Updated Final West Lights Creek Road Bridge Geo-technical.pdf

Plumas National Forest

West Lights Creek Proposed Bridge Geotechnical Evaluation

Jonathan Berry Enterprise Geotechnical Project Engineer

Plumas National Forest 2019

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

3.1 Physical Testing

4.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

4.1 Subsurface Conditions/ Alternatives

4.2 Consolidation Test

4.3 Strength Characteristics

5.0 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY

5.1 Faulting and Seismic Shaking

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Site Clearing and Earthwork

6.2 Foundation Recommendations

6.3 Concrete Spread Footings or GRS Abutment Foundations

6.4 Corrosion and Chemical Potential

7.0 POST INVESTIGATION/DESIGN REVIEW

8.0 CLOSURE

9.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A-Figures

Mesozoic granitic rocks

Mesozoic volcanic rocks, Andesite greenstone, volcanic breccia and other pyroclastic rocks; in part strongly metamorphosed

APPENDIX B – Soil lab results

APPENDIX C – Seismic Data

APPENDIX D- Presumptive Bearing Capacities

APPENDIX E - NRCS Soils Data

APPENDIX F - Photos

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study performed by the United States Forest Service for the proposed culvert replacement with a larger bottomless arch culvert or bridge. The existing culvert’s footings have been undermined and will over time result in a failed structure. The crossing is located on FS Road 28N30 where it crosses West Lights Creek. The nearest town is Taylorsville, California, on the Plumas National Forest. The project location is shown on appendix A in figure 1.

The purpose of the investigation was to: 1) Evaluate the nature and engineering properties of the soils encountered at the site; 2) develop foundation recommendations for the proposed structure and estimate foundation settlements; 3) and develop geologic design parameters for the structure.

The scope of the investigation included a field site visit, office analysis, and preparing this report.

This report has been prepared for Forest Service design team members for the sole purpose of developing the project described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other uses or the purposes of the other parties. Due to the remoteness of the site, lack of better data obtained, and the conditions observed at the site, presumptive or estimated values for the engineering properties are being used for the design.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project includes replacing an existing culvert that crosses West Lights Creek on FS road 28N30. The site of the proposed bridge is located along approximately the same alignment as the culvert whose foundation is undermined, but should be replaced with a much longer span structure. The watershed was completely burned during the moonlight fire in 2007, resulting in significant amounts of debris coming down the drainage (see photo 1).

The geology description in the California Geologic Survey geology map of California identifies this area as Mesozoic volcanic rocks, unit 5, USGS, 2019. (https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/sgmc-unit.php?unit=CAMZv5;0 ). The predominant bedrock type observed appeared to be weathered metamorphosed andesite that had the appearance of andesite, but higher quality greenstone was present in the boulder clasts at the site and at the bottom of the holes 1, 3 and 4. The site is located very near a contact with a granitic pluton.

Four test pits were dug with an excavator to confirm the soil conditions and geology described in the description for the area. The test pits revealed that the area has been previously disturbed, with test pit 3 containing waste concrete and geosynthetic fabric. Test pit 2 is a large deposit of medium to fine sand, which is interpreted as a deposit related to a backwater effect, likely deposited when the inlet to the culvert was plugged with debris. The bedrock quality in test pit two was highly weathered, whereas the bedrock in the other three test pits was hard and difficult to excavate. The test pit descriptions are shown in table 1. Lab test results are shown in appendix B.

The proposed bridge site is located at an elevation of approximately 4610 feet above mean sea level, based on Google Earth data.

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

The geotechnical investigation included field reconnaissance and analysis of the data using empirical relationships and published values. Sample were also sent to a lab to determine the engineering properties of the fill at the site. The field exploration and analysis are briefly described below.

Field Exploration

The field exploration program included evaluating a reasonable location for the bridge replacement, and evaluating the soils and geology for bearing capacity near that location. Holes were dug near the four corners of what is assumed to be a reasonable location for a bridge or culvert foundation. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3. Test pits were dug using a CAT 320C L excavator. The test pits were dug to bedrock refusal, except for test pit 2, where more highly weathered bedrock was encountered. The final depths were near the creek bottom elevation on the east side of the structure (holes 1 and 4), and a few feet lower than the creek elevation on the west side of the structure (holes 2 and 3).

