The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutC28130 - Discontinue Monthly Inspctns @ Stone Eagle & Rvrt 2 Qurtrly CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT REQUEST: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DISCONTINUE THE MONTHLY INSPECTIONS AT STONE EAGLE GOLF COURSE AND REVERT TO QUARTERLY INSPECTIONS AS NECESSARY PER THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY: Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works DATE: September 9, 2010 CONTENTS: April 9, 2009, Staff Report June 28, 2010, Timothy Bartlett E-mail July 5, 2010, Robert Hargreaves E-mail July 23, 2010, Results of Water Quality Testing Recommendation By Minute Motion, authorize staff to discontinue the monthly inspections at Stone Eagle Golf Course and revert to quarterly inspections as necessary per the maintenance agreement. Discussion On April 9, 2009, the City Council accepted staff's recommendation regarding irrigation runoff from the Stone Eagle Golf Course, authorized the execution of a maintenance agreement for ongoing management of runoff, and directed staff to perform monthly inspections for one year while Stone Eagle crews performed weekly inspections. The results of these inspections were to be reported to the Council at the end of the one year period. Since that time, the course has come under new ownership and staff has worked with the new owners to transfer runoff maintenance responsibility to them. The owners recently executed the maintenance agreement, and the $50,000 cash bond remains in place. Staff has been performing monthly inspections as directed and believes that runoff is being managed and mitigated properly by Stone Eagle. Our inspections revealed that maintenance had been somewhat irregular, especially through the transition in ownership, but now appears to have stabilized in an acceptable manner. It is unlikely that all involved parties are, or will ever be, completely satisfied. Due to the complexity Staff Report `� �� Discontinue Monthly Staff Irispections at Stone Eagie �' September 9, 2010 Page 2 of 2 of this situation, adequate management is the goal and perfection is unlikely to be achieved no matter how much effort is invested. Staff believes that the single most important aspect of the runoff mitigation and maintenance program is the annual water quality testing. These annual tests are performed by an independent laboratory at Stone Eagle's expense. Among other things, this testing involves placing water fleas in various water samples for 96 hours. These fleas are used as an indicator organism because they are sensitive to small changes in water quality. In their July 19, 2010, report (attached), Aquatic Testing Laboratories of Ventura, California, found a 100 percent water flea survival rate, indicating acceptable cleanliness of the water. All previous water quality tests also produced 100 percent survival rates. Therefore, staff recommends discontinuing the monthly City staff inspections with quarterly inspections to be performed as needed per the maintenance agreement. Fiscal Analysis There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Departme t ea . , j, � � , �..� - Mark Green ood Dav" J. � in Director of ublic Works City Attorney Appro�d By_ �'�TY COt1NCIL�TItJN , ��'�'ItOVEia► �F,IVIFD____ �� T�T��CEgVED ----._�.._.._OTHER I��EI;Tt C. DAT ` / Joh . Wohlmuth, City Manager �Y�;�,� - - -,r - y { ' ., _ , 1�'C�E�,: `' .��3��;N7': % � r#�3s7'A�I�N: ��1 �� I�B�(�'gC;II Tf�': �'��~�riin:�l�aa� Fite w�th �ity Cle' s�f�cq Contract Ao. C28130 CITY �F PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Receive and File Updated Information Addressing Resident Concems Regarding Water Runoff from Stone Eagle Golf Course, and Accept Staff Recommendations of the August 28, 2008, Continued Staff Report SUBMITTED BY: Mark G�eenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works APPLICANT: Stone Eagle 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 NOTIFICATION: See Notification �ist Attached DATE: April 9, 2009 CONTENTS: Notification List 03-03-09 Letter from Stone Eagle, and Its Attachments: Letter from Vector Control (undated report of field inspection) Miscellaneous Communications, Legal Descriptions, Unexecuted Site Access and Indemnity Agreements 02-11-09 Letter from Stone Eagle 08-28-08 Staff Report, Continued to a Date Uncertain, and Its Contents: Staff Report to Director's Hearing Dated 01-17-08 Minutes to Director's Hearing 01-17-08 Director's Hearing Recommendations Memo Contacts List for 01-17-08 Director's Hearing Maintenance Agreement with Exhibits Recommendation: That City Council, by Minute Motion: 1.) Receive and file updated information addressing resident concerns regarding water runoff from Stone Eagle Golf Course; and 2.) Accept the recommendations of the August 28, 2008, continued staff report: a.) Accept the Hearing Director's recommendations regarding Stone Eagle Golf Course; b.) Accept the project as complete; c.) Release the associated securities; and d.) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Maintenance Agreement. � r Staff Report Accept Stone Eagle Golf Course and Release Securities April 9, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Discussion: Soon after completion of the Stone Eagle Golf Course, complaints were received by the Public Works Department regarding what appeared to be excessive runoff from golf course irrigation. Staff perFormed extensive investigations over a period of approximately finro years and conducted public information meetings with affected residents in an effort to identify and resolve their concerns. The investigation concluded with a Director's Hearing on January 17, 2008, at which time input was received from affected residents, the developer, environmental professionals, and City staff. Each issue was thoroughly discussed and documented (see the staff report and minutes of the hearing, attached). While it is unlikely that there is or will ever be unanimous satisfaction, staff is confident that all of the significant concerns have been appropriately addressed. At the August 28, 2008, City Council meeting, staff presented the results of the Director's Hearing in a report from Assistant City Attomey Bob Hargreaves. In his report, Mr. Hargreaves identified specific issues regarding impacts resulting from golf course operations, provided acknowledgement of ineasures that had already been impfemented, and recommended ongoing measures to prevent impacts from recurring. Several of the affected residents were present at the August 28, 2008, City Council meeting, and voiced their ongoing concems that golf course runoff water was causing non-native vegetation to grow and mosquitoes to breed in Bruce Creek. The Council directed staff to obtain copies of any reports from the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Board, and to further research the issue. The agenda item was continued to the meeting of October 9, 2008. At the October 9, 2008, City Council meeting the item was continued to a date uncertain. Staff now submits, for Council's consideration, the following update concerning this matter: 01-20-09 Stvne Eagle representative Kris Schulze repo�ted that the creek is being maintained to the expectations of the Vector Control inspector. 01-30-09 City staff conducted an on-site inspection of Bruce Creek and Ramon Creek, and found the condition of Bruce Creek to be improved; Ramon Creek the runoff basin and pumping system are not functioning properly and are in need of maintenance. Staff spoke with the Vector Control inspector who indicated he would provide documentation of current mosquito conditions. 02-03-09 Hearing Director Robert Hargreaves outlined three mifestones to be achieved by Stone Eagle in order for staff to recommend acceptance of the project: that City staff would conduct an inspection of the site and find it satisfactory (note that this requirement was satisfied on January 30 prior to Mr. Staff Repo�t Accept Stone Eagle Golf Course and Release Securities Aprii 9, 2009 Page3of3 Hargreaves being made aware that the inspection had occurred); that Stone Eagle would demonstrate its reasonable efforts to acquire adjoining property owner participation in the maintenance agreements; and that a statement be obtained from Vector Control indicating that there is no current, or likely future, mosquito breeding activity in the creek. 03-03-09 City staff received a letter from Stone Eagle representative Ted Lennon requesting the acceptance of this project, release of the security bonds, .and acceptance of the Maintenance Agreement. This letter's attachments provided evidence that Stone Eagle has met all three requirements as outlined by Mr. Hargreaves. Attached to Mr. Lennon's letter is a letter from Vector Controf Board Inspector Rod Chamberlain reporting that he was satisfied that no mosquitoes were breeding in Bruce Creek as of October 6, 2008. Also attached to Mr. Lennon's letter were copies of unexecuted access and indemnity agreements sent to adjacent property owners. Staff is now in agreement that the outstanding issues have been properly and satisfactorily addressed. Therefore, the Public Works Department recommends that City Council: 1.) Receive the updated information contained in this staff report; and 2.) Accept the recommendations of the August 28, 2008, continued staff report and: a. Accept the Hearing Director's recommendations regarding Stone Eagle Golf Course; �� b. Accept the golf course project as complete; � ,� � w o ,� c. Refease the associated securities; and .� � o � " � d. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Maintenance Agreement. a� a► r� � N v� � � " g � �� Fiscal Impact: None. � �, ;; �, �' d g � a � �' � � �0 � .� ,-� � �o ° Departme H ad: Approval: b � a p � o d ' o .� a o W �% - � a � � .� � ` _, d � ,.iw � w � da°'i � °� aa �l Mark Gree ood, P.E. Homer Croy ,� N H „ � �, ' Director of Public Work ACM for Develop nt Serviceso� � b a �� .. � � � � a �+ � '° � a, � � Approval: C!'i'Y�!O�f N C l L O T t .. `� o � �r w � APPR �� DLrN1LrD ,°,� � o � � o � 01'HER � � "�� a� Jo M. Wohlmuth � _ , „ b N o ° ep� Manager A f w � " a b a p � NOE& � '� N � � � � IIu�3E1�11� N ��d �, ABSTAIN pap' � N w "u w° � � VERIFIED BYs A._� � • w�� •.