FERC No. 11858 - Leaps Hydroleapshydro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/... · FERC No. 11858 ES-1...

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 i 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRpttoconly

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................1 1.2 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1 1.4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................2 1.4.1 Federal ..................................................................................................................2 1.4.2 State of California .................................................................................................2 1.5 SCOPE OF WORK ...........................................................................................................3 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................4 SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................5 2.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................5 2.2 RECONNAISSANCE, MAPPING, AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY...........................5 2.3 GEOLOGIC FEATURES..................................................................................................6 2.3.1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................6 2.3.2 Seismicity..............................................................................................................6 2.3.3 Site Geology .........................................................................................................7 2.3.3.1 Morrell Canyon Upper Reservoir Site ...................................................7 2.3.3.2 Decker Canyon Upper Reservoir Site....................................................8 2.3.3.3 Penstock ................................................................................................8 2.3.3.4 Ortega Oaks, Santa Rosa, and Evergreen Powerhouse Sites .................8 2.3.3.5 Tailrace Tunnel .....................................................................................9 2.4 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS ......................................................10 2.4.1 General................................................................................................................10 2.4.2 Active Faulting ...................................................................................................10 2.4.3 Strong Ground Motions ......................................................................................10 2.4.4 Earthquake-Induced Landslides and Rockfalls...................................................10 2.4.5 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement .................................................................11 2.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOILS AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES.......................11 2.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS.........................................................................................11 SECTION 3: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN........................................................................................13 3.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................13 3.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR UPPER RESERVOIRS................................................13 3.2.1 General................................................................................................................13 3.2.2 Upper Reservoir Alternative A - Morrell Canyon Site.......................................14 3.2.2.1 Alternative A.1.....................................................................................15 3.2.2.2 Alternative A.2.....................................................................................16 3.2.2.3 Alternative A.3.....................................................................................17 3.2.3 Upper Reservoir Alternative B - Decker Canyon Site........................................17

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 ii 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRpttoconly

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 3.2.3.1 Alternative B.1.....................................................................................18 3.2.3.2 Alternative B.2.....................................................................................19 3.2.4 Conceptual Dam Designs....................................................................................19 3.2.5 Appurtenant Structures .......................................................................................22 3.2.6 Reservoir Liner System ......................................................................................22 3.3 PENSTOCK ...................................................................................................................24 3.3.1 Alternative H.1....................................................................................................24 3.3.2 Alternative H.2....................................................................................................25 3.3.3 Alternative H.3....................................................................................................25 3.4 POWERHOUSE SITES ..................................................................................................26 3.4.1 General................................................................................................................26 3.4.2 The Ortega Oaks Site ..........................................................................................26 3.4.3 The Santa Rosa Site ............................................................................................26 3.4.4 The Evergreen Site..............................................................................................26 3.4.5 Summary of Powerhouse Sites ...........................................................................27 3.5 TAILRACE TUNNEL ....................................................................................................28 SECTION 4: FEASIBILITY LEVEL ESTIMATES.....................................................................29 4.1 ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES.......................................................................................29 4.1.1 Upper Reservoir Fill Quantities..........................................................................29 4.1.2 Penstock Quantities.............................................................................................29 4.1.3 Powerhouse Quantities .......................................................................................29 4.1.4 Tailrace Tunnel Quantities..................................................................................29 4.2 FEASIBILITY LEVEL PROJECT COST ......................................................................30 4.2.1 Construction Cost ...............................................................................................30 4.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Costs .........................................................................32 SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................33 5.1 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................33 5.2 RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY LEVEL SCOPE OF WORK ...............................33 SECTION 6: LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................35 SECTION 7: REFERENCES ........................................................................................................36 SECTION 8: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................38 TABLES Table 2-1 Locations of Geophysical Surveys Table 2-2 Expected Values of Fault Rupture Length and Displacement Table 2-3 Maximum Credible Earthquake Parameters Table 3-1 Summary of Upper Reservoir Alternatives

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 iii 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRpttoconly

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Table 3-2 Summary of Powerhouse Alternatives Table 4-1 Fill Quantities for Upper Reservoir Alternatives Table 4-2 Lengths of Shafts and Tunnels for Penstock Alternatives Table 4-3 Excavation Quantities for Penstock Alternatives (Assumed 16-Ft Inside Diameter) Table 4-4 Quantities for Powerhouse Excavation (Shaft-Type Powerhouse) Table 4-5 Quantities for Tailrace Tunnel Alternatives (Assumed 22-Ft Inside Diameter) FIGURES Figure 1-1 Site Location Map Figure 1-2 Site Plan Figure 2-1 Geophysical Survey Locations Figure 2-2 Geologic Map Figure 3-1 Morrell Canyon Alternative A.1 Figure 3-2 Morrell Canyon Alternative A.2 Figure 3-3 Morrell Canyon Alternative A.3 Figure 3-4 Decker Canyon Alternative B.1 Figure 3-5 Decker Canyon Alternative B.2 Figure 3-6 Decker Canyon Alternative B.2 – Option Figure 3-7 Conceptual Types of Dams for Upper Reservoir Figure 3-8 Conceptual Reservoir Liner Systems Figure 3-9 Penstock Alternative H.1 Figure 3-10 Penstock Alternative H.2 Figure 3-11 Penstock Alternative H.3 Figure 3-12 Cross Section of Underground Cavern-Type Powerhouse Figure 3-13 Cross Section of Shaft-Type Powerhouse APPENDICES Appendix A Description of Firm and Resumes of Key Project Personnel Appendix B Geophysical Survey by Advanced Geoscience, Inc. Appendix C Historical Earthquakes Greater than Magnitude 4.0 within 100 KM Appendix D Example Scope of Work for Preliminary Engineering

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 ES-1 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRptES

GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY REPORT Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project

FERC Project No. 11858 Riverside County, California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the results of a geotechnical feasibility study for the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project (LEAPS) in Riverside County, California. This report is submitted to The Nevada Hydro Company (Nevada Hydro) for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate, from a geotechnical perspective, the technical feasibility of candidate sites for the project facilities, including upper reservoirs and dams, penstocks, powerhouses, and tailrace tunnels, as described in discussions with Nevada Hydro and presented in the Initial Stage Consultation Document (ISCD) [Nevada Hydro, 2001].

The proposed LEAPS project is a pumped storage hydroelectric facility within Riverside County, California. Water will cycle between the existing Lake Elsinore and a man-made reservoir located approximately 1,650 feet above Lake Elsinore within the Elsinore Mountains of the Cleveland National Forest. During peak electric demand periods, water will be released from the upper reservoir to a powerhouse through a penstock. During off-peak demand periods, water from the lower reservoir will be pumped back to the upper reservoir.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued preliminary permit No. 11858 on February 21, 2001 to proceed with the FERC consultation process, whereas all interested parties are provided substantial information concerning a proposed hydropower project. An Initial Stage Consultation Document dated April 2001 was prepared to initiate the consultation process to obtain a federal license to construct the 500 megawatt pumped storage project. This report is prepared in support of the application process to obtain a license.

This geotechnical feasibility study included a review of available data, a site reconnaissance, geologic surface mapping, geophysical surveys at selected reservoir and powerhouse sites, the development of conceptual project layouts, the development of feasibility-level construction costs, the development of a proposed scope of work for the preliminary design phase, and preparation of this report. No borings, test pits, or trenches were excavated as part of this investigation.

Based on the results of this feasibility-level investigation, there are no apparent geotechnical constraints to prevent the construction of the project. Additional geotechnical and geological investigation should be performed as part of the preliminary engineering phase to further refine the alternatives for the project components.

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 1 222C-EIS-LEAPS-GeoRpttextonly

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

This report by GENTERRA Consultants, Inc. (GENTERRA) presents the results of a geotechnical feasibility study for the proposed Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project (LEAPS) in Riverside County, California for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and The Nevada Hydro Company (Nevada Hydro). The purpose of this study was to evaluate, from a geotechnical perspective, candidate sites for the project facilities, including upper reservoirs and dams, penstocks, powerhouses, and tailrace tunnels, as described in discussions with Nevada Hydro and presented in the Initial Stage Consultation Document (ISCD) [Nevada Hydro, 2001].

1.2 BACKGROUND

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a preliminary permit on February 21, 2001 to proceed with the FERC consultation process in which all interested parties are provided substantial information concerning the proposed LEAPS hydropower project. The ISCD, dated April 2001, was prepared to initiate the consultation process to obtain a federal license to construct the 500-megawatt pumped storage project. This report is prepared in support of the application process to obtain a license.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed LEAPS project is a pumped storage hydroelectric facility within Riverside County, California to be located as shown in Figure 1-1. Water will cycle between the existing Lake Elsinore (lower reservoir) and a candidate man-made reservoir (upper reservoir) located approximately 1,650 feet above Lake Elsinore within the Elsinore Mountains of the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). During peak electric demand periods, water will be released from the upper reservoir to a powerhouse through a penstock. During off-peak demand periods, water from the lower reservoir will be pumped back to the upper reservoir. Some of the major project facilities are shown in Figure 1-2 and are described below:

� Upper Reservoir. Two candidate reservoir sites are proposed, one in Morrell Canyon and one in Decker Canyon1 of the Elsinore Mountains (Figure 1-2). As identified in the ISCD, a minimum useable reservoir capacity of approximately 5,500 acre-feet is desired for the upper reservoir. The upper reservoir will include a dam, spillway, low-level outlet works structure, and earthen dikes in low areas, where necessary.