It appears that bedload in the channel is highly mobile. There is a sediment wedge and accumulation of material at the inlet to the culvert, but bedrock is exposed downstream of the culvert and it appears that the channel elevation is bedrock controlled. It is anticipated that the wedge of material in the channel upstream of the culvert will become mobile and pass through the structure.

3.1 Physical Testing

Due to the presence of boulders, any attempt to drive the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer would result in refusal, so no blow count or in-situ data could be obtained. All soils were disturbed by the excavator.

Field observations and classification were performed, and two bulk samples from test pit 1 were taken to a lab as representative samples of most material seen on site. One sample was taken of material encountered between 0-5 ft below ground surface (BGS), and the other of material between 5-10 ft BGS.

All material larger than approximately 3” was removed from the bulk samples sent to the lab. Lab results are shown in Appendix B.

4.0 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The following discussion of findings for the site is based on the results of the field exploration and analysis of the data gathered.

4.1 Subsurface Conditions/ Alternatives

The deposits are slightly variable across the site. Holes 1 and 4 contained large boulders cobbles in a matrix of clayey silty sand with gravel and are generally assumed to be similar to most material that will be encountered at the site. Hole 3 contained material that appear to be waste from a previous structure that was buried at the site. These materials should not be incorporated into the structural fill, but likely could be incorporated as unclassified barrow fill as approved by the Plumas National Forest.

Table 1- Description of soils encountered- Hole 1 Surface elevation assumed to be 97.5 ft (from DWG file)

Depth (ft)*

Description Classification

0-3 Fill from Road embankment (per operator), 40% cobbles, Dark Brown moist fine sand/silt clay with gravel, contains large (2 ft) diameter Andesite/Greenstone Boulders (contains roots and minor amounts of organics)

Silty Clayey sand W/ Gravel, cobbles and Boulders (SC-SM)

3-5.5 Angular cobbles (3"-8") and gravel in matrix of moist, dark brown silty clayey sand with gravel. Minor amounts of rounded cobbles

Silty Clayey sand W/ Gravel and cobbles(SC-SM)

5.5-7 12" diameter boulders with subangular cobbles in a matrix of sand with gravel. Soil appears saturated at 7'

Silty Clayey sand W/ Gravel and cobbles(SC-SM)

7-9 Subangular boulders in matrix of sand with gravel - water coming into hole at a depth of 9 ft from uphill side

Saturated Silty Clayey sand W/ Gravel and cobbles(SC-SM – With Boulders)

9 Water coming in from uphill side 9-10 Saturated silty sand with gravel - large 2.5' x 1 ft boulder -hard digging. Boulder angular to subangular

Saturated Sand W/ Gravel and cobbles(SC-SM – With Boulders)

10-12 Large 3 ft diameter boulder in silty sand with gravel matrix

Saturated Sand W/ Gravel and cobbles(SM – With Boulders)

Below 12’ highly fractured greenstone - undulating surface

Bedrock

* Depths shown are from the ground surface at the hole location. Assumed surface elevations taken from DWG file. Elevation at bottom of hole assumed to be 85 ft. Locations of the approximate hole location are shown in figure 3, Appendix A.

Table 2- Description of soils encountered- Hole 2 Surface elevation assumed to be 97.5 ft (from DWG file)

Depth (ft)*

Description Classification

0-2 Red-to dark brown, moist fine to medium sand (fines dropping out from backwater effect of culvert) organics (grass roots)

Poorly Graded Sand (SP)

2-8 Red-to dark brown, moist fine to medium sand (fines dropping out from backwater effect of culvert) - changes in color to light brown to tan sand with clasts of gravel near transition to residual soil

Poorly Graded Sand (SP)

8-10 Subangular boulders (1' diam) weathered greenstone. Weathered boulders look like gray clasts of clay. Saturated at 8’ perched

Highly weathered greenstone - Bedrock

10-13 Highly weathered bedrock -Andesite or Greenstone, breaks apart in hand and can gouge with fingernail.

Highly weathered greenstone - Bedrock

13-14 Heavily weathered gray andesite or greenstone - some hard clasts that only break apart with moderate impact- can scratch with fingernail

Highly weathered greenstone - Bedrock

* Depths shown are from the ground surface at the hole location. Assumed surface elevations taken from DWG file. Elevation at bottom of hole assumed to be 82 ft. Locations of the approximate hole location are shown in figure 3, Appendix A.