� ��_ � � �� June 28, 2010 � Mark Greenwood, Public Works Director City of Palm Desert Pubiic Works Department Vla FaX: dlee(a�ci.palm-desert.ca.us, mqreenwood(a�ci.palm-desert.ca.us, rklassen(a�ci.palm-desert.ca.us Re: Drinking Water Contamination Dear Mr. Greenwood: Thank you for confirming your beliefs regarding the irrigation runoff from Stone Eagle, a continuous flow of water in Bruce and Ramon Creeks. Consistent with your previous statements that none of the irrigation water from Stone Eagle enters the Palm Valley Storm Control, you agree that a portion evaporates and the remainder of the irrigation runoff from Stone Eagle percolates into the soil. You must also conclude that a significant portion, if not all of that water, enters the upper Thermal sub area of the Whitewater River Sub basin, the source of our drinking water. You report that Roundup is regularly applied directly to non-native flora in Bruce and Ramon Creeks, which you have characterized as Blue Line waterways. You have also reported that Roundup and other herbicides and pesticides are used for turf management at Stone Eagle. You are also well aware that the source for irrigation water at Stone Eagle is what can only be characterized as wastewater: untreated well water abandoned by CVWD due to its high levels of nitrates resulting from human waste contamination. You are also well aware that the turf area at Stone Eagle was constructed by first removing all of the fraetured and decomposed granite, which was ground to pea gravel and then redistributed over the underlying bedrock to a depth of 6". Essentially, the 6" of radically sloping turf sits on top of the hard granite bedrock like a toupee, which explains why the irrigation runoff is so substantial. Consequently, you must also conclude that some of the herbicides and pesticides are contained in the high nitrate irrigation runoff and eventually enter our drinking water. The fact that two CVWD wells are located on the banks of Bruce Creek, insures it. The question is whether or not the levels of nitrates and other contaminates are within acceptable levels in the soil and in our drinking water. I suspect they are not, which would explain why I have discovered hundreds if not thousands of dead tadpoles as well as a dead coyote, a dead Mallard duck, a dead crow and another dead bird I could not identify on the small portion of Bruce Creek which I own. It would also explain why coyotes no longer enter Bruce Creek which was once their main thoroughfare to the valley floor, nor use it as a water source. Consistent with this belief, many Cahuilla Hills residents have reported a new phenomena: normally skittish coyotes entering their fenced pool areas and drinking from their pools. tf Bruce Creek were not contaminated, coyote would far prefer its unrestricted access, discrete and uninhabited former thoroughfare as their source for water. , Another disturbing result from your failure to enforce the mitigating measures contained in the EIR is the accumulation of contaminants in the remaining soil in Bruce Creek. Your failure to enforce the condition that the tees and greens would be irrigated by potable water, thereby diluting the contaminates coupled with your failure to enforce the condition that the restroom facility effluent would be contained in a holding tank and pumped out, rather than allowed to be leached into the soil, will likely prove to be disastrous. When you consider that you failed to enforce yet another mitigating condition, the low flow bypass structure in Bruce Creek, thereby preventing the replacement of the eroding soil in Bruce Creek, insures that the remaining soil will accumulate contaminates at concentrated levels. On my property alone I would estimate that I have lost approximately 300 cubic yards of soil by the constantly eroding flow of contaminated water in Bruce Creek. I consider these conditions as unreasonable impacts to adjoining properties which by the terms of the Maintenance Agreement, as stated in the General Duty of the Owner Obligations, are required to be mitigated. Not only do these conditions effect me but may also effect anyone who drinks water from our system. Since you are charged with the duty to enforce the Clean Water Act and associated City, State and Federal regulations concerning the same, I will afford you yet another opportunity to thoroughly investigate the matter utilizing unbiased water testing professionals, not associated with Ted Lennon, Stone Eagle, et al. Should you fail to respond to this letter with your plans to perform a true unbiased investigation, I will undertake the endeavor. Should the results support my beliefs I will hold you personally accountable. Sincerely, Timothy R. Bartlett, a Palm Desert resident Greenwood, Mark From: Robert Hargreaves[Robert.Hargreaves@bbklaw.com] Sent: Monday, July 05, 201011:51 AM To: Greenwood, Mark; David Erwin Cc: Wohimuth, John; Prusinowski, Karen Subject: RE: Drinking water contamination Attachments: RWH-Stone Eagie Agreement.pdf Mark: With respect to Bartlett's letter, I have attached a copy of the Stone Eagle Maintenance Agreement for reference. As you know,the new owners of Stone Eagle have agreed to execute the Maintenance Agreement in replacement for the previous owners, but to date have not done so. They claim they are having problems getting the necessary bonds. In any case, it is my understanding that they are complying with the agreement. The agreement requires of Stone Eagle: 2.2.1 weekly inspection of retention pond and pump 2.2.2 monthly inspection and maintenance of the creeks 2.2.3 annual water quality testing (August 1) 2.2.4 annual list of pesticides (July 1) 2.3 quarterly reports 2.6 $50,000 bond The City may perform quarterly inspections at Stone Eagle's expense (2.5) and generally has an obligation to enforce the agreement. Bartlett's letter seems to be primarily concerned with water quality. Hopefully, Stone Eagle is in the process of completing the annual water quality testing required by the Agreement to be performed by August 1 (relevant text of agreement is copied below). 