1 Decker Canyon consists of two forks. This study was conducted for the south fork of Decker Canyon. For purposes of this report, the south fork of the Decker Canyon watershed is referred to herein as Decker Canyon.


� Penstock. The conceptual design calls for a 15- to 18-foot-diameter shaft and tunnel system to connect the upper reservoir to the powerhouse. The penstock will consist of unlined and/or concrete- and steel-lined shafts and tunnels excavated through bedrock.

� Powerhouse. The powerhouse will be located near Lake Elsinore and contain two reversible 250-megawatt turbines. The three candidate sites considered for the powerhouse are identified as the Ortega Oaks Site, the Santa Rosa Site, and the Evergreen Site, based on the name of the nearest public street (Figure 1-2). Preliminary information provided in the ISCD indicates that the powerhouse cavern will be approximately 80-feet wide, 450-feet-long, and 160-feet high. The powerhouses will be approximately 300 feet below ground.

� Tailrace Tunnel. A tailrace tunnel will connect the powerhouse to an intake/outlet structure at Lake Elsinore (the lower reservoir). During pumping operations, the tailrace tunnel serves as the inlet to the powerhouse. The tailrace tunnel will be approximately 22 feet in diameter and will be concrete-lined.

� Transmission lines, switchyard, and substations in support of the power generation components of the project.

Other infrastructure and ancillary facilities may be constructed in support of the project (e.g., support roads, utility lines, pump stations, control buildings, security barriers, etc.). These features are only discussed in this report to the extent deemed relevant to the overall geotechnical feasibility aspects of the project.

1.4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

1.4.1 Federal

FERC is a regulatory agency that licenses and inspects private, municipal and state regulatory hydroelectric projects. FERC will review and approve all engineering and geological analyses, reports, and plans and specifications that are prepared for the LEAPS project.

Geotechnical and geologic exploration and construction activity in the CNF will need to be permitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may require Section 404 permit for dredging and placement of fill in the waters of the U.S. USACE Section 404 permits must receive a Section 401 Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

1.4.2 State of California

The dams and upper reservoirs would be of a size to fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California, Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The DSOD would have a review role pertaining to dam safety issues.


The upper reservoir sites include “blue-line” streams. Construction of the water impoundment, therefore, may require water rights from the State of California Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights. A Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601 or 1603) from the State of California Department of Fish and Game may also be required.

1.5 SCOPE OF WORK

GENTERRA was retained by Nevada Hydro to perform a geotechnical feasibility study of the candidate upper reservoir sites, penstock and tailrace tunnel alignments, and powerhouse sites. GENTERRA is a California corporation, headquartered in Irvine, California, specializing in geotechnical engineering, hydrology, and hydraulics for dams, reservoirs, and other water facilities. The firm has provided consulting engineering services on more than 50 dams and reservoirs in the past several years, most of them located in southern California.

The scope of work for this study involved the following:

� Review of available data - including a review of published geological and geotechnical literature, U.S. Geological Service (USGS) maps, regional geology maps, aerial photographs, and other geotechnical data pertinent to the site.

� Site reconnaissance – conducting an initial site reconnaissance by project team personnel to become familiar with the proposed candidate sites for the upper reservoirs, dams, and powerhouses; observe topographic, hydrologic, and geologic conditions; and evaluate constructability constraints.

� Geologic surface mapping - performing conceptual-level geologic surface mapping of the upper reservoir, dam, and powerhouse sites. This work consisted of mapping rock outcrops, stream-cut exposures of alluvial materials, shear zones, fault offsets, and other geologic features.

� Geophysical study – performing a limited, non-intrusive field investigation program that consisted of performing seismic refraction surveys at selected upper reservoir and powerhouse sites. Appendix B presents the scope and results of the geophysical study.

� Development of conceptual project layouts - preparing conceptual designs and layouts of the upper reservoirs, along with dams, spillways, outlet facilities, reservoir dikes, reservoir lining or blankets, cutoff walls and keyways; penstock and tailrace tunnels.

� Development of feasibility-level estimated costs – including costs for construction and future engineering studies.


� Development of a proposed scope of work for the preliminary design phase – including geotechnical investigations, laboratory testing program, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and preliminary design of the project facilities.

� Preparation of this report - summarizing observations and conclusions regarding the geotechnical feasibility for the upper reservoirs, dams, penstock, tailrace, and powerhouse sites.

The key members of the GENTERRA team that were involved in this study include the following:

Name and Registrations Position Certification Years of Experience

Joseph J. Kulikowski, PE, GE Principal-In-Charge Civil and Geotechnical Engineer 40

Ralph W. Rabus, PE, GE Project Manager Civil and Geotechnical Engineer 26

Donald H. Babbitt, PE, GE Technical Review Civil and Geotechnical Engineer 40

Warren Pedersen, RG, CEG Technical Review Engineering Geologist 40

Alan Pace, RG, CEG Project Geologist Engineering Geologist 15

Geoffrey L. Smith, PE Project Engineer Civil Engineer 5

Qualifications for GENTERRA and the key personnel are provided in Appendix A of this report.

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

This report is divided into six sections. Section 1 provides introductory information. Section 2 describes the baseline information regarding soil and geological resources. Section 3 presents conceptual design alternatives for the upper reservoir, penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace tunnel. Section 4 presents the feasibility-level estimates of quantities and project costs. Section 5 presents study conclusions and recommendations for future investigations. Section 6 presents the limitations of the study. Section 7 lists the references used in the study. Section 8 lists the abbreviations and acronyms used in the report.

Following the text are tables, figures, and appendices. Of particular interest are Tables 3-1 and 3-2, which summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the upper reservoir alternatives and the powerhouse alternatives, respectively.

Appendix A presents a description of GENTERRA and resumes of the authors of this report. Appendix B presents the results of the geophysical study. Appendix C lists historical earthquakes in the area of the project. Appendix D presents an example scope of work for the next phase of design – preliminary engineering.


SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

2.1 GENERAL

As required under Section 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Paragraph 4.41(f)(6): “The applicant must provide a report on the geological and soil resources in the proposed project area and other lands that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action and the impacts of the proposed project on those resources. The information required may be supplemented with maps showing the location and description of conditions.” This section contains the following required information:

� Detailed description of geological features, including bedrock lithology, stratigraphy, structural features, glacial features, unconsolidated deposits, and mineral resources (discussed in Section 2.3).

� Detailed description of the soils, including the types, occurrence, physical and chemical characteristics, erodibility, and potential for mass soil movement (discussed in Section 2.3).

� Description showing the location of existing and potential geological and soil hazards and problems, including earthquakes, faults, seepage, subsidence, solution cavities, active and abandoned mines, erosion, and mass soil movement, and an identification of any large landslides or potentially unstable soil masses which could be aggravated by reservoir fluctuation (discussed in Section 2.4).

� Description of the anticipated erosion, mass soil movement, and other impacts on the geological and soil resources due to construction and operation of the proposed project (discussed in Section 2.5).

� Description of any proposed measures of facilities for the mitigation of impacts on soils (discussed in Section 2.6).

This section describes the existing geohydrological, geological, and geotechnical baseline conditions of the candidate sites for the upper reservoirs, penstocks, powerhouses, and tailrace tunnels for the proposed LEAPS project as required by 18 CFR 4.41(f)(6). The description of the existing conditions presented herein is based on preliminary information obtained from published materials, visual observations of the site, conceptual-level geologic mapping, and a limited field investigation consisting of a geophysical survey. No intrusive field investigation or laboratory testing program was conducted for this work.

2.2 RECONNAISSANCE, MAPPING, AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

A site reconnaissance visit was made by GENTERRA personnel on May 13, 2003 to observe the proposed candidate dam, upper reservoir, penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace tunnel sites. During


this site visit, reference was made to aerial photography and topographic maps. Possible locations for the geophysical surveys were evaluated. Geologic mapping was performed by Mr. Alan Pace, C.E.G. of GENTERRA during the last two weeks of May 2003.

Non-intrusive geophysical surveys using the seismic refraction method were performed at the Morrell Canyon upper reservoir site and the Santa Rosa and Ortega Oaks candidate powerhouse sites. It was not considered necessary at this phase to conduct a geophysical survey at the other candidate reservoir site (Decker Canyon) and powerhouse site (Evergreen) because sufficient information (for a feasibility-level investigation) regarding the subsurface conditions was obtained from the reconnaissance and geologic mapping work.

Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the geophysical survey lines. Table 2-1 presents the coordinates and elevations of the geophysical lines. The geophysical surveys were performed by Advanced Geoscience, Inc. (AGI) of Palos Verdes, California, on July 25 and 29, and August 1, 2003. AGI’s geophysical survey report is provided in Appendix B of this report.

Most of the proposed structures will be located within the Trabuco Ranger District of the CNF. The upper reservoir will be located in the upper elevations of the Elsinore Mountains located on the west side of Lake Elsinore. The powerhouse, switchyard, and other appurtenant structures will be constructed on private, undeveloped land at the eastern border of the CNF at the foothills of the Elsinore Mountains.