Table 3- Description of soils encountered- Hole 3 Surface elevation assumed to be 92.5 ft (from DWG file)

Depth (ft)*

Description Classification

0-1 Well Graded gravel Well Graded Gravel - GW 1-2 Well graded gravel - Layers of road base with boulders and Cobbles Well Graded Gravel with boulders and cobbles - GW

2-3 Boulders with cobbles in matrix of well graded gravel - Layers of geotextile at depth of 3 ft

Well Graded Gravel with boulders and cobbles - GW

3-6 Dark Brown, well graded gravel with cobbles - Boulders up to 1.5' in diameter -Some wasted concrete encountered

Waste Concrete

Saturated below 6’ 6-10 Light tan saturated well graded sandy gravel with subangular boulders Well Graded Gravel with boulders and cobbles - GW

10 Hit Bedrock Greenstone Bedrock

* Depths shown are from the ground surface at the hole location. Assumed surface elevations taken from DWG file. Elevation at bottom of hole assumed to be 82 ft. Locations of the approximate hole location are shown in figure 3, Appendix A.

Table 4- Description of soils encountered- Hole 4 Surface elevation assumed to be 91.5 ft (from DWG file)

Depth (ft)*

Description Classification

0-6 Brown, moist, Gravelly sand with subangular boulders and cobbles

Silty Clayey sand W/ Gravel, cobbles and Boulders (SC-SM)

6 Water perched on bedrock Below

Very hard bedrock Greenstone Bedrock

* Depths shown are from the ground surface at the hole location. Assumed surface elevations taken from DWG file. Elevation at bottom of hole assumed to be 85 ft. Locations of the approximate hole location are shown in figure 3, Appendix A.

4.1.1 Alternative 1 – Spread footing

Installing spread footings will require up to 15 ft of excavation. Due to the fact that bedrock is located at relatively shallow depths (although depths to bedrock are greater on the west side of the structure) placing the foundation directly on bedrock is recommended. If footings are placed at a higher elevation, further design will be required to over-excavate the in-situ material and replace it with a well graded gravel. Lab results suggest that the fill material at the site may be susceptible to liquefaction, therefore, the foundation should not be placed directly on site soils without amending with cement. If amended 8% cement will be used by volume of soil.

Groundwater into the excavation area is anticipated and will likely require dewatering during construction.

4.1.2 Alternative 2 – Drilled Piles

An alternative to a spread footing are piles. Due to the presence of bedrock at relatively shallow depths, piles are likely not the least expensive option. Piles would need to be fixed into bedrock, which is approximately 12 -15 ft BGS.

4.1.3 Alternative 3 – GRS Abutment

A GRS abutment is another viable alternative, and may be the cheapest alternative for this site.

On site material likely contains too many fines, and therefore are not an appropriate material to use as structural backfill of the retaining structure. Material would need to be imported to either amend the on-site material, or imported material should be used entirely in the reinforced zone.

Excess material would need to be disposed of on site or a repository would need to be located.

4.2 Consolidation Test

No consolidation testing was conducted as undisturbed samples were not obtained. It is assumed the foundation will be placed on bedrock (as determined in the field by the COR). If at the target foundation depth soil or questionable weathered bedrock (can be easily broken/crushed by hand) is encountered the material should be over excavated, amended with 8% cement by volume, and re-compacted to 95% of T 180. Alternatively, the material can be replaced with well graded gravel. This design work is beyond the scope of this report since it is not the recommended construction method, but is an alternative to a foundation placed on bedrock. A foundation placed on bedrock is recommended.

4.3 Strength Characteristics

Presumptive bearing capacities for weathered bedrock range between 8 and 12 Ton/SF, as published by the Navy Design Manual 7 and as shown in appendix D. Most of the bedrock encountered was highly fractured, with undulating surfaces, with presumptive bearing capacities of 30-40 Ton/SF. It is anticipated that the bedrock encountered during construction will be of higher quality between hole 1 and 4, therefore, the foundation of that side has a presumptive bearing capacity of 35 Ton/SF for Service

Loads. The bedrock quality near hole 2 is that of weathered bedrock. Therefore, it is recommended that a presumptive bearing capacity of 10 Ton/SF be used on that side of the bridge (west side) or that the area around hole 2 be over-excavated down to sound bedrock. Sound bedrock is not anticipated prior to depths of around 17 ft around hole2. Poor quality bedrock appeared to be limited to the NW corner abutment area.