2.2.3 Owner shall retain a City-approved consultant to perform annual water quality bioassays of the type set fvrth an Eahibit D hereto in Bruce Creek at the Inspection Area and to provide an annual report thereof to Owner and to the Director of Community Development of the City. Owner sha11 perform such bioassays no later than August 1 of each Ye�'-• Assuming that Stone Eagle does timely comply with that requirement, and the results do not show any problematic conditions, I believe that the City is fulfilling is obligations under the agreeinent. Bartlett alleges that Stone Eagle is not irrigating the greens with potable water, and that the rest rooms use septic systems rather than a pump-out arrangement in violation of the conditions of approvaL If that is t11e case, then the City should review the situation, require compliance, or modify the conditions. As long as there is no impact on the water quality in Bruce Creek, the issues would not appear to be urgent. I would respond to Bartlett infornling him of the city`s action in co�npliance with the agreement, and that a bio�ssay of the Creek water is in process. I do not think I would alert him to the fact that we do not at this time have an enforceable agree�nent. � � Call if you have guestions. 1 Bob From: mgreenwood a@atyofpaimdesert.org [mailto:mgreenwood@cityofpaimdesert.org] Sent:Tuesday,]une 29, 2010 8:23 AM To: David Ervvin; Robert Hargreaves Cc:Swohlmuth@cityofpalmdesert.org; kprusinowski@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: FW: Drinking water nontamination Dave and Bob, Mr. Bartlett alleges that I personally am not properly enforcing the Stone Eagle Maintenance Agreement. Although i think we are complying,can you evaluate our actions vs.the agreement and determine if we are missing something? Should we respond to this letter? Mark Greenwood,P.E. Director of Public Works City of Palm Desert From: Bartlettc@aol.com [mailto:Bartlettc@aol.00m] Sent: Monday,June 28, 2010 7:58 PM To: Lee, Debra; bassen, Rachelle; Greenwood, Mark Subiect: Drinking water contamination Please see attached Tim Bardett bartlettcCa�aol.com **************************************************************�********************** IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment) . **�*********************************************************************************� ************************************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and delete the email you received. ************************************************************************************** 2 � ' 8C�l1NNED Earth Systems �� Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive � Bermuda Dunes,CA 92203 (760)345-1588 (800)924-7015 FAX(�60)345-7315 July 23, 2010 File No. 08427-11 Doc.No.: 10-07-781 Stone Eagle, LLC 72450 Stone Eagle Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 �7;�.-, <`� i _. ,� �;- -:'� Attention: Ms. Gail Temple, Operations Manager � � ,. � _ , ti G : �_ �, Subject: Results of Water Quality Testing in Bruce Creek, 2010 , _. .�.,, Project: Stone Eagle, LLC -_ -.. Calle de Los Campesinos - <� Palm Desert, California r` Earth Systems Southwest [ESSW] is pleased to present this report concerning water quality testing recently completed for a portion of Bruce Creek located immediately south of the Stone Eagle Golf Course in the Palm Desert area of Riverside County, California. We understand the water quality testing is being performed to document whether the water in Bruce Creek has been adversely affected by the development of the Eagle Rock Goif Course immediately north(uphill) of the creek. The water flea Ceridaphnia dubia was used as the indicator organism (as agreed to by the City of Palm Desert)because it is sensitive to small changes in water quality. The scope of work performed for this project consisted of collecting water samples from five different locations along Bruce Creek on July 14, 2010, shipping the samples via overnight courier to Aquatic Testing Laboratories in Ventura, California(a firm that specializes in this type of testing), and performing a 96-hour Percent Survival Bioassay test using EPA Method 2002.0. The site location is depicted in Figure 1 in Appendix A. The sampling locations were selected and labeled by the client, and ranged from BC-2 through BC-6, as depicted in Figure 2 in Appendix A. The sample locations ranged from immediately down-stream of the Stone Eagle property boundary (BC-6) to near the flood control channel at the down-stream end of the creek (BGS). A sixth sample was planned to be collected (to have been labeled BG 1) from the water collection basin located just within the Stone Eagle property boundary (and upstream of BC-6), but that basin was dry. The sample locations and numbering scheme were equivalent to the locations from the 2008 and 2009 sampling events. The samples were obtained by scooping water into laboratory-supplied plastic bottles and sealing the bottles, labeling the bottles regarding the time and location of collection, logging the samples onto a chain-of-custody fortn, and placing the bottles in an ice-cooled container for shipment to the laboratory. The samples were received by the laboratory within 36 hours, as required by the test methodology. Special handling or treatment of the water samples by the laboratory was not required. July 23, 2010 2 File No. 08427-11 , , Doc.No.: 10-07-781 The testing consisted of placing 4 replicates of 5 Ceridaphnia water fleas in 100% solutions of each sample in a controlled environment and observing the mortality rate of the fleas over a 96 hour period. The survival rate was 100% (all of the water fleas survived the test). Therefore, water quality impairments to Bruce Creek were not identified by this testing. A copy of the laboratory report is presented in Appendix B. -000- Earth Systems Southwest appreciates this opportunity to assist you with this matter. If we can be of further service, please feel free to contact us at (760) 345-1588. Note that this report was prepared for the exclusive use of Stone Eagle, LLC. Limitations on the use of this report are presented in Appendix C. Any other use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Sincerely, EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST _.._._ ___--__.._.. �,,,•�^-.