2.3 GEOLOGIC FEATURES

2.3.1 Regional Geology

The LEAPS project is located in the Elsinore Mountains of the Santa Ana Mountain Range, which form the northernmost range of the Peninsular Ranges Physiographic Province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by a northwest-striking geologic fabric (faulting and folding) influenced by the San Andreas tectonic regime. In the project area, the rocks are primarily comprised of crystalline Cretaceous-age granitic rocks, which are intruded by finer-grained dikes. The Santa Ana Mountains also contain sedimentary rocks (typically Tertiary in age), however sedimentary rocks were not observed in the project area. Alluvial deposits are present in some of the lower gradient areas of canyon streambeds. Colluvium and alluvial fan deposits occur on the lower flanks of the mountain slopes, including along the base of the steep slopes of the Elsinore Mountains immediately west of Lake Elsinore. Lake deposits are present at the surface along the shoreline of Lake Elsinore. The lake deposits reflect a history of higher lake elevations. A preliminary geologic map of the project area is presented in Figure 2-2.

2.3.2 Seismicity

The project site is located within seismically active Southern California. According to the Uniform Building Code’s (UBC) “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and


Adjacent Portions of Nevada” (UBC, 1997), portions of the project (the powerhouse sites and tailrace tunnels) would be located within the Elsinore Fault Zone - Glen Ivy segment. The upper reservoir sites are located within a few kilometers of the faults zone.

The Elsinore Fault Zone is over 200 kilometers long and extends from the southern Imperial Valley to the city of Chino where the fault splits into the Whittier and Chino Faults. Portions of the Elsinore Fault Zone have been designated as “active” (ground rupture during Holocene time, “about the last 11,000 years”) by the State of California (Hart and Bryant, 1999). The “active” designation requires additional fault investigation studies to be performed so that structures are not placed on active fault traces.

The closest known faults to the site are the Willard and Wildomar Faults, located west of Lake Elsinore, and the Glen Ivy Fault, located northeast of Lake Elsinore. The Willard and Wildomar Faults are identified on the preliminary geologic map presented in Figure 2-2. These faults are branches and strands of the Elsinore Fault Zone and are considered right-lateral, strike-slip faults.

At the northeast margin of Lake Elsinore, the stresses along the fault “stepover” to the Glen Ivy Strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The result of this geologic stepover resulted in the creation of Lake Elsinore.

2.3.3 Site Geology

2.3.3.1 Morrell Canyon Upper Reservoir Site

The geological units at the Morrell Canyon upper reservoir site comprise of granitic bedrock, alluvium, and slopewash (Figure 2-2). The bedrock is mapped as granodiorite, quartzdiorite, and tonalite (Morton 1999, Greenwood 1992, Morton and Weber 1991, and Engle 1959). These rocks are typically light gray medium to coarse grained, and moderately fractured.

Weathering of the granitic rock is variable in the near-surface, as observed in outcrops and aerial photographs. This variability in weathering was evidenced by the observation of nearly unweathered granitic “corestones” surrounded by highly weathered intact bedrock. This condition can also be observed in the road cuts along Killen Trail and as resistant boulders mantling the topography to the west of Killen Trail and on the aerial photographs. The granitic rocks are cut by occasional darker and finer-grained intrusive dikes. The intrusive dikes are typically more resistant to weathering.

Recent alluvium occupies the valley floor of Morrell Canyon. The alluvium is brownish medium- to coarse-grained sand derived from the nearby granitic rock. These materials are loose and were generally unsaturated at the time of geologic mapping. Geophysical survey data performed at the location shown in Figure 2-1 indicates 10 to 15 feet of loose alluvium underlain by 25 to 45 feet of dense alluvium. The alluvium is underlain by crystalline bedrock, at a depth of 35 to 60 feet. There is no significant depth of alluvium at the abutments.


Slopewash is the down-slope accumulation of material transported by gravity and/or sheet flow. Thin (less than three feet) deposits of slopewash were observed along much of the Morrell Canyon site and the majority of the slopes in the region. These thin deposits were not mapped. Thick (greater than 5 feet) deposits of slopewash were observed and mapped on the south facing slope in a portion of Morrell Canyon near Killen Trail (Figure 2-2). The slopewash extended for a distance of approximately 100 feet. The thick slopewash materials are not anticipated to be greater than approximately 15-feet-thick. These slopewash materials are composed of sand with varying amounts of gravels cobbles and boulders.

Groundwater exits to the surface in the upper portions of Morrell Canyon, approximately 200 to 250 feet west of Killen Trail, in an area called “ Lion Spring” (Figure 2-2). At the time of the geologic reconnaissance, Lion Spring was providing flow to the surface stream. Immediately downstream of Lion Spring, the surface flow was absorbed by the alluvium and sometimes reappeared as surface flow. A few hundred feet below Lion Spring, the stream bed was moist, but there was no observed surface water. Additional information regarding groundwater and surface water in Morrell Canyon is discussed in the hydrology report prepared by GENTERRA (2003).

2.3.3.2 Decker Canyon Upper Reservoir Site

The Decker Canyon site is immediately north of the Morrell Canyon site and is geologically similar. The rock units observed in Decker Canyon were the same as observed in Morrell Canyon. Alluvium was not observed and no thick accumulation of slopewash was noted. Erosion gullies into the sideslopes and base of Decker Canyon showed only a minor amount (less than two inches) of soil development overlying intact bedrock.

Evidence of groundwater near the surface was not observed during the geologic reconnaissance. Information regarding groundwater in Decker Canyon area is discussed in the hydrology report prepared by GENTERRA (2003).

2.3.3.3 Penstock

It is anticipated that the penstock between the upper reservoir sites and the powerhouse sites will be excavated into granitic bedrock similar to that described for the upper reservoir sites. The bedrock should generally be sound and competent, although faults, fractures, joints, and groundwater will likely be encountered during the excavation of the proposed shaft and tunnel components of the penstock.

2.3.3.4 Ortega Oaks, Santa Rosa, and Evergreen Powerhouse Sites

The proposed powerhouse sites are located between the base of the Elsinore Mountains and Lake Elsinore (Figure 1-2). The geologic conditions of the two northernmost sites (Ortega Oaks and Santa Rosa) are similar. The surface geologic unit is a relatively young alluvial fan deposit that consists of material similar to the slopewash observed in Morrell Canyon, but is likely to contain a greater


percentage of cobble- and boulder-sized clasts. It is anticipated that the alluvial fan deposits are underlain by granitic bedrock at depth.

Granitic bedrock is exposed at the surface of the southern-most powerhouse site (Evergreen). An existing above-ground reservoir is currently located near the site and is founded on granitic bedrock. The granitic bedrock is similar to that described at the upper reservoir sites.

AGI performed a geophysical survey (Appendix B) at the Ortega Oaks and Santa Rosa sites (Figure 2-1). A geophysical survey was not performed at the Evergreen site since the observed surface of the site is exposed bedrock. The primary purpose of the surveys at the Ortega Oaks and Santa Rosa sites was to estimate the depth to bedrock.

Geophysical survey data at the Ortega Oaks site indicates shows 10 to 20 feet of loose alluvial soils underlain by 20 to 50 feet of dense, unsaturated alluvial soils, which was underlain by 70 to 90 feet of saturated alluvial soils and/or weathered bedrock. Crystalline bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 110 to 160 feet below the ground surface.

Geophysical survey data at the Santa Rosa site found 10 to 30 feet of loose alluvial soils underlain by 60 to 125 feet of dense, unsaturated alluvial soils and/or weathered bedrock. Crystalline bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 70 to 145 feet below the ground surface.

For all three candidate powerhouse sites, it is anticipated that granitic rock will be encountered above the required powerhouse depth.

2.3.3.5 Tailrace Tunnel

Between the proposed powerhouse sites and Lake Elsinore, there are strands/splays of the active Elsinore Fault Zone (Figure 2-2). The strands consist of the Willard Fault, located near the base of the slope, and the Wildomar Fault, which is mapped within the limits of Lake Elsinore.

The Willard and Wildomar faults are known to separate different geological units. Rock units are likely to be hard granitic rocks to the west of the faults with younger, less competent sedimentary deposits to the east of the faults.

The proposed candidate alignments for the tailrace tunnel extend from the proposed powerhouse sites (which will be located on granitic bedrock), across the Willard Fault and probably across the Wildomar Fault into Lake Elsinore. It is anticipated that a portion of the tailrace tunnel will be constructed in soft or loose, saturated sedimentary deposits.


2.4 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS

2.4.1 General

Potential geologic hazards at the project sites include ground rupture from active faulting, strong ground motions from earthquakes, earthquake-induced landslides or rockfalls, liquefaction, and seismic settlement. These potential geologic hazards are common for many projects located in the southern California geologic environment.

2.4.2 Active Faulting

Faulting in the Lake Elsinore area has been well documented in the literature. The closest faults to the site are the Willard and Wildomar Faults, located west of Lake Elsinore, and the Glen Ivy Fault, located northeast of Lake Elsinore. The Willard and Wildomar Faults are identified on the preliminary geologic map presented in Figure 2-2.

The Willard and Wildomar Faults are not identified as “ active” by the State of California. The Lake Elsinore Fault Zone, however, is defined as active by the State of California and the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) identifies the Willard and Wildomar Faults as within the Glen Ivy segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault Zone. Weber (1977) also identifies geomorphic evidence of active faulting along the traces of the Willard and Wildomar Faults. Consequently, for conceptual-level purposes, the Willard and Wildomar Faults should be considered active. The location and activity of the Willard and Wildomar Faults can be verified and evaluated during the preliminary design phase of the project.