5.0 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY

5.1 Faulting and Seismic Shaking

There are a number of quaternary faults that could affect the site as shown in appendix C.

The Site Class is assumed to be B at this site due to proximity to bedrock. The Peak Ground Acceleration associated with AASHTO 2009 design criteria are shown in the following table. All other design parameters are shown in Appendix C.

Peak Ground Acceleration for West Lights Creek Bridge Probability of Occurrence Exceedance rate

PGA ground motion

7% in 75 yrs

0.00093370682 yr⁻¹

0.299

The foundation should be placed directly onto bedrock. Soils at the site are likely subject to liquefaction, although SPT data is not available to verify that assumption. Amending the soils with cement is recommended if structural backfill is not imported.

Data specific to the closest faults (Honey Lake, Butt Creek Fault Zone and Walker Lake) are shown in Appendix C.

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the results of the investigation, the presence of an culvert, and subsequent literature review, the proposed bridge appears to be feasible, although engineering judgement has been used to make foundation recommendations. Based on observed soils and location and depth to bedrock, it is recommended that the bottom of the foundation be placed on bedrock encountered at the site. This will require approximately 12 ft of excavation, assuming the existing road elevation as the top elevation for the excavation. If changed conditions are encountered during construction, a Forest Service Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted to evaluate the effect of the change on these recommendations. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed facilities are based on observation from the field investigation.

6.1 Site Clearing and Earthwork

All earthwork, including excavation, backfill, and preparation of subgrade, will be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report and applicable portions of the grading code of local regulatory agencies. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

Prior to the start of earthwork, the areas of the proposed improvements will be cleared of all vegetation and debris. Deleterious materials, including all waste material encountered in hole 3 and the existing culvert should be removed from the construction area and disposed of off-site, or disposed of or buried in an approved location determined by the Plumas National Forest.

The near surface soils containing organics should be stockpiled for future use to help establish vegetation at the site. The excavation for the foundation should expose bedrock, and the foundation should be placed directly onto bedrock. In the more weathered zone located on the inlet river right abutment, excavation would continue to a depth 2 feet deeper than the surrounding area, over excavating the more weathered, clayey residual soils that exist at deeper depths in that location. Based on the materials observed during excavation, there are too many cobbles and boulders in the fill, and the percentage of fines is too high making the material not appropriate for structural backfill, but is adequate for backfill of approach material. Unless cement stabilized, minor settlement of the approaches is likely with the use of this on-site material, therefore, for the paved approaches, 8” of aggregate base is recommended directly to increase the structural capacity of the structural section. An option to use on site material would be to amend the existing soils with cement. If that option is exercised, material larger than 3” should be removed. Further analysis will be required by the contractor to determine the soil to cement ratio needed to improve the soils at the site, but typically would be around 3% cement to soil.

Material encountered in test pit 2 is not appropriate material to be used as backfill material. All other material could be processed on-site to reduce the maximum size of material to 3”, but depending on the alternative choses, significant amounts of material may need to be imported for backfill material. Backfill material should meet the requirements in section 704.04 –Structural backfill. The percent fines should be limited to 15%, with a plasticity index no greater than 6, or the soils should be amended with cement as discussed above.

On-site soils that are not improved will likely not meet the requirements for structural backfill outlined above, but could be used as compacted fill 15 ft away from the structure, provided that they are free of organic matter, other deleterious matter, and material meets the requirements of unclassified barrow.

All material greater than 3” should be buried a minimum of 2 ft below the ground surface or road surface. Backfill soils should be compacted using a method specification. Material brought in or processed should have a standard proctor test performed on it, and backfill material should be compacted to 95% of T-99 (standard proctor).

6.2 Foundation Recommendations

It is assumed that the proposed bridge will be placed directly on bedrock similar to those noted above, and that the maximum service load will be less than 10 Ton/SF acting on the west spread footing, and 35 Ton/SF acting on the east spread footing.

Based on the assumed loads and the allowable bearing values recommended above, differential settlements are anticipated to be less than 1” inches provided earthwork is performed in accordance with the recommendations described in this report.