�.� Iy��`ronmHn�. Q� ��o� � S To9 �s� , � � � s°�•�" ` �� N Scot A. Stormo, PG 4826, CHG 204 �W REA Il - 20166 c�` Associate H dro eolo ist �* %' Y g g � Expires:�L �`. �',:a o�, �� LTR/sas/ajm ��%' ,�� 'E�iT�-�;,��- �' �,``�y � .�. Distribution: 6/Stone Eagle, LLC 2/BD File Attachments: Appendix A—Figures Appendix B—Laboratory Report Appendix C—Limitations EARTH SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST . � , , APPENDIX A Figures APPENDIX B Laboratory Report LABORATORY REPORT "� Aquatic � Testing •� Laboratories Date: July 19, 2010 Yledicared to providing quality aquatic toxiciry resbng" Client: Earth Systems Southwest 4350 Transport Street, Unit 107 79811 Country Club Dr., Suite B Ventura, CA 93003 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203 (805)650-0546 FAX (805)650-0756 L�ttIl: SCOt StOTTT10 CA DOHS ELAP CerG No.:1775 Laboratory No.: A-10071501-001/005 Sample ID.: BC-2/6 Sample Control: The sample was received by ATL in a chilled state, within the recommended hold time and with the chain of custody record attached. Date Sampled: 07/14/10 Date Received: 07/15/10 Temp. Received: 0.7°C Chlorine (TRC): 0.0 mg/1 Date Tested: 07/15/10 to 07/19/10 Sample Analysis: The following analyses were performed on your sample: Ceriodaphnia dubia 96hr Percent Survival Bioassay (EPA Method 2002.0). Attached are the test data generated from the analysis of your sample. Resutt 5ummary: Sample ID. Results BC-2 100% Survival (TUa = 0.0) BC-3 100% Survival (TUa = 0.0) BC-4 100% Survival (TUa = 0.0) BC-5 100% Survival (TUa = 0.0) BC-6 100% Survival (TUa = 0.0) Quality Control: Reviewed and approved by: � Joseph A. Le y Laboratory Director This report pertains only to the samples inves[igated and dces not necessarily apply ro other apparently identical or similar materials. This report is submitted for the exclusive use of the client to whom it is addressed. Any reproduction of this report or use of the Laboratory's mme for advertising or publiciry purpose witAout authori�ation is prohibited. CERIODAPHNIA PERCENT SURVIVAL TEST T Aquatic , Tssting . � Laboretories Lab No.: A-10071501-001 Client/ID: ESSW-BC-2 Start Date: 07/15/2010 TEST SUMMARY Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source: In-laboratory Culture. Age: <24 hours old. Test type: Static-Renewal. Regulations:NPDES. Test Protocol: EPA Method 2002.0. Test solution volurne: 50 ml. Endpoints: Percent Survival at 96 hrs. Feeding: Prior to testing and at 4$ hrs. Test chamber: 100 ml beakers. Aeration:None,unless DO drops below 4.0 mg/1. Temperature: 20+/- 1°C. Number of replicates: 4. Number of daphids per chamber: 5. Dilution water: Moderately hard reconstituted water. Photoperiod: 16/8 hrs light/dark. QA/QC Batch No.: RT-100715. TEST DATA # Dead Analyst& °C DO pH Time A B C D of Readings Control � � Q U �_ INITIAL 100% . 7 'j• .�f (} (� l� Control �:_ 24 Hr •U U U 100% 2 f,(} .(' O �/OZ) Control � �•fj �� 48 Hr 100% � , �/�.2� Control c' .U � Renewal //Gv 100% J. ,� (� ' Control �, '1 7. 7 $• v � O C� 8 ` 72 Hr ]00% ?�, °I r. `( $. � (� ('> C� () f l�'v Control 1U. {{ 7, $•t� 0 (� C U ,� 96 Hr � O � v %/�v 100% �v• �i j.U ),fs Comments: Sample as received: Chlorine: 0.0 mg/1; pH:�; Temp: 0.7°C; DO:�.�mg/I; NH3-N:�_mg/I; Alkalinity:��mg/I; Hardness:��g/1; Conductivity:29v� umho. Sample aerated moderately(approx. 500 ml/min)to raise or lower DO? Yes / �y? Control: Alkalinity:2[�mg/l; Hardness:�mg/I; Conductivity: 33 7 umho. Test solution aerated(not to exceed 100 bubbles/min)to maintain DO>4.0 mg/I? Yes /�o. Sam le used for renewal is the ori inal sam le ke t at 0-6°C with minimal heads ace. RESULTS Percent Survival In: Control: �(.� % 100% Sample:�_% CERIODAPHNIA PERCENT SURVIVAL TEST T� Aquatic Testing � Laboratories Lab No.: A-10071501-002 Client/ID: ESSW-BC-3 Start Date: 07/15/2010 TEST SUMMARY Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source: In-laboratory Culture. Age: <24 hours old. Test type: Static-Renewal. Regulations: NPDES. Test Protocol: EPA Method 2002.0. Test solution volume: 50 ml. Endpoints: Percent Survival at 96 hrs. Feeding: Prior to testing and at 48 hrs. Test chamber: 100 ml beakers. Aeration:None,unless DO drops below 4.0 mg/I. Temperature: 20+/- 1°C. Number of replicates: 4. Number of daphids per chamber: 5. Dilution water: Moderately hard reconstituted water. Photoperiod: 16/8 hrs light/dark. QA/QC Batch No.: RT-100715. TEST DATA # Dead Analyst& °C DO pH Time A B C D of Readings Control < <' �-� .� INITIAL i oo�io 2v,lo � v U /� Control � U �,� Q �,�, 24 Hr �� 104% .0 ,iZ J 48 Hr Control U•�'� �•� �,� � � �-- 100% J. ,(� d �/� Control �V.'a ' �•v U � �, Renewal � `� 100% Q, � Q (� � 72 Hr Control ?..�, y ) � f�, v U G' b � � ]00% 7�, � 7. 