Potential ground rupture along these faults will need to be addressed at the preliminary design level to evaluate the impact of fault movement to the tailrace tunnel. Table 2-2 (Berger, 1997) lists estimates of surface displacement associated with various earthquake magnitudes. Evidence of active faulting was not observed at the candidate reservoir sites or along the penstocks during geologic mapping and is not evident in the literature.

2.4.3 Strong Ground Motions

The project is located in the seismically active southern California region and may be subjected to strong ground motions during the life of the project. Table C-1 in Appendix C lists the earthquakes greater than magnitude 4.0 that have occurred within 100 kilometers of the project site in recorded history. Table 2-3 (taken from Berger, 1997, included in Appendix D) lists the faults and ground motions that can be anticipated at the site during the maximum credible earthquake. A site-specific seismic hazard analysis should be conducted at the preliminary design level.

2.4.4 Earthquake-Induced Landslides and Rockfalls

Deep-seated landsliding was not observed during the review of aerial photographs and geologic reconnaissance. Surficial instability in the form of slopewash and rocks accumulating at the base of slopes was observed. The ground motions presented Table 2-3 may generate sufficient shaking to dislodge some of the slopewash and rocky materials mantling the slope. During the preliminary


design phase of the project, existing slopewash and accumulated rocks will be evaluated as to the impact of site development on their stability and the potential impact to the site as a result of strong ground motions.

2.4.5 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement

Strong ground motions can cause loose, sandy soils to liquefy or consolidate (settle). Soft, fine-grained sediments may lose strength as a result of strong ground motions. The potential for liquefaction and seismic settlement may exist in the young lake deposits associated with Lake Elsinore. The tailrace tunnel and outfall structure may be founded on such materials. The identification and evaluation of potentially liquefiable soils will be part of the preliminary design-level investigation. These types of soils are not (or will not be) present at the upper reservoir sites since any existing alluvium would be removed or reworked during site development. These types of soils may be present in the overburden at the Ortega Oaks powerhouse site since there is a relatively thick layer of overburden.

If soils that are susceptible to liquefaction, settlement or significant strength loss are determined to be an issue of concern, the potential impact on the tailrace tunnel will need to be assessed. There are a number of remedial methods available to mitigate problem soils. These methods include soil mixing, installation of stone columns, deep dynamic compaction, removal and replacement, and other methods. The necessity and design of such remedial measures can be evaluated in subsequent design phases of the project.

2.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOIL AND GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

The potential impacts on soil and geologic resources during construction of the project include the following:

� Construction activities at the upper reservoir may result in minor increase of sediment loading on downstream areas. The construction activities would result in increased exposed and disturbed soils subject to water and wind erosion.

� Seepage and construction water may contain petroleum hydrocarbons, blasting residuals, suspended solids, debris, sediment, and low pH as a result of tunnel and shaft construction activities.

2.6 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS

The mitigation of potential impacts due to construction of the project could include the following:

� Provide for an effective erosion control plan during construction in accordance with local and state requirements. The erosion control plan will include Best Management Practices, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, and Waste Discharge Requirements.

� Watering of the construction sites to minimize the generation of dust.

� Provide and maintain vegetation for disturbed areas.


� Minimization of disturbed areas by designating construction traffic areas, worker areas, and off-limit areas.

These mitigation measures are commonly performed for many project and are be used successfully to limit the potential impacts to natural resources at the site.


SECTION 3: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

3.1 GENERAL

This section describes alternative feasibility-level designs developed for the upper reservoir sites, penstock alignments, powerhouse sites, and tailrace tunnel alignments. The alternative designs are based on published information, visual observations, limited geological and geophysical studies, experience, and professional expertise. Assumptions and information from this work are conceptual only and should be verified in the preliminary design phase of the project.

The subsequent preliminary design phase of the project will include evaluation of design alternatives and should address the various advantages and disadvantages of each alternative based on site-specific field and laboratory geotechnical and geologic data. During the final design phase of the project, the preferred alternatives selected in the preliminary design phase are optimized. This feasibility study phase of the project includes the presentation of conceptual ideas that should be feasible at the site.

3.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR UPPER RESERVOIRS

3.2.1 General

The alternative layouts and designs generated for this study are shown in Figures 3-1 to 3-6. For feasibility-level design purposes, the following assumptions were made:

� All slope inclinations of the slopes of the dams that are presented in the conceptual designs are shown as approximately 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). Actual slope inclinations will be based on preliminary and final design analyses using site-specific engineering properties. Slope inclinations could range up to 3H:1V or even flatter and may differ for the various types of materials used in the dams and other embankments.

� A freeboard of 20 feet was used to estimate the height of the dam and dikes. Site-specific design analyses will determine the actual freeboard required.

� The crest of the dam was assumed to have a relatively narrow width (approximately 20 to 30 feet). This will be dependent on design analyses and operational requirements.

� The proposed minimum usable reservoir capacity is 5,500 acre-feet. This was one of the main criteria used in the conceptual design alternatives.

� The site will achieve a balance between excavation and fill. While most of the excavation will come from within the reservoir, a significant amount of excavation may come from the powerhouse, shafts, and tunnels. Fill will be used to construct the dam, dikes, and other earth structures required for the project.


The reservoirs will be surrounded by a perimeter maintenance and access road with a perimeter security fence. Surface water channels would also be constructed within the perimeter access corridor.

Some of the alternatives have a “ natural” shoreline configuration. While a natural shoreline is still included for some alternatives, it would probably not be feasible for the following reasons:

� The most cost-effective source of the embankment materials for the dam and perimeter dikes (assuming that an embankment dam is the selected dam type) would be from within the upper reservoir. It would be difficult to excavate the required embankment material volumes while maintaining a natural shoreline.

� If the upper reservoir is to be lined (as discussed in Section 3.2.6), the reservoir slopes and floor would have to be engineered and shaped to facilitate construction of a liner system.

Although an undisturbed natural shoreline may not be considered feasible, the reservoir can be shaped to match the existing topography and, therefore, still maintain a “ natural-feel” to the reservoir configuration that may be aesthetically acceptable. During the preliminary design phase, more detailed analyses can be performed to evaluate the feasibility of having a natural shoreline, and the potential impacts to project costs.

At the time of this report, detailed survey data was not available. Measurements for the purposes of estimating earthwork quantities were performed using USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. The maps contain elevation contours at 40-foot intervals. Therefore, the information presented herein may be susceptible to significant variation and should be considered conceptual and for general comparison purposes only.

As summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative for the upper reservoirs is presented in Table 3-1. Each alternative is discussed in detail in this section.

3.2.2 Upper Reservoir Alternative A – Morrell Canyon Site

Three alternative concepts were developed for the candidate Morrell Canyon site. The alternative concepts are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-3. The candidate Morrell Canyon upper reservoir site is bounded by the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area to the south and Morgan Trail to the north (Figure 1-2). The geology of the site is characterized by steep granitic bedrock canyon walls with alluvium up to 50 feet thick along the valley floor.

Groundwater exits to the ground surface at “ Lion Spring.” While Lion Spring is shown as a discrete point on published maps, the spring is actually a linear feature (the limits of which have not been defined) along the valley floor that is subjected to artesian groundwater pressure.


3.2.2.1 Alternative A.1

This alternative is similar to the concept presented in the ISCD. The purpose of presenting this option is to evaluate this concept and to serve as a starting point for discussion of other alternatives. Alternative A.1 is presented in Figure 3-1.

This Alternative A.1 would place the facility entirely outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area. To meet the required reservoir capacity of 5,500 acre-feet, the reservoir would extend into the limits of Lion Spring. Flows from Lion Spring could be maintained by constructing a subdrain collection system under the reservoir (and/or dike) to collect and discharge flows downstream of the facility.

Since the candidate Morrell Canyon site will receive flows from upstream, a conduit would be required under the reservoir to convey upstream flows downstream. Depending upon the design of the conduit, water may accumulate against the upstream side of the dike to serve as a detention basin. This situation is discussed in the hydrology report prepared by GENTERRA (2003).

Also, while a portion of the existing Morgan Trail alignment would be maintained, a significant portion would have to be re-aligned.

Some general features of Alternative A.1 include:

� An approximately 200-foot-high main dam located on the southwest side of the reservoir.

� An approximately 100-foot-high dike located on the northeast side of the reservoir near Lion Spring (or approximately 60 feet higher than the nearby Killen Trail road).

� A normal reservoir water surface at Elevation 2,880.

� An inlet at Elevation 2,760 for the intake structure.

� To maintain the natural reservoir side slopes and a natural shoreline (as shown in Figure 3-1), the volume of the reservoir would be approximately 3,100 acre-feet. Assuming most or all of the embankment material is excavated from within the reservoir, the volume of the reservoir would increase to a nominal 5,500 acre-feet. Figure 3-1 does not show any excavation within the reservoir.

� A reservoir surface area of approximately 58 acres.

� The required fill volume of the dam and dike is approximately 3.0 million cubic yards.

This alternative is considered to have a relatively poor cost benefit ratio (ratio of storage capacity to construction cost). To avoid the Wilderness Area, yet maintain the required reservoir capacity, the main dam must be constructed at an angle that increases the required fill volumes. In addition, the


surface area of the facility is relatively small compared to the required fill volumes. The close proximity to the Wilderness Area may make construction activities near the Wilderness Area difficult and expensive. For example, access roads could not be constructed down the north-face slopes of the south dam abutment, but would have to be constructed on the north dam abutment, which could impact Morgan Trail.