6.3 Concrete Spread Footings or GRS Abutment Foundations

Concrete Spread footings or GRS abutments must be placed directly on excavated sound bedrock on the East abutment, and down to relatively sound weathered bedrock (assumed to be at a depth of 15 ft BGS) on the West abutment. Alternatively, foundation conditions can be improved by over excavating highly weathered bedrock on the west abutment and placing and compacting 8% cement amended excavated material (by volume) or imported fill as outlined in section 704.01 of the FP-14. Imported fill should be used if groundwater is encountered. Place the foundation as outlined in Section 6.2.

6.4 Corrosion and Chemical Potential

Information concerning the corrosion and chemical potential of native materials at the site were researched on the NRCS Web Soil Server, and the data suggests that the PH of the soil is near neutral at

6.5. Based on site reconnaissance, the corrosion and chemical potential at the site appear to be low. It is still recommended that Type II cement be used based on the proximity to bedrock contacts. NRCS soil data for the area is shown in Appendix D.

7.0 POST INVESTIGATION/DESIGN REVIEW

Final plans and specifications will be reviewed prior to the construction to confirm that the full intent of the recommendations presented herein have been implemented in the design.

Should unexpected, or changed, conditions not represented in this report be observed during construction, the COR will contact the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the changed condition and determine if a modification to assumed conditions portrayed in this report is required.

Inspection will be performed during construction by the COR to verify the foundation materials at the maximum foundation depth is adequately represented by this report. The COR shall insure that fill is placed and compacted in an acceptable manner.

8.0 CLOSURE

The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented herein are: 1) based upon the evaluation and interpretation of available information, 2) subject to confirmation of the actual conditions encountered during construction, and 3) based upon the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be provided during construction.

Test conducted by the contractor shall be reviewed by a qualified Forest Service or Independent engineer.

9.0 REFERENCES

California Geological Survey Interactive Fault zonation map, 2013 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html

Caltrans ARS online http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/ http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/shake_result4.php?x=-64.7925030058839&y=248.7032127972913&lat= 40.252103&long=120.762363&sv=760&status=1&top=3&srrup=19.71&near=3

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02, 1986.

USGS Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters Program

USGS unified Hazard Tool https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/

Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, 2019 http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/ http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

APPENDIX A-Figures

Figure 1 Site location showing burned watershed

Latitude: 40.252046°

Longitude: -120.762477°

Figure 2 Overview of geology

Mesozoic volcanic rocks, Andesite greenstone, volcanic breccia and other pyroclastic rocks;

in part strongly metamorphosed

Mesozoic granitic rocks

Granodiorite

Figure 3 - Test pit locations

Road Hole 1 Hole 2 Hole 3 Hole 4 Ground elevation 98 97 97 94 92 Elevation of bottom of hole 85 83 84 86 Depth of hole relative to road 13 15 14 12

APPENDIX B – Soil lab results

APPENDIX C – Seismic Data List of faults within 100 miles of West Lights Creek

Distance in Miles

Name State Geologic Slip Rate (mm/year)

Dip (degrees)

Dip Dir

Slip Sense

Rupture Top (km)

Rupture Bottom (km)

Length (km)

42.42 Warm Springs Valley fault zone

NV 0.50 90 V

strike slip

0 15 38

44.86

Dry Valley- Smoke Creek Ranch fault zone

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 50

48.42 Petersen Mountain fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 26

49.71 Bonham Ranch fault zone

NV 0.26 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 56

49.93 Petersen Mountain fault

NV 0.07 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 16

54.98 Freds Mountain fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 29 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1605 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1605 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1605 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1602 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1602 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1602 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1602 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1640 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1640 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1601 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1601 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=NV3 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=NV3 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=NV3 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1657 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1657

56.99 Pyramid Lake fault zone

NV 2.00 90 V

strike slip

0 15 77

57.17 Peavine Peak fault zone

NV 50/65/35 NE normal 0 15 13

59.07 Fox Range fault zone

NV 0.13 50/65/35 W normal 0 15 35

61.54 Eastern Pyramid Lake fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 W normal 0 15 44

63.99 Western Smoke Creek Desert fault 2

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 19

66.58 Spanish Springs Valley fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 21

67.33 Duck Flat fault NV 0.13 50/65/35 SW normal 0 15 16

68.78 San Emidio fault zone

NV 0.26 50/65/35 W normal 0 15 34

70.89 Mount Rose fault zone

NV 1.96 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 36 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1669 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1669 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1644 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1644 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1608 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1608 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1607 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1607 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1607 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=NV4 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=NV4 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=NV4 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1656 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1656 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1472 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1613 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1613 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1647 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1647