7 �.Z � U C� V �/°✓ Control 7�, � � � jf. ;,� C d 0 0 � 96 Hr ioo�io �y `r 7, � g : I � C� C� U t�>� Comments: Sample as received: Chlorine: 0.0 mg/I; pH:�; Temp: 0.7°C; DO: �lJ mg/1; NH,-N:��mg/i; Alkalinity:�mg/I; Hardness:��ng/l; Conductivity:�umho. Sample aerated moderately(approx. 500 ml/min)to raise or lower DO? Yes / (� Control: Alkalinity:��/ mg/l; Hardness:�mg/l; Conductivity: 33 7 umho. Test solution aerated(not to exceed 100 bubbles/min)to maintain DO>4.0 mg/1? Yes /�. Sam le used for renewal is the ori inal sam le ke t at 0-6°C with minimal heads ace. RESULTS Percent Survival In: Control: �% 100%Sample: (n� % CERIODAPHNIA PERCENT SURVIVAL TEST � Aquatic Testing Q� Leboratories Lab No.: A-10071501-003 Client/ID: ESSW-BC-4 Start Date• 07/15/2010 TEST SUMMARY Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source: In-laboratory Culture. Age: <24 hours old. Test type: Static-Renewal. Regulations:NPDES. Test Protocol: EPA Method 2002.0. Test solution volume: 50 ml. Endpoints: Percent Survival at 96 hrs. Feeding: Prior to testing and at 48 hrs. Test chamber: 100 ml beakers. Aeration:None,unless DO drops below 4.0 mg/1. Temperature: 20+/- 1°C. Number of replicates: 4. Number of daphids per chamber: 5. Dilution water: Moderately hard reconstituted water. Photoperiod: 16/8 hrs light/dark. QA/QC Batch No.: RT-100715. TEST DATA #Dead Analyst& °C DO pH Time A B C D of Readings Control C� � INITIAL ` 100% , �� " , (.J U Q �.2�1?] Control , � L�_ _ 24 Hr �•,'" ]00% .U , �/aU Control a Q. g �—^ 48 Hr ' ' �� 100% �2,�. �, �, z ,(�! ' Control �j. �,� v � Renewal �oo��o ,o v v /��v Control Lc? �( ) � d, � D �J 6 d � �2 � i oo�io 20, °I 7. 6 $. Z � v v v �� control 2�. '� �. � g,v C� 0' � 0 � 96 Hr i oo�ro 7,�. � ), 1 g,�� , p � �� r c 3� Comments: Sample as received: Chlorine: 0.0 mg/l; pH: 7.5 ; Temp: 0.7°C; DO:�`)mg/l; NH3-N: /�,u mg/I; Alkalinity:�mg/1; Hardness:��mg/1; Conductivity: 3�—umho. Sample aerated moderately(approx. 500 ml/min)to raise or lower DO? Yes / � ControL• Alkalinity:�[�mg/1; Hardness:��mg/l; Conductivity:_�_umho. Test solution aerated(not to exceed 100 bubbles/min)to maintain DO>4.0 mg/1? Yes / 14 . Sam le used for renewal is the ori inai sam le ke t at 0-6°C with minimal heads ace. RESULTS Percent Survival In: Control: ( !� % 100%Sample:�% CERIODAPHNIA PERCENT SURVIVAL TEST "* Aquetic � Testing � Laboratortes Lab No.: A-100�1501-004 Client/ID: ESSW-BC-5 Start Date: 07/15/2010 TEST SUMMARY Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source: In-laboratory Culture. Age: <24 hours old. Test type: Static-Renewal. Regulations: NPDES. Test Protocol: EPA Method 2002.0. Test solution volume: 50 ml. Endpoints: Percent Survival at 96 hrs. Feeding: Prior to testing and at 48 hrs. Test chamber: 100 ml beakers. Aeration:None,unless DO drops below 4.0 mg/l. Temperature: 20+/- 1°C. Number of replicates: 4. Number of daphids per chamber: 5. Dilution water: Moderately hard reconstituted water. Photoperiod: 16/8 hrs light/dark. QA/QC Batch No.: RT-100715. TEST DATA # Dead Analyst& °C DO pH Time A B C D of Readings Control ' � U �_ 1NITIAL l 0U% .� � .O (� (� /e��3Z> Control g� � �` 24 Hr �`"� 100% ',t,1-v //!lU Control �p,� � v U � 48 Hr � 100% �� Control o?tJ ,� �_ Renewal 100% , ,j �/� Control �o_� � 7 g.v Q C O �-' � �a w� �oo�io �� h � � �, � p � �r 96 Hr Control �m. 7 ), `� $: U C� Q � Q � ioo�io 2v, � ? 3 S 2 � o D 0 l/3� Comments: Sample as received: Chlorine: 0.0 mg/l; pH:�U; Temp: 0.7°C; DO:�mg/1; NH,-N: O�Lj mg/l; Alkalinity:��mg/1; Hardness:�ng/1; Conductivity:�umho. Sample aerated moderately(approx. 500 ml/min)to raise or lower DO? Yes / �. Control: Alkalinity:_�mg/1; Hardness:��mg/1; Conductivity; :S'�umho. Test solution aerated(not to exceed 100 bubbles/min)to maintain DO>4.0 mg/1? Yes / �l. Sarn le used for renewal is the ori inal sam le ke t at 0-6°C with minimal heads ace. RESULTS Percent Survival In: Control: % 100% Sample:�% CERIODAPHNIA PERCENT SURVIVAL TEST *� Aquatic Testing � Laboratories Lab No.: A-10071501-005 Client/ID: ESSW-BC-6 Start Date: 07/15/20�0 TEST SUMMARY Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source: In-laboratory Culture. Age: <24 hours old. Test type: Static-Renewal. Regulations:NPDES. Test Protocol: EPA Method 2002.0. Test solution volume: 50 ml. Endpoints: Percent Survival at 96 hrs. Feeding: Prior to testing and at 48 hrs. Test chamber: 100 ml beakers. Aeration:None, unless DO drops below 4.0 mg/1. Temperature: 20+/- 1°C. Number of replicates: 4. Number of daphids per chamber: 5. Dilution water: Moderately hard reconstituted water. Photoperiod: 16/8 hrs lightJdark. QA/QC Batch No.: RT-100715. TEST DATA # Dead Ana(yst& °C DO pH Time A B C D of Readings Control � �% INITIAL / � � 100% � .,2- , (� U U �/�LvU Control U �y, 24 Hr ]00% .y //� Control G' , v v �,.,�. 48 Hr 100% �� Control �,{J, c � Renewal i oo�io U U U D /i �U 72 Hr Control 7.e�. � ?: 7 �. v C� � 8 6 � 100% �'• � 7 �� $. � G� � � //Uv 96 Hr Control 2�'. � l � $.U C� D Q �i � ioo�io � `1 7. y �. � 0 a o G «�� Comments: Sample as received: Chlorine: 0.0 mg/l; pH:�; Temp: 0.7°C; DO:�mg/I; NH3-N: D,X mg/I; Alkalinity:��mg/1; Hardness:�mg/l; Conductivity:��umho. Sample aerated moderately(approx. 500 ml/min)to raise or lower DO? Yes / �q? Control: Alkalinity:_�mg/1; Hardness:�mg/l; Conductivity:��umho. Test solution aerated(not to exceed 100 bubbles/min)to maintain DO>4.0 mg/1? Yes / ?�Q . Sam le used for renewal is the ori inal sam le ke t at 0-6°C with minimal heads ace. RESULTS Percent Survival In: Control: _ �% 100% Sample: % . . :?oC �ri�1y CHAIN C�F CUSTODY � Client: ��7-N SYsT�-/`iS �`oc,�'Tr/cJEs'T"' 79�� 13 C T Aquatic Address: �''�^�r�y ��c.