This alternative involves moving the main dam and upstream dike downstream for the purposes of preserving Lion Spring and improving the efficiency of the reservoir. The main dam would be constructed in the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area and the upstream dike would be outside the limits of Lion Spring. The dike may also be far enough away from Killen Trail so that the dike would have less visual impact to road travelers (especially if trees are planted next to Killen Trail) and enhance the security of the facility.

This alternative is a shaped reservoir that would have a perimeter shoreline consistent with the surrounding topography, but would not be a “ natural” shoreline. Like Alternative A.1, this alternative would also require a conduit to convey upstream flows under the reservoir to discharge downstream. This situation is discussed in the hydrology report prepared by GENTERRA (2003).

While a portion of the existing Morgan Trail alignment would be maintained, a significant portion would have to be re-aligned. Alternative A.2 is shown in Figure 3-2.


� A 220-foot-high main dam located on the southwest side of the reservoir.

� An 85-foot-high dike located on the northeast side of the reservoir near Lion Spring (or approximately 45 feet higher than the nearby Killen Trail road).




� The required fill volume of the main dam and dike is approximately 2.5 million cubic yards. Less volume is required compared to Alternative A.1 due to the location of the main dam in a relatively narrow canyon.

This alternative may be difficult to implement since any construction within federal Wilderness areas require approval by the President of the United States. An important trade-off associated with this option, however, is the protection of Lion Spring and the aesthetic and security benefits associated with its distance from Killen Trail.



Alternative A.3 was developed to provide significant distance from the Wilderness Area and Morgan Trail while maximizing the water surface area of the reservoir. For this alternative, the existing Morgan Trail alignment would be maintained. Flows from Lion Spring could be maintained by constructing a subdrain collection system under the reservoir (and/or dike) to collect and discharge flows downstream of the facility. Like the previous two alternatives, flows from upstream would be conveyed in a conduit constructed under the reservoir. Alternative A.3 is shown in Figure 3-3.



� A perimeter dike (ranging up to 60-feet-high) located along the northeast side of the reservoir. The perimeter dike would be approximately 60 feet higher than the nearby Killen Trail road.





� The reservoir sideslopes that would allow lining of the reservoir.

This option is considered to have a very good cost benefit ratio due to the relatively small amount of fill required compared to the surface area of the reservoir. While Lion Spring would be covered by the reservoir, the Wilderness Area would not be disturbed.

3.2.3 Upper Reservoir Alternative B - Decker Canyon Site

The Decker Canyon upper reservoir site is located on the south fork of Decker Canyon and is bounded by the Killen Trail road to the east and Morgan Trail to the south. The geology of the site is characterized granitic bedrock exposed throughout the canyon, with a thin mantle of soil. No alluvium or near-surface groundwater was observed in this canyon during the geologic mapping. The Decker Canyon reservoir would be located entirely outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area. The existing Morgan Trail alignment to the south would be maintained and would not be disturbed. Two alternatives were developed for this site.


3.2.3.1 Alternative B.1

This alternative concept is similar to the concept presented in the ISCD. The purpose of presenting this option is to evaluate this concept and to serve as a starting point for discussion of other conceptual alternatives. Alternative B.1 is presented in Figure 3-4.

This alternative has a “ natural” shoreline configuration. There are no upstream flows since the reservoir would be constructed at the very top of the watershed. This situation is discussed in the hydrology report prepared by GENTERRA (2003).

Some general features of Alternative B.1 include:

� A reservoir area that is located entirely outside the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area.

� A 280-foot-high main dam.



� To maintain the natural reservoir side slopes and a natural shoreline, the volume of the reservoir would be approximately 4,400 acre-feet, which is less than the desired storage capacity of 5,500 acre-feet. Assuming most of the embankment material would be excavated from within the reservoir, the volume of the reservoir could increase to over 7,000 acre-feet.


� The required fill volume of the dam is approximately 5.0 million cubic yards.

This concept is considered to have a relatively poor cost-benefit ratio since the dam transects a large canyon; therefore, a large amount of fill is required to construct the dam. The dam is relatively high and the volume of the reservoir appears to be more than the desired 5,500 acre-feet if the dam is constructed mostly from materials excavated within the reservoir. To meet the desired reservoir volume, the water surface elevation could be lowered, but that may negatively impact hydropower production.

While this alternative is shown with a natural shoreline, a natural shoreline would probably not be feasible because, as previously discussed, it would be difficult to excavate the required material volumes while maintaining a natural shoreline configuration.

While an undisturbed natural shoreline is not considered feasible, the reservoir can be shaped to match the existing topography, and therefore, still maintain a “ natural feel” to the reservoir configuration that may be aesthetically acceptable. While the following Alternative B.2 does not include an undisturbed natural shoreline, the configuration closely follows the surrounding


topography. During the preliminary design phase, more detailed analyses can be performed to evaluate the feasibility of having a natural shoreline, and the potential impacts to project costs.

3.2.3.2 Alternative B.2

Alternative B.2 was developed to improve the efficiency of the reservoir by decreasing the required fill volumes of the dam, and reduce the reservoir volume to the desired value while maximizing the water surface area of the reservoir. To accomplish this while maintaining a balance between cut and fill, the water surface elevation of the reservoir was increased and the dam was moved upstream toward Killen Trail. The increased surface water elevation will provide for increased hydropower production. By moving the dam upstream, the crest length decreases and the dam height decreases. To achieve the required volume and to maximum surface area, the edge of the reservoir can be extended to the south (near Morgan Trail) and to the north. Alternative B.2 is shown in Figure 3-5.

Some general features of Alternative B.2 include:


� A perimeter dike (ranging up to 50-feet-high) located along the northeast side of the reservoir. The perimeter dike would be approximately 50 feet higher than the nearby Killen Trail road.





This alternative achieves a relatively high degree of efficiency and provides for a higher maximum water surface elevation.

To further increase the surface area of the reservoir, an option would be to relocate an approximately 700-foot-long section of the Killen Trail road to the northeast and extend the reservoir accordingly. This relocated section of Killen Trail road is shown in Figure 3-6. During preliminary design, an analysis could be made to evaluate the costs and benefits of moving that portion of Killen Trail road.

3.2.4 Conceptual Dam Designs

The optimal design for the upper reservoir dam would be an embankment dam that incorporates embankment material generated by the onsite construction activities, such as the excavations of the reservoir, tunnels, and powerhouse. The actual design can only be developed after design-level site investigations are performed.


Based on GENTERRA’ s understanding of the onsite geologic conditions, most of the potential fill materials will be generated from granitic bedrock or weathered granite. The resulting fill material will be silty sand in nature, easily compacted, high strength, and suitable for use as earthfill material for an embankment dam. It is GENTERRA’ s opinion that minor amounts of rockfill would be generated from the construction activities as the surficial (top 20 feet) weathered granitic rock would probably break down to sand-size particles during excavation and placement.

Depending upon the conditions of the bedrock foundation, the dams may be keyed into the foundation rock and the rock foundation may be grouted. The depth of the key and length and type grout lines, if needed, will be evaluated during future design phases of the project.

Some possible alternative designs for the upper reservoir dam include the following types:

� A zoned earthfill dam with a central impervious core. As shown on Figure 3-7 (Type A), this type of dam consists of an earthfill embankment with a central core of impervious material with upstream and downstream shells. The core is generally constructed of clay material, which has a low permeability. The upstream and downstream shells would be constructed of random earthfill material generated from the excavation of the onsite granite, alluvium, or soil deposits. Drains are included to control seepage through the dam embankment. Filters are included to control the migration of soil carried by seepage through the dam embankment.

A disadvantage of this alternative related to this project is the absence of an onsite source for the significant amount of low-permeability material (clay) required for the central core. The closest known clay borrow source is the Alberhill clay mine located near Interstate 15, approximately 10 miles from the site. Alternatively, a low permeability material could be manufactured on site by mixing bentonite with the onsite soils (the bentonite would have to be imported to the site), or a geomembrane could be incorporated into the dam2.

Another disadvantage of this alternative is that the core would be separated from a possible reservoir lining by the upstream shell, resulting in high levels of saturation in the upstream shell during rapid drawdown of the reservoir.

� A zoned earthfill dam with an inclined upstream impervious zone. As shown on Figure 3-7 (Type B), this type of dam consists of an earthfill embankment with a zone of impervious material on the upstream face of the dam supported by a zone of random earthfill material. Drains are included to control seepage through the dam embankment. Filters are included to control the migration of soil carried by seepage through the dam embankment.

2 While geomembranes have been commonly used with dams in California, the California DSOD’ s current standard of practice is to ignore the contribution of geomembranes in controlling seepage through dams. While it may be possible to obtain approval by the DSOD to use a geomembrane, drainage zones in the dam capable of collecting the seepage through the embankment will be necessary.


Although the amount of clay material for this configuration is less than the dam with the central core, there is no significant source of clay on the project site. Clay would have to be imported from the Alberhill clay mine, or low permeability material could be manufactured on site by mixing bentonite with the onsite soils. The bentonite would have to be imported to the site.

� A concrete-faced earthfill dam. As shown on Figure 3-7 (Type C), this type of dam consists of an earthfill embankment dam built of random earthfill material generated from the excavation of the onsite granite, alluvium, or soil deposits, with a concrete slab on the upstream face of the dam to serve as an impermeable membrane. Drains are included to control seepage through the dam embankment.