75.21 Spanish Springs Peak fault

NV 0.10 90 V

strike slip

0 15 5

77.52 Western Granite Range fault

NV 0.26 50/65/35 SW normal 0 15 28

77.58 Selenite Range fault zone

NV 0.13 50/65/35 W normal 0 15 18

77.71 Nightingale Mountains fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 W normal 0 15 36

78.21 Little Valley fault

NV 0.26 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 18

79.53 Eastern Granite Range fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 34

89.34 Kings Canyon fault zone

NV 0.26 50/65/35 SE normal 0 15 18

89.34 Carson Range- Kings Canyon fault

NV 2.61 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 71

90.15 Granite Springs Valley fault zone

NV 0.26 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 49 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1660 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1660 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1610 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1610 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1610 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1617 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1617 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1614 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1614 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1614 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1648 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1648 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1611 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1611 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1654 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1654 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1285_1654 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1285_1654 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1285_1654 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1622 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1622 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1622

90.82 Black Rock fault zone

NV 0.25 50/65/35 W normal 0 15 80

90.90 Carson City fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 16

92.25 Carson Range fault

NV 2.61 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 53

95.53 Indian Hill fault NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 8

95.85 The Lava Beds fault

NV 0.13 50/65/35 E normal 0 15 26 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1485 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1485 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1653 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1653 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1285 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1285 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1652 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1624 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2014_search/view_fault.cfm?cfault_id=1624

AASHTO 2009 data results

"request": { "date": "2019-08-22T20:10:06.376Z", "referenceDocument": "AASHTO-2009", "status": "success", "url": "https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/aashto- 2009.json?latitude=40.252103&longitude=-120.762363&siteClass=B&title=West Lights Creek", "parameters": { "latitude": 40.252103, "longitude": -120.762363, "siteClass": "B", "title": "West Lights Creek" "response": { "data": { "pga": 0.299, "fpga": 1, "as": 0.299, "ss": 0.72, "fa": 1, "sds": 0.72, "s1": 0.237, "fv": 1, "sd1": 0.237, "sdc": "B", "ts": 0.329, "t0": 0.066, "sdSpectrum": [ 0, 0.299 0.025, 0.459 0.05, 0.619 0.066, 0.72 0.1, 0.72

0.15, 0.72 0.2, 0.72 0.25, 0.72 0.3, 0.72 0.329, 0.72 0.35, 0.677 0.4, 0.593 0.45, 0.527 0.5, 0.474 0.55, 0.431 0.6, 0.395 0.65, 0.365 0.7, 0.339 0.75, 0.316

0.8, 0.296 0.85, 0.279 0.9, 0.263 0.95, 0.25 1, 0.237 1.05, 0.226 1.1, 0.216 1.15, 0.206 1.2, 0.198 1.25, 0.19 1.3, 0.182 1.35, 0.176 1.4, 0.169 1.45, 0.164

1.5, 0.158 1.55, 0.153 1.6, 0.148 1.65, 0.144 1.7, 0.139 1.75, 0.135 1.8, 0.132 1.85, 0.128 1.9, 0.125 1.95, 0.122 2, 0.119 2.05, 0.116 2.1, 0.113 2.15, 0.11

2.2, 0.108 2.25, 0.105 2.3, 0.103 2.35, 0.101 2.4, 0.099 2.45, 0.097 2.5, 0.095 2.55, 0.093 2.6, 0.091 2.65, 0.089 2.7, 0.088 2.75, 0.086 2.8, 0.085 2.85, 0.083

2.9, 0.082 2.95, 0.08 3, 0.079 3.05, 0.078 3.1, 0.076 3.15, 0.075 3.2, 0.074 3.25, 0.073 3.3, 0.072 3.35, 0.071 3.4, 0.07 3.45, 0.069 3.5, 0.068 3.55, 0.067

3.6, 0.066 3.65, 0.065 3.7, 0.064 3.75, 0.063 3.8, 0.062 3.85, 0.062 3.9, 0.061 3.95, 0.06 4, 0.059 "metadata": { "griddedValuesID": "2002-US-AASHTO-05-050-R1.rnd", "spatialInterpolationMethod": "linearlinearlinear"

