ® Grab Sample z State Route 89 Mousehole Pedestrian Undercrossing and Multi-Use Path N NOTES Truckee,California n 1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. N 2.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types,and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-6 N 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the Lu nature of the subsurface materials. 0 4.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. December 2011 21-1-21072-002 w 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-11 § Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Total Depth: 35 A Northing: Drilling Method: Air Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: -5891 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC Exploration Rod Diam.: Vert.Datum: NGVD 29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: A-400 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 5-inch ODEX Hammer SOIL DESCRIPTION 4� 5 (0 -a PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blowstfoot) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the -0 a ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification Q- E E o Q lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries tR M( 0 between material types,and the transition may be gradual 0 20 40 60 ASPHALT CONCRETE(6.0") 0.5 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM);very dense; .. .. . . .. . . ......................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.......................................... bE ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...... brown;moist;little fine to coarse GRAVEL; .......................................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.. ...................................................................................... little fines;trace of cobbles;(FILL). 5 :.....:...:...:...:...:....... :...:...:......:...:...:...:...:......:...:..:...:...:.1:1.7/9" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................................................................ medium dense zI 10 .`i.... . . . . . . . . . ...:..:........:...:................................................... 3= 15 very dense; reddish brown. 18.0 .......:...:...:...:...:...:............:..:...:...:..:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:... COBBLES and BOULDERS; BASALT;trace a . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .................................................................................................................... of fines. EA 20 SILTY SANDSM ; medium dense gray 23.0 ( ) ,9 Y brown;moist;some fines;few fine GRAVEL. sI 25 : : ......L..:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:... COBBLES and BOULDERS; BASALT;trace 27'0 .........:...:...:......:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:... of SAND. 6G : : . . . : . . . : : : : : : : : ......................................................... 0 30 ^ 7G Bottom of borehole at 35.0 ft. 35.0 35 ^ Boring terminated at planned depth on 5/24/11 ...................................................................................... 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... 45 7. ..................................................................................................................... m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J O . 20. . . . . . . . .40. . . 60 LEGEND Sample Not Recovered $j Ground Water Level ATD O % Fines(<o.ommm) o E Environmental Sample Obtained • %Water Content J = Standard Penetration Test ® Grab Sample z I State Route 89 Mousehole Pedestrian Undercrossing and Multi-Use Path NOTES Truckee,California n 1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. 2.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil p pp types,and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-7 N 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the W nature of the subsurface materials. 0 4.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. December 2011 21-1-21072-002 Lu 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-12 q� Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Total Depth: 31 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: AirRotary Hole Diam.: 5in. Top Elevation: -5888 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC Exploration Rod Diam.: Vert.Datum: NGVD 29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: A-400 Hammer Type: Automatic Horiz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 5-inch ODEX Hammer SOIL DESCRIPTION o a ct� PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the r Q 3 Z ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification p �E• E o t6 n lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries t/j N 0 � 0 between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 ASPHALT CONCRETE(6.0") 0.5 SILTY SAND(SM);very dense; brown; moist; some fines;little fine GRAVEL;trace of E ................................. ............... 7-7,77 cobbles;(FILL). 1= 5 brown to reddish brown;no gravel. zI 1077.7.7 . . . . . . . . . 1 COBBLES and BOULDERS; BASALT:trace 13.0 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of fines. 15 . ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 G .................................................................................:....._.......:...:...:..:...:.. 20 :..n. Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SAND GP •very23.0 . . . . . ......:...:.......:..................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:..:..:...:...:...:...:...:... ................................................................................