This type of dam is commonly used for pumped storage projects because of its ability to endure the continual filling and drawing down of the reservoir. While this type of dam can be constructed from the onsite materials, a disadvantage is the significant amount of seepage that occurs through cracks and joints in the concrete face. To limit the amount of seepage, a geomembrane could be installed behind the concrete.

� An earthfill dam with an asphaltic-concrete upstream face. As shown on Figure 3-7 (Type D), this type consists of an embankment dam built of random earthfill material generated from the excavation of the onsite granite, alluvium, or soil deposits, with layers of asphaltic concrete on the upstream face of the dam to serve as an impermeable membrane. Drains are included to control seepage through the dam embankment.

This type of dam is commonly also used for pumped storage projects because of its ability to endure the continual filling and drawing down of the reservoir. In addition, upper reservoirs for pumped storage projects are commonly lined with asphaltic concrete to minimize leakage from the reservoir. A disadvantage of asphalt is its low durability and need for periodic maintenance. An advantage of asphalt is its relatively low cost compared to concrete. To limit the amount of seepage, a geomembrane could be installed behind the asphaltic concrete.

� A gravity dam constructed of roller compacted concrete (RCC). As shown on Figure 3-7 (Type E), the RCC dam would have a smaller cross section than an embankment dam, resulting in less construction material required and a smaller footprint. The aggregate for the RCC could be constructed from onsite materials. High strength and density bedrock foundations suitable for a RCC dam can be found at both the Morrell Canyon and Decker Canyon upper reservoir sites.

Disadvantages of a RCC Dam are higher construction costs versus an embankment dam and possibly poor aesthetics.


3.2.5 Appurtenant Structures

The appurtenant structures for the upper reservoir include:

� An intake structure for the penstock. One alternative is a “ morning glory” type drop inlet located at the bottom of the upper reservoir. Water flows over a circular lip and drops into a vertical shaft. An advantage of this type of inlet is that near maximum capacity is attained at relatively low heads. A disadvantage is that the inlet is ungated and so discharges from the upper reservoir cannot be stopped at the inlet in the event of an emergency.

Another alternative for the intake is a gated inlet structure where the water flows into a horizontal or sloping conduit. Radial gates, slide gates, or an emergency bulkhead can be installed to shut off water flow from the upper reservoir in the event of an emergency or for inspection and repair of the penstock.

� An emergency spillway. A concrete-lined emergency overflow spillway will be necessary in an abutment of the main dam (if an embankment dam) in accordance with the dam safety requirements of FERC and DSOD to prevent flood flows (resulting from rainfall or the improper operation of gates and valves) from overtopping and causing failure of the dam. For the RCC dam, the overflow spillway can be part of the dam since the water will not erode the RCC to any significant degree.

� A low-level outlet. A low-level outlet for the upper reservoir will be necessary to allow the lowering of the reservoir in the event of an emergency, in accordance with the requirements of the DSOD. This is a redundant safety measure as the penstock can also serve this purpose. The low-level outlet will be located beneath the dam, will be gated, and would discharge into the natural stream located downstream of the dam.

3.2.6 Reservoir Liner System

Reservoir liner systems are commonly used in potable water reservoirs and pumped storage reservoirs. The purpose of the liner system would be to:

� Minimize seepage losses from the reservoir and through the dam embankment;

� Allow for steepened reservoir sideslopes by protecting the reservoir sideslopes from rapid drawdown damage (e.g., sloughing, erosion, landsliding); and

� Protect the reservoir floor from erosion and scour.

A liner system may also be required to minimize the impacts of reservoir seepage water on the quality and the levels of native groundwater. The hydrology report prepared by GENTERRA (2003) suggests that, due to differences in water quality between Lake Elsinore and groundwater in Morrell


and Decker Canyons, seepage water from the upper reservoir may adversely impact groundwater quality.

For the above reasons, it is likely that a liner system will be installed for the upper reservoir. Conceptual alternatives for the liner system are shown on Figure 3-8. A separate study could be conducted during the preliminary design phase of the project to address the various alternatives available to line the reservoir taking into account the priorities of the stakeholders and regulatory agencies.

Alternative designs of reservoir liner systems include the following:

� Clay (earthen) liner. This alternative consists of using a low-permeability soil (e.g., clay) for the impermeable layer of the floor and possibly the sideslopes of the reservoir. Since a low-permeability source is probably not available at the site, clay would have to be imported from an off-site borrow area (e.g., the Alberhill clay mine). The primary benefit of clay is its long-lasting performance compared to asphalt and geosynthetic materials. The primary disadvantage of using clay is the higher cost, substantially greater thickness of clay compared to geosynthetic material, longer construction schedule, environmental impacts from construction (dust, additional earthwork equipment, and truck traffic on Ortega Highway), potential for variable material properties, and the inability to place it on steep sideslopes subjected to rapid drawdown conditions.

� Asphaltic concrete liner. An asphaltic concrete liner system is a common type of liner system for water reservoir projects and is especially useful for placement on sideslopes. A dense asphalt pavement serves as the waterproofing layer and a wearing surface. The asphalt can be treated at the surface to provide resistance to environmental exposure and decrease its hydraulic conductivity. Asphalt liners have been placed on sideslopes as steep as 1.5H:1V. An open-graded mix of asphalt can be installed to serve as a drainage layer.

� Geomembrane Liner. Geomembranes are commonly used for waste containment facilities to reduce contaminant transport into groundwater zones. Geomembranes, however, are becoming popular options for water facilities to reduce seepage losses and reduce impacts to groundwater levels and quality. Geomembrane systems can be placed on steep slopes, are installed with minimal construction equipment, and are generally cost effective. Geomembranes can be used as supplemental components of a soil liner system, can be used by themselves as exposed liner systems, or can be used as part of a double-liner system.

� A combination of liner systems. A combination of liner systems is commonly used to optimize the design, depending upon availability of materials, required watertightness, steepness of sideslopes, and other factors.

� A double liner system. A double liner would be selected if the allowable leakage from the reservoir would have to meet a de minimis standard. The liner system would consist of two


impermeable layers. The secondary liner would serve as a barrier for any leakage that passes through the primary liner. A drainage layer would be sandwiched between the liners. A subdrain below the lower liner may be required to collect existing seeps from the subgrade.

3.3 PENSTOCK

The penstock forms the passageway for the water from the upper reservoir to the powerhouse. As shown in Figure 1-2, there are six potential penstock alignments (three for each upper reservoir). The penstock consists of an inlet structure located in the upper reservoir, an unlined or concrete-lined shaft and tunnel, a steel-lined tunnel where the rock cover is inadequate, and a steel-lined manifold structure that serve to direct the water discharges to the turbines in the powerhouse. In exceptionally strong and durable rock, unlined tunnels are commonly used – especially where they can be excavated with a tunnel boring machine (TBM), which produce smooth tunnel walls.

Based on information provided by Nevada Hydro the penstock tunnels and shafts would be 15 to 18 feet in diameter (inside diameter). The outside diameter (actual cutting or blasting diameter) would be approximately 16 to 20 feet.

In general, the penstocks will be excavated into competent granitic bedrock. It is anticipated that tunnels in this material will be excavated by TBM, which has been successfully performed in other tunnels in this material in the region. While a TBM would be the preferred excavation method, due to the relatively short lengths of penstock tunnel length (on the order of 9,000 feet), it may be more economical to perform drilling and blasting excavation. A key factor in the economic decision would be the ability to use a re-furbished TBM rather than purchasing a custom-built TBM. Based on GENTERRA’ s knowledge of recently constructed tunnels, obtaining TBMs from local projects may be possible. For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is using a 17.65-foot-diameter TBM for the Arrowhead East aqueduct portion of the Inland Feeder Project.

3.3.1 Alternative H.1

This alternative consists of a 15- to 18-foot-diameter vertical concrete-lined shaft that extends from a morning glory type inlet structure located in the upper reservoir to a 15- to 18-foot-diameter horizontal tunnel. The inlet elevation would range from 2,720 for the Decker Canyon site to 2,760 for the Morrell Canyon site. The shaft would have a height of approximately 1,500 feet.

The horizontal tunnel would have a gradient of approximately two percent downward toward the powerhouse. In accordance with standard practice, the tunnel would be unlined or concrete-lined where there is adequate rock cover over the tunnel, and steel lined where there is inadequate rock cover.

The horizontal tunnel would then split into two steel penstocks (the diameter of which is to be determined), which direct the water flows to the turbines in the powerhouse.


A general layout for Alternative H.1 is shown on Figure 3-9.


This alternative consists of a vertical morning glory type inlet structure located in the upper reservoir that transitions to a 15- to 18-foot-diameter inclined tunnel. The inlet elevation would range from 2,720 for the Decker Canyon site to 2,760 for the Morrell Canyon site.

The inclined tunnel would be at a slope of 25 degrees, which is considered the maximum slope for a TBM. Steeper gradients are possible if drilling and blasting techniques are used to excavate the tunnel. The benefits of an inclined tunnel are: 1) less overall shaft and tunnel length to excavate; 2) less costly method of excavation than vertical shaft excavation; and 3) potentially less head loss than a vertical shaft. The inclined tunnel would be unlined or concrete lined.