ARW Online V2.3.09 Deterministic Results for Nearby Active Faults

Honey Lake 2011 CFM Fault ID: 50 Maximum Magnitude (MMax): 6.9 Fault Type: SS Fault Dip: 90 Deg Dip Direction: V Bottom of Rupture Plane: 11.00 km Top of Rupture Plane(Ztor): 0.00 km Rrup: 19.713 km Rjb: 19.711 km Rx: 16.761 km Fnorm: 0 Frev: 0

Period SA(Base Spectrum)

Basin Factor

Near Fault Factor(Applied)

SA(Final Spectrum)

0.01 0.146 1.000 1.000 0.146

0.05 0.195 1.000 1.000 0.195

0.1 0.299 1.000 1.000 0.299

0.15 0.345 1.000 1.000 0.345

0.2 0.339 1.000 1.000 0.339

0.25 0.304 1.000 1.000 0.304

0.3 0.274 1.000 1.000 0.274

0.4 0.227 1.000 1.000 0.227

0.5 0.190 1.000 1.000 0.190

0.6 0.159 1.000 1.021 0.162

0.7 0.137 1.000 1.042 0.143

0.85 0.113 1.000 1.074 0.122 1 0.097 1.000 1.106 0.107

1.2 0.079 1.000 1.106 0.088

1.5 0.061 1.000 1.106 0.068 2 0.043 1.000 1.106 0.047 3 0.026 1.000 1.106 0.028 4 0.018 1.000 1.106 0.020 5 0.014 1.000 1.106 0.015

Butt Creek fault zone Fault ID: 48 Maximum Magnitude (MMax): 7 Fault Type: SS Fault Dip: 90 Deg Dip Direction: V Bottom of Rupture Plane: 13.00 km Top of Rupture Plane(Ztor): 0.00 km Rrup: 29.027 km Rjb: 29.027 km Rx: 28.222 km Fnorm: 0

Basin Factor

Near Fault Factor(Applied)

SA(Final Spectrum)

0.01 0.106 1.000 1.000 0.106

0.05 0.139 1.000 1.000 0.139

0.1 0.209 1.000 1.000 0.209

0.15 0.243 1.000 1.000 0.243

0.2 0.241 1.000 1.000 0.241

0.25 0.219 1.000 1.000 0.219

0.3 0.199 1.000 1.000 0.199

0.4 0.166 1.000 1.000 0.166

0.5 0.140 1.000 1.000 0.140

0.6 0.118 1.000 1.000 0.118

0.7 0.102 1.000 1.000 0.102

0.85 0.085 1.000 1.000 0.085 1 0.073 1.000 1.000 0.073

1.2 0.060 1.000 1.000 0.060

1.5 0.047 1.000 1.000 0.047 2 0.033 1.000 1.000 0.033 3 0.020 1.000 1.000 0.020 4 0.014 1.000 1.000 0.014 5 0.011 1.000 1.000 0.011

Walker Spring 2011 CFM Fault ID: 47

Maximum Magnitude (MMax): 6.5 Fault Type: N Fault Dip: 90 Deg

Dip Direction: V Bottom of Rupture Plane: 10.00 km

Top of Rupture Plane(Ztor): 0.00 km Rrup: 21.763 km Rjb: 21.763 km Rx: 21.758 km

Fnorm: 1

Basin Factor

Near Fault Factor(Applied)

SA(Final Spectrum)

0.01 0.094 1.000 1.000 0.094

0.05 0.125 1.000 1.000 0.125

0.1 0.198 1.000 1.000 0.198

0.15 0.237 1.000 1.000 0.237

0.2 0.238 1.000 1.000 0.238

0.25 0.213 1.000 1.000 0.213

0.3 0.192 1.000 1.000 0.192

0.4 0.159 1.000 1.000 0.159

0.5 0.130 1.000 1.000 0.130

0.6 0.107 1.000 1.013 0.109

0.7 0.091 1.000 1.026 0.093

0.85 0.074 1.000 1.045 0.077 1 0.062 1.000 1.065 0.066

1.2 0.050 1.000 1.065 0.053

1.5 0.038 1.000 1.065 0.040 2 0.026 1.000 1.065 0.027 3 0.015 1.000 1.065 0.016 4 0.010 1.000 1.065 0.011 5 0.008 1.000 1.065 0.008

APPENDIX D- Presumptive Bearing Capacities

APPENDIX E - NRCS Soils Data

APPENDIX F - Photos