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:... dense;gray brown;wet;little coarse to fine 25 : : : . . . . . SAND; trace of fines. s= m ...............:...:...:.............:...:...:.......:...:..................:..:...:.......67/&".. °Q rn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : 31.0 s= : : : : . : .. .. ..:....:...:...:...........:67/&":... ...:...:.........................:...:...:...:..:. :. :. Bottom of borehole at 31.0 ft. ..................................................................................................................... Boring terminated at planned depth on 5/24/11 :...:..:......:..:...:...:...........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:... .................................. 35 .. ............................................................... ........... 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... 45 ..................................................................................................................... it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J 0 20 40 60 LEGEND M * Sample Not Recovered Ground Water Level ATD O % Fines(<0.075mm) o E Environmental Sample Obtained • %Water Content J = Standard Penetration Test ® Grab Sample z I State Route 89 Mousehole Pedestrian Undercrossing and Multi-Use Path NOTES Truckee,California N1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. N 2.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil p pp types,and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-8 N 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the W nature of the subsurface materials. 0 4.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. December 2011 21-1-21072-002 W 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON&WILSON, INC. FIG.A-13 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Total Depth: 25.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Air Rotary Hole Diam.: 5 in. Top Elevation: -5879 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: PC Exploration Rod Diam.: Vert.Datum: NGVD 29 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: A-400 Hammer Type: Automatic Hortz.Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 5-inch ODEX Hammer SOIL DESCRIPTION 4� o � PENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the :5 s a S +( ♦ Hammer Wt.&Drop: 140 lbs/30 inches subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification p. Eo cc a lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries 0 t j Co j 0 between material types,and the transition may be gradual. 0 20 40 60 ASPHALT CONCRETE(6.0") 0.5 Poorly-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL .. :...:...:...:...:._:...:...:...:.......................................... E :...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.....' (SP-SM);very dense; brown; moist;some fine •'""' ........................................................................._...................:...:...:...:...:.., GRAVEL;few fines;(FILL). .: 5 .7:. SILTY SAND SM ;ve dense brown moisfi 8.0 ____ ______ ______ _ . . . : : : : : : .._......................................................................... ( ) ry :: .........................................................:........................:..:...:... some fines;trace of fine GRAVEL;(FILL). 10 Q rn — 13.0 : . : : Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:................................................................................ (GP-GM);very dense; brown;wet;little fine to 0 3= 15 •67 coarse SAND;few fines;trace of cobbles o ...:...:...:......:.........:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:..._......:.. (FILL). ----------------------- 18.0 :...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.....:...:...: SILTY SAND(SM);very dense;brown;wet; :...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:. :...:...:...:. 20 . . . . . some fines;trace cobbles;scattered brick 4= • • • • • • • • • • : : : : : . . . . . . . 670 debris;(FILL). : ' , :...:...:...:•.•:...:...:...:...:. ----------------------- 23.0 �. .: ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...�...�..�...:...:...:...�......:...:...:...:...:...:...�...:...:.. Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SAND(GP);very Q . . . . . . . ..............................................................................._........ dense;brown;wet;little fine to coarse SAND; 25.5 ° sz 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...... trace of fines. • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom of borehole at 25.5 ft. . . . . . . . . : Boring terminated at planned depth on 5/25/11 ....:.................:......:...:...:...:...:..:...:.... . ................................... 30 .......................................................................... 35 .............................................................. 40 ..........................._............................_.._....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................................................................................................... 45 o, ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J 0 . . . . . . . .20. . . . . . . . .40. . . . . . . .60 LEGEND END Sample Not Recovered Ground Water Level ATD O % Fines(<o.o75mm) o E Environmental Sample Obtained • %Water Content J Standard Penetration Test 3 z State Route 89 Mousehole Pedestrian Undercrossing and Multi-Use Path o NOTES Truckee,California N1.Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols,codes,abbreviations and definitions. N 2.The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil p pp types,and the transition may be gradual. LOG OF BORING BV-9 N 3.The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the W nature of the subsurface materials. J 4.Groundwater level,if indicated above,is for the date specified and may vary. December 2011 21-1-21072-002 it W 5.USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing. SHANNON&WILSON INC. FIG.A-141 Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants APPENDIX B Previous Assessment Laboratory Reports SWI (2009) LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT AND CHAIN-OF- CUSTODY DOCUMENTATION