The inclined tunnel would connect to a horizontal tunnel that would have a gradient of approximately two percent downward toward the powerhouse. In accordance with standard practice, the horizontal tunnel would be unlined or concrete-lined where there is adequate rock cover over the tunnel, and steel lined where there is inadequate rock cover.


The benefit of this alternative is that significantly less material is excavated than Alternative H.1, resulting in less construction cost. A general layout for Alternative H.2 is shown on Figure 3-10.


This alternative consists of a gated inlet structure located in the upper reservoir that serves as the inlet into a 15- to 18-foot-diameter, concrete-lined horizontal tunnel. The inlet elevation would range from 2,720 for the Decker Canyon site to 2,760 for the Morrell Canyon site.

The upper horizontal tunnel then transitions into an inclined tunnel, with a slope of 25 degrees. The inclined tunnel would connect to a lower horizontal tunnel that would have a gradient of approximately two percent downward toward the powerhouse. Again, the horizontal tunnel would be unlined or concrete-lined where there is adequate rock cover over the tunnel, and steel lined where there is inadequate rock cover.


The benefits of this alternative are that the construction is performed at not as great depth as Alternatives H.1 and H.2, and slightly less material is excavated than Alternative H.2, resulting in less construction cost. Furthermore, this alternative allows for the installation of a gated structure at the upper reservoir. A general layout for Alternative H.3 is shown on Figure 3-11.


3.4 POWERHOUSE SITES

3.4.1 General

The three candidate powerhouse sites (going from north to south) are the Ortega Oaks, Santa Rosa and Evergreen sites (Figure 1-2). A summary of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each candidate powerhouse is presented in Table 3-2. Discussion of each candidate site is presented in the following subsections.

Because of the sensitivity of the hydraulic machinery that is included in the powerplant, the powerhouse will be founded on bedrock. All factors being equal, the optimum location for the powerhouse would be as close as possible to the lower reservoir (Lake Elsinore) to minimize the required depth below the ground surface, but still be founded on bedrock. The powerhouse should also be located to the southwest of the Willard Fault so that the penstock does not cross any shear zones.

3.4.2 The Ortega Oaks Site

The Ortega Oaks site consists of alluvial fan deposits that are underlain by granitic bedrock at depths ranging from 110 to 160 feet below the ground surface. Because of the ground elevation at this site (approximately Elevation 1,370) and the anticipated invert elevation of the turbine draft tubes (approximately Elevation 1,050) the powerhouse will be located underground. The excavation for the powerhouse will be about 320 feet deep and will encounter bedrock. At the current proposed location, the upper part of the powerhouse excavation will be in alluvial fan deposits with the lower part of the excavation in bedrock. Because of the cost of shoring the excavation in the overburden soils, it may be more cost effective to move this powerhouse to the southwest in order to construct the powerhouse entirely in bedrock.

3.4.3 The Santa Rosa Site

The Santa Rosa site consists of alluvial fan deposits underlain by granitic bedrock at depths ranging from 70 to 145 feet below the ground surface. Because of the ground elevation at this site (approximately Elevation 1,390) and the anticipated invert elevation of the turbine draft tubes (approximately Elevation 1,050), this powerhouse will also be located underground with an excavation about 340 feet deep. Provided that the powerhouse is located toward the southwestern end of the seismic profile line, the entire excavation for the powerhouse would be entirely in bedrock.

3.4.4 The Evergreen Site

Granitic bedrock is exposed at the surface of the proposed Evergreen site. The ground elevation at this site is approximately 1,340. The anticipated invert elevation of the turbine draft tubes is


approximately Elevation 1,050. The powerhouse, therefore, will be underground with a depth of excavation of approximately 290 feet. The entire excavation will be in bedrock.

3.4.5 Summary of Powerhouse Sites

Based on the geophysical survey results and geologic mapping, competent bedrock will be encountered at the required depths of the powerhouses. For the Ortega Oaks site, however, construction access to the powerhouse may require significant excavation in the overburden soils. Because of the extensive support systems that will be necessary to support the overburden soils, it may actually be more cost effective to move the powerhouse site to the southwest in order to construct powerhouse access shafts or tunnels in competent bedrock.

For all of the powerhouse sites, the powerhouse structure can be located either within an underground cavern, constructed in bedrock (see Figure 3-12), or within a shaft-type of powerhouse that extends to the surface (see Figure 3-13). An underground cavern-type of powerhouse is constructed in competent bedrock and requires access tunnels, also excavated into bedrock (Figure 3-12).

A shaft-type of powerhouse consists of an open shaft (no cavern roof) that is covered at the surface with the control building (Figure 3-13). The advantages of a shaft-type of powerhouse include a reduced construction schedule, reduced operating costs, and potentially less construction cost than an underground cavern-type of powerhouse.

The construction schedule can be reduced because long access tunnels are not used to construct the powerhouse. Reduced operating costs may be realized since a service crane could be installed near the surface. Less construction cost may result because the construction of long access tunnels in bedrock is avoided.

At the Ortega Oaks site, a shaft-type of powerhouse may be the most feasible method of construction since the overburden soils will require a shoring system, which could be incorporated into the permanent support system for the shaft powerhouse. For the Santa Rosa and Evergreen sites, an underground cavern-type or shaft-type of powerhouse could be considered because of the proximity of bedrock to the ground surface.

Excavation of the powerhouse into bedrock will require drilling and blasting. Blasting would be performed in accordance with state and local regulations, and would be controlled to prevent impacting the surrounding areas. Also, there is no potential for construction activity (such as blasting) to cause a seismic event.

Analyses and construction cost comparisons performed during the preliminary design phase of the project and consultation with powerhouse constructors could indicate a preferred method of construction for the powerhouse.


3.5 TAILRACE TUNNEL

The tailrace tunnel provides a passageway for the water to travel between the powerhouse and the lower reservoir (Lake Elsinore). The turbine draft tubes will connect to a concrete-lined tunnel (approximately over 20-feet in diameter) that will extend to an intake/outlet structure located at Lake Elsinore. The tunnel would have a gradient of approximately one percent downward from Lake Elsinore to the powerhouse. The intake/outlet structure would be a concrete, gated structure with an inlet invert at approximately Elevation 1,200 feet.

Based on the results of the geologic mapping and geophysical studies performed for this feasibility investigation, and GENTERRA’ s experience, we have identified the following geotechnical constraints for the tailrace tunnel:

1. The tailrace tunnel will cross the potentially active Willard and Wildomar Faults. The tunnel will need to be designed to accommodate lateral movement potentially generated by rupture along any faults.

2. Tunneling conditions across the fault zones will quickly transition from competent granitic rock to soft, saturated lake sediments. Tunneling through the soft lake sediments will require ground stabilization methods to allow tunneling, and measures to control the significant groundwater inflow that will occur. Ground improvement of the sediments may be necessary to allow for efficient tunneling.

3. The soft lake sediments are probably susceptible to liquefaction or seismic settlement. The tunnel may need to be designed to withstand significant displacement or settlement resulting from a seismic event. Alternatively, ground improvement techniques may be used to reduce the liquefaction and seismic settlement potential of the lake sediments.

4. Because of the depth to bedrock, the inlet/outlet structure will probably need to be founded on deep foundations. The structure will also be subject to the potential for liquefaction or seismic settlement of the underlying sediments.

5. Construction of the intake/outlet structure will require constructing a cofferdam in Lake Elsinore around the limits of work and dewatering a portion of the lake bottom.


SECTION 4: FEASIBILITY LEVEL ESTIMATES

4.1 ESTIMATE OF QUANTITIES

4.1.1 Upper Reservoir Fill Quantities

The estimated fill volumes for the construction of the main dam and dikes for the upper reservoir alternatives are presented in Table 4-1. These quantities assume the construction of earthfill embankment dams and dikes.

4.1.2 Penstock Quantities

The estimated length of shafts and tunnels for the construction of the penstock alternatives are presented in Table 4-2.

The estimated quantities for the construction of the penstock alternatives are presented in Table 4-3. These quantities assume an inside diameter of 16 feet for the shafts and tunnels. The tunnels were assumed to be excavated by a TBM. If drilling and blasting excavation techniques are used, the quantities would be greater (relative to the inside diameter required) than a TBM.

4.1.3 Powerhouse Quantities

Based on information provided in the ISCD, the dimensions for an underground cavern powerhouse are approximately 450-feet long, 80-feet wide, and 160-feet high. The estimated quantity of excavation for the powerhouse cavern itself would be approximately 260,000 cubic yards (not including access tunnels or shafts). The actual quantity of excavation required to construct the cavern would depend upon the type of access.

Table 4-4 presents the estimated depth of the powerhouse excavation and the estimated quantity of excavation assuming a shaft-type of powerhouse. The quantities for the amount of excavation range from approximately 390,000 cubic yards for the Evergreen site to 450,000 cubic yards at the Santa Rosa site.

4.1.4 Tailrace Tunnel Quantities

The estimated quantities for the construction of the tailrace tunnel alternatives are presented in Table 4-5. These quantities assume an inside diameter of 22 feet, assumed to be excavated by a TBM. The length of tunnel is based on the powerhouse locations shown in the ISCD. The quantities for the tunnel would increase if the powerhouse is shifted to the west and constructed entirely underground in bedrock.


4.2 FEASIBILITY LEVEL PROJECT COST

For the purposes of this Geotechnical Feasibility Report, we have developed feasibility-level engineering and construction costs for the geotechnical portions of the pumped storage project. These include construction of the upper reservoir dams and dikes, lining of the upper reservoir, construction of the penstock and tailrace tunnels, and the excavation for the powerhouse. These estimated costs are based on guidelines to develop estimated costs for hydropower projects and historical data for the construction of pumped storage projects.