�b �Q, L Testing f��o�r ��Nc- s �'�� '�a3 � �boratories •+ Project Manager: SC o r— S�c�e r�a 4350 Transport St., Unit 107 Phone: ��p , �ys-i s�8 Ventura, CA 93003 Fax: (80S) 658-OS46 Fax (805) 650-075b 7ep - 3�s - �3/S Purchase Order No: ��y� 7 ,� �� Sampie ID Sample Sample Samp1� Number ot Testing Requested Remarks Date 1�me T Containers , 8L • � ��,y-�o m8�� S ( �ao a � o $ � . 3 �s3� e. � y o�'-�3 Cr - 5 D 850 �C � b7�'7 Spec ial 1 nstructions: PLCf15G= �riA t L�F',4X �C E5�3C:T'S �` f SC o T S'1 a R M C� 55forr�o ��.ri-hsy5 :raw� •L•LiquiJ,S-SuliJ.SS-5emi-Solid/sludge, RW-Rcceiv�ng Water,CW-Ground We�er,E-Effluent �' .5i..) = S va.F.�t�c� GJ�t 7�'�C CUSTODY TRANSFERS S� hP�E�. : R��-� c��w` Relinquished by Received by Date Time �S Temperature (signature) (signature) (mm/dd/yy) (hh:mm) intact? Received (°C) (Yes,�o,NA -?-I y -ic l�l� ---__.. � `� A!� �. sN��°P� � j�Y caV��e�r1� f�T /��rD EiC �7�/y�-ie � /2,.� � Aquatic o Testing � Laboratories I�.EFERENCE T��c'ICANT � DA TA ' � CERIODAPHNIA REFERENCE TOXICANT T� Aquatic 7esting TOXICITY TEST � �aboretor�es QA/QC Batch No.: RT-100'715 TEST SUMMARY Species: Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source: In-lab Culture. Age: <24hr old. Test type: Static-renewal. Regulations:NPDES. Test Protocol: EPA Method 2002.0. Test chamber volume: 25 ml. Endpoints: LC50 at 48 hrs,96 hrs.. Feeding: 2 hr prior to start and renewal. Test chamber: 30 ml plastic beakers. Temperature: 20+/- 1°C. Aeration:None. Number of replicates: 4. Number of daphnia per chamber: 5. Dilution water: MHSF. Photoperiod: 16/8 hrs lighddark. Re£Tox.: Sodium chloride(NaCI). TEST DATA MITIAL � 24 Hr 48 Hr Date/Time: ' - � ' ' Analyst: � a�aa n neaa °C DO pH °C DO pH "C DO pH A B C D A B C D Control , .(� ,/l/•U ,� v (� 0.5�� u � �v v v v . �.o�i .�1 . � . fs.3 (� (.� v v Z.o�l $'. , . v .v C� U U a.o gn .� � 5 — — 8.0 � v 9• �-k v �. ��U _' -- _ RENEWAL 72 Hr 96 Hr Date/Time: - 7-/$-1 v i�vJ �-►9•-�J �J+J Malyst: ,,p � � � � ... �ti.i�-� Ck Dead #Dead "C DO pH °C DO pH °C DO pH A B C D A B C D Control �.�3 $, v �. O v d U �J,� 7 `I ,�, Z � 0 ri� U 0.5 g/I ,� �y. °� �. Z �• � � � � � Z�,�( I.$ $� 2 U U 0 U �.o�� . � ,� L�. 'I �- � 8� � v � p 2��. y g i ��Z G ci U � 2.0�� , �,U Zd, °� g• � S� Z D U o o ?�,�t S. t g, / � p cJ � a.o�� — � _ _ _ _ - — _ ..� ' - — - 8.0 — — — - _ - - - -- _ - - - Comments: [� Control: Alkalinity:�mg/1; Hardness: �Tmg/1� Conductivity: �3� umho. NaCI(8.0 g/1): Alkalinity:�mg/1; Hardness:�_mg/1; Conductivity: /o2�umho. . Concentration-resp relationship acceptable? (see attached computer analysis): Ye (response curve normal) o dose interru ted indicated or non-normal - Acute Fish Test-96 Hr Survival Start Date: 7/15/2010 14:00 Test 1D: RT100715c Sample ID: REF-Ref Toxicant End Date: 7/19/2010 13:00 Lab ID: CAA7L-Aquatic Testing Labs Sample Type: NACL-Sodium chloride Sample Date: 7/15/2010 Protocol: ACUTE-EPA-821-R-02-012 Test Species: PP-Pimephales promelas Comments: Conc-gm/L 1 2 3 4 B-Control 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 B 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Transform:Aresin Square Root Rank 1-Tailed Number Total Conc-gm/L Mean N-Mean Mean Min Max CV°k N Sum Critical Resp Number B-Control 1.0000 1.0000 1.3453 1.3453 1.3453 0.000 4 0 20 0.5 1.0000 1.0000 1.3453 1.3453 1.3453 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0 20 1 1.0000 1.0000 1.3453 1.3453 1.3453 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0 20 2 1.0000 1.0000 1.3453 1.3453 1.3453 0.000 4 18.00 10.00 0 20 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.2255 0.2255 0.2255 0.000 4 20 20 8 0.0000 0.0000 0.2255 0.2255 0.2255 0.000 4 20 20 Auxiliary Tests Statistic Critical Skew Kurt Shapiro-Wilk's Test indicates normat distribution(p>0.05) 1 0.887 Equality of variance cannot be confirmed Hypothes�s Test(1-tail,0.05) NOEC LOEC ChV TU Steel's Many-One Rank Test 2 4 2.82843 Treatments vs B-Control Graphical Method Trim Level EC50 0.0% 2.8284 1.0 2.8284 0.9 0.8 0.7 � 0.6 c a 0.5 � 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 1 10 Dose gm/L • �.�- Page 1 ToxCalc v5.0.23 Reviewed by:�/ Ceriodaphnia 96hr Acute Laboratory Control Chart cv�io= ,3.� a 3.5 +2 SD 3 ,� __---_._- �----�----- ----- —._— +1 SD V \ � \ � � ca ,� � 2•5 Mean � 0 U �-_---._.._-- - -1 SD ,�--__-----�" J 2 �� _/, / � ,. % -2 SD i �-- 1.5 / / 1 0.5 ,yb �,��. �,�6 �o �,��. �,�y o� h ,�'� ,�O ,�O o'� ,�� ,yb ,�1 ,�� dl. ,�A � ,�h o°�� ^� c�� d��0�1� o�� o°R'�o°" �o°��d'"w��c�'�o o�'�ry o'`��ry o'`��o'`°�a o�� ti � ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ry ti ti Reference Toxicant Tests . , T� Aquatic , Testtng � . Laboratories Test Tempe�atu�e Cha�t Test No: RT-10071 S Date Tested: 07/1 S/10 to 07/19/10 Acceptable Range: 20+/- 1°C �qIpAY 6 AM� '6� ' fiE r� � "Tf �.�. ` `°a . . . . � >n � �- r� �b' � c�r'�.sy -0 N . py _ r. � � ' e� e � or � � � .._ 'd ' �o ` 0 / ; N ' 2 /_ �- ..� z � _ - � � �; °-�� ' o � =� � o�- o� � � � : .Q� s : -� �I ', C . '�'y j� .. Y ` �. . O 2 ' 3 .3 AO �5'-�� yV � • �� .' . ��- - '. .,�� ..::.. .__._ �- . . . . ..' �... o� .: . ....- � ` .. ..�. ., __._. _. ...... ' ►, � � ..� �. �' ' .. �� .� . .�...:: �... $�. ' - . . , ......_- �.� .�� -;; ��:' �� , - �rr'o . ,..N ... :: _ � a ,- / `� �� J �. ,� _ � O .�� . N JJ� ,�/ \` � ,-'O . `'A9 � V� \v A ./ � 9 ''..�,a✓ f� " ..��Y� ' � � *�� 4 1 , � :.�:.... .... ...'�'^_ . Na q . � �`�tw��++ _ . _ � APPENDIX C Limitations i � Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Stone Eagle, LLC. The conclusions and recommendations rendered in this report are opinions based on readily available information obtained to date within the scope of the work authorized by the client. The scope of work for this project was developed to address the needs of the client and may not meet the needs of other users. Other use of or reliance on the information and opinions contained in this report without the written authorization of ESSW is at the sole risk of the user. It is possible that variations exist beyond or between points explored during the course of the investigation, and that changes in conditions can occur in the future due to the works of man, variations in rainfall, temperature, and/or other factors not apparent at the time of the field investigation. The services performed by ESSW have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the site vicinity. No warranty is expressed or implied. i .. � 1 \ r �� i ' .y • : —a. �Y'' > � �� 1 �� n�� \� �� 7" q� � S .. _ n �-1 1 � � � �� ' �N. r' �h s�� vwrn ��0�\�� /��ti `�; � � v �" � �A .->�� :� ♦ � � r 1 i �� /�.,p�o �� ' i +� \ �� ` k� T>\ �_� r _�a� 1 ) �! -- �t �'s �`: l .. � N � � — l, 1i. �� o� � � , ( � �_'�_r .,_ I � � 9� � ;�`�� . ` �p- � A , , ,_r _ 3� ,c �r � � kon.l� -t" , r r r� C '�,- �- � �, '' .� ',� " • � k Y� \ � i� i. C t� s: Z � ��L� 1,"r � �.. P�-. , i '"�� y�..� s��i� � \ c�/ �J, - �� '� � j r y � �� r �- /� �� ./��+�- '��—, � - w � ' 1 r .� /` �� 7 i �� /'� 1�� _ _ � l -� ,� ��d � �� c ✓' v .� � '�"�'� '�� . ti � ��': �„�l� -� -.- - � ' � �� al �� , � �1 � -i � i<� ,� �, � i � � i, � '` � � �,> �i i �� <�' �.�" � � � � � �� r, � ` Z. �` _ ,Po? � e � , -�."' � � � b ' ; � �� ,n � � ' ��. `�,g� �I i �� , � � � ; rr.� Ot �� iit�4 -� i � i �� t\ �, t J °��l r r 1 i i i ..- . , �� t }�y�4 .- � ��A�� cf �. < �..� �'0�0 S'La.% )� � p�a N�:�� y - � \� ��f �(� / � / ,J ti G < �1(r� � � I -6�.�r- a` .,� � . �� 'eo° '��I I (ll r,} . . 1 ; .�I�e- vc �"� �� eE g�� a� �1' �� i i� , S�iU � i � , i � �. � _ <� . , Eri��C�f � � ��,y� � i r� � r � � '- ' r— .. .a . �..�,�_ / � �*H 'C� �F . _ �Y s ��\�� t ` H � �� . � � �� 1 . �� _ �i ' � .- - }�:.:� -� /t� �' ° _ .� �� f ' � a '�_ � -� � , ` WiW _ .� /, }, � � l �� d . - ��' ��•r�: i �• • ��` � f�� . �� \�j-- . h �� ,,E �+ t :I�.' � � � � . j i � (� f � � , t � ��:' • . �\ ��1 ��{' 0� ��.� �I 3 �� j � .r�� A � � y�a r �i ^ � �� 1 � ' 1 ?. l' � 4 ,�_ .. '�) ��1 �� : .�( l. � � i �i� L�� l. �� a . p ��,��,( �,\ � . y F> \i�. � r ` 3 3I �i � �� N � � � / .. � :: �'��7 � � 1 � /yl Z�, � I •.� �-�� _, �.r � � �� < i �F ,i-`k-m �- 1 � i ' � `J�.� � - � � q �� r , 1 i� ^,�� 1,�- - i� �-`(. \r� � � t K ,h . i'C •' .� 1 � ( T �IEJ Ir�:. � �� 1'�-� � 4�/��rt� �'� �m118�11s t � p� � � ,. �C� � � � � I , '•i ; �li�� ,�� , �� _ ��' , �-� �� --` � i' i1 + 'I�$��l �� , � > ��• , �i� :> � � �, �� I -� 1 r'�� i i ^ .. � � �_ q�� i� � c �1,�.� � � .r I � l ,w _�, . �. .. �, , n �� r��7 h � ° �< �d�! ��) � � � . ui� � A� ' ��` � r.il� / � � 'd � - � d$��C nV � ' ��E` Cr� } ` '�� i a' rsc---V. � ....,_.. � i _ �`� ` M1 //r \ i �� >�s� � � � � � �� o � i �� i � � �� I �� , � (l-� � � �� 0 1 � c � � � // I �: � I �y'� � .. �A� �i i -� i P J i000 L "� � � � �j� I �v �l ! 5 �' r �� i q�, �^ '( ��. 4��< �,� �� f l�^I I ��x��Ve'�av� 'd �, N�� I f`�� ' � I � . \ 56 �� i�� 1 ! `� � .r � �' �r�� i� _ . , � �� 1� ) 11 �, �` ,� i �� ,, �` ��f v � >�zf ��, � �� } � � �/�- � - ^� l�` � r �----� � a � � �{ � 1,�f , �� ` � 1-. . �`y��^" , � � J , � � ,�'J� /il �t� � �i�� i a�:-. � � A\L.� r � �� f � ,� �� r l,rr� � v i �� _� � �4 ' - r �"� . � .�._ am '�� r i :1. . i i � t `I �� y,%� � \> � � , ti �,�, . . . '� , - . ' �� _ .�� Ai' 1� .� .� .J^..�=, �:�. Base Map: U.S.G.S.7.5 Minme Quadrengle,Rancho Mirage,Calif.p957,phom-revised 1988) Figure 1 Site Location —••—•• Site Boundary Bruce Creek at Stone Eagle Development � Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Scafe: �" = 2,000' N � Earth Systems 0 02 00' 4,000' � Southwest 07/23/09 FileNo.: 08427-11 i i � � ` � r � ` , ♦ � � • �� h 'I��//�� . • � �',� ' � - . � � ; • . -.�- , _�� t , r � � '�' � ,'*�*,`�„i�� , r ,�.' ,. �ss �� •y"=' - �`. ; � r. ♦ �� 4`` �- A.. � �r . L � � . �, '��e � � � .. ., r � '�- +�+ . �"' "�� ;,: � ,.� . �- _ � �sc- (arya � `., ,��=" , ;�'�?� .. �,-6.� • '-r . � ' �� ~' '�� BC-4 � - ... � _" ' t! 1�.� ti�. • - �� i� M1 h.�'�� '�'�� ".4 '� � ��'�^�" ,�_ '�-- s�-r• . ,� ,�, ' �,. _$ .� , ,, � . � � .� '.r� . .. ., � �� r - .,r �� ,.� i� , ' ..., �: � . '�►w 13C-3 � • '� ��}��yy,. r� ,�,�,. o ��: :�7'!4-G s'' . 'i:'.�, � y• ' • �.a � _ • ; �"' � ' r\ � ��' / . +�R `",� . „r �i`. .ki.� r , . �� w�� t�� `•.�. .. .. ' . �`�.•ii�A�� , .+ �'��'�';b'., .. -:_- w. -- � .-..� �� .� � f .�--�u Y''. ' .: .`'� .. .. �� ...� � � .�S"�l' _ i � ��' � . ' i�{,r ♦ .• . tJ � ,r�-_ .�e� . . : �� l�i. '=..P„4 f . t � /�" .�" .��i.� J . }T � ` .e .. ' � • t�- . � � r . � �Y�.�� . '.�i'�' � .� ;IyT' . �. ,: �,�� yw t� �. ��` .!�,Jry� ''r�'f � + r.N �� ` yl�--� �{ ...� *_ � T7;r. . . � jf� T ��' � , • . �� f . f�yb • �'h'�' � ` �, i� , _ . ` •��:Y. - � � '"$ ` *��. '.tnd'•`��''r 7 � Referenec GlobeXplorer aerial phmograph,estima[cd dare 2004. LEGEND Figure 2 Sample Locations eC-6 • Sample Location Bruce Creek at Stone Eagle Development Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Approximate Seale: 1" = 550' N � Earth Systems '� � I '= SOUthWeSt 0 550' I,100' 07/23/09 File No.: 0842'7-1 I