4.2.1 Construction Cost

The estimated feasibility-level construction cost for the geotechnical portions of the project are summarized below:

� Upper Reservoir Dam and Dike. In many ways, the dam and dikes proposed for the LEAPS project will be less costly than those for a typical water reservoir. The spillway will be small and will not involve a significant energy dissipation structure, the outlet works will probably be only one level, and there will not be any significant ancillary features such as distribution systems, diversion structures, forebays or afterbays. A unit cost range of $5 to $10 per cubic yard of fill would be considered reasonable for the type of dam and dikes proposed for LEAPS. It is assumed that the dam and dikes would be of the earthen embankment type with most of the material being hauled and excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. Assuming the dam and dikes at the LEAPS facility will be approximately 2.5 to 3.5 million cubic yards, the estimated cost would be on the order of $13 to $35 million. The additional cost for ancillary features of the dam and dikes such as the emergency outlet, spillway, instrumentation, and seepage collection facilities would range from about $2 million to about $5 million.

� Upper Reservoir. Much of the formation of the upper reservoir will be the result of excavation activities to construct the embankment dam and dikes. Therefore, much of the cost of the reservoir formation is included in the embankment dam and dike cost. The primary cost of the upper reservoir is related to the reservoir liner system. If geosynthetics are placed directly on the substrate, the reservoir slopes and floor may have to be prepared and smoothed, and, in some areas, fill may need to be placed prior to geosynthetics placement. Drainage aggregate used for the liner system may need to be processed. Depending upon the type of liner system selected, a typical range of unit costs would be $2 to $6 per square foot. Assuming a reservoir floor and sideslope area of 100 acres, this amount could range from $9 to $26 million. To account for costs associated with a patrol road, drainage channels, fine grading, subgrade preparation, vegetation, and other costs related to the upper reservoir formation, an additional $10 to $15 million should be allocated for a total cost range of $19 to $41 million.


For the Morrell Canyon candidate reservoir, a culvert will be required to convey water from Lion Spring and water from upstream under the reservoir to discharged downstream. The cost of this culvert could be on the order of $2 to $4 million.

� Penstock Tunnels and Shafts. A significant factor in the cost of tunnel construction is related to the type of TBM. Using a pre-owned TBM rather than building a new TBM can result in significant cost savings. For reinforced-concrete-lined tunnels, the estimated cost ranges from $1,500 to $2,500 per linear foot. For steel-lined tunnels, the estimated cost is $3,000 to $4,000 per linear foot. For typical lengths anticipated for the LEAPS project (on the order of 6,000 feet of concrete-lined and 2,500 feet of steel-lined), the estimated cost is $16 to $25 million.

� Tailrace Tunnel. The tailrace tunnel has a large diameter, short length, may require special excavation techniques, and may require ground improvement prior to construction. Special considerations would be made for the Willard and Wildomar Faults. While it is difficult to estimate the cost based on present information, it is likely that the cost would exceed $5,000 per linear foot. Assuming a length of 2,500 feet, a cost on the order of $12 to $16 million is likely. This cost would not include construction of the Lake Elsinore intake/outlet structure.

� Powerhouse. The cost of the powerhouse is highly variable and largely depends upon the type of construction and the support requirements. It is anticipated that the construction of the powerhouse will be approximately $30 to $60 million. This cost is only for the foundation and earthwork portions and does not including the cost of turbines, mechanical, or electrical components.

The total estimated construction cost for the earthwork portions of the pumped storage project is on the order of $200 million. The above costs do not include right-of-ways, buildings, transmission lines, electrical substations, or environmental mitigation.

The cost of underground construction is highly variable due to the highly variable subsurface construction conditions. The type of underground support systems and the type of excavation construction can have significant impacts on project costs. Unanticipated events during construction are common and can significantly increase costs. To manage the potential risk of cost overruns, a risk-based construction cost model could be developed. The process would involve identifying all possible events, determining the likelihood of the event, evaluating the potential costs associated with the event, and developing a model that can be used to estimate risk and allow for risk-based decision making. For a project of this size, a risk-based approach would probably be advantageous to the owner and other parties involved with the underground construction activities.


4.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Costs

Provided below are the estimated geotechnical engineering costs for the project:

� Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering. Typically, preliminary geotechnical engineering can be estimated to be on the order of 4 to 6 percent of the construction cost. This cost includes a preliminary-level of geotechnical investigation and the development of preliminary designs. For an approximate construction cost of $200 million for the earthwork portions of the project, this would amount to approximately $8 to $12 million.

� Final Geotechnical Engineering. Final geotechnical engineering is generally considered to be approximately 4 to 6 percent of the construction cost. This cost includes a final-level of geotechnical investigation and the development of final designs. For an approximate construction cost of $200 million for the earthwork portions of the project, this would amount to approximately $8 to $12 million.

� Construction Management and Engineering. Construction management and engineering is generally considered to be approximately 8 to 12 percent of the construction cost. This cost includes earthwork observation and testing, and geotechnical and geological consultation during the construction of the project. For an approximate construction cost of $200 million for the earthwork portions of the project, this would amount to approximately $16 to $24 million.


SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this feasibility-level investigation, there are no apparent geotechnical constraints to prevent the construction of the project. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative for the upper reservoirs is presented in Table 3-1. A summary of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each candidate powerhouse site is presented in Table 3-2.

5.2 RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY LEVEL SCOPE OF WORK

An example scope of work for geotechnical and hydrologic components of the LEAPS project during the preliminary engineering design phase is presented in Appendix D. In general, the scope of work includes the following:

� Development of Design Criteria.

� Investigation Work Plan for Environmental Clearance.

� Geotechnical Investigation. For informational purposes, this task would probably include:

1) Three to four borings at each reservoir site to obtain cores of the underlying weathered granite and granitic bedrock. Anticipated depth of borings would range to 100 feet.

2) Five to ten backhoe test pits within Morrell Canyon and Decker Canyon to investigate and obtain samples of the alluvium within the canyon and the weathered granite.

3) Three to four deep (approximately 1,000 feet) borings along each selected penstock alignment to obtain cores of the granitic rock that will be tunneled through, and to assess groundwater conditions.

4) In situ permeability testing in selected borings to measure water loss within the weathered granite and granitic bedrock.

5) Three to four borings at each powerhouse site to obtain samples of the overlying soils and cores of the underlying weathered granite and granitic bedrock. Anticipated depth of borings would be from about 350 to 400 feet.

6) Three to four borings along each tailrace tunnel alignment to obtain samples of the soils and lake deposits between the powerhouse sites and Lake Elsinore. Anticipated


depth of borings would range to about 140 feet. Samples of the soils and lake deposits would be collected for laboratory testing.

7) Trenching along alignment of the tailrace tunnel to investigate presences of active faulting.

8) Additional geophysical surveys lines at axis of dams, powerhouse locations, and alignment of tailrace tunnel.

9) Laboratory testing of samples of the alluvium, fan deposits, weathered granite, and granitic bedrock to determine engineering properties, such as in situ density, moisture, and shear strength; maximum density and optimum moisture content; remolded shear strength; and corrosivity.

� Borrow Source Evaluations.

� Fault Investigations.

� Hydrology and Hydraulic Studies.

� Technical Evaluations of Dam, Tunnels, Dikes, and Powerhouse.

� Evaluation of Alternatives and Development of Preliminary-Level Design for Alternatives.

� Development of Cost Estimates and Schedules, and Constructability Reviews.

� Development of Preliminary Engineering Design Report.

� Project Management and Meetings.

� Design Review Workshops.

� Design Review Meetings and Coordination with DSOD, FERC, and possibly other agencies.

� Engineering Support during Preparation of Environmental Documents and Permit Applications.

� Engineering Support for Architectural, Structural, Civil, and Mechanical Components.


SECTION 6: LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and professional opinions presented herein were developed by GENTERRA Consultants, Inc. for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and The Nevada Hydro Company in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. The data, conclusions and recommendations contained herein should be considered to relate only to the specific project and locations discussed herein.

GENTERRA is not responsible for any conclusions or recommendations that may be made by others, unless we have been given an opportunity to review such conclusions and recommendations and concur in writing. This report may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or other areas. If any changes are made in the project as outlined in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions and recommendations of this report are modified or approved in writing by GENTERRA.


SECTION 7: REFERENCES Berger, V.D. and Hart, M.W., Second Stage Geotechnical Evaluation, A 300-MW Advanced Pumped Storage Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, April 23, 1997.

California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report No. 96-08.

Engle, R., 1959, Geology of the Lake Elsinore Quadrangle, California, California Division of Mines, Bulletin 146.

GENTERRA, 2003, Conceptual-Level Hydrology Report, prepared by GENTERRA Consultants, Inc., Irvine, CA, August 2003

Greenwood, R. B., 1992, Geologic Map of the Alberhill 7.5. Minute Quadrangle, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 92-10.

Hart, E. W., and Bryant, M, 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42.

Initial Stage Consultation Document, Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project Number 11858; April 2001; prepared by The Nevada Hydro Company.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), April 1997, 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Whittier, California.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, Uniform Building Code.

Jennings, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, CDMG.

Morton, D. M, 1999, Open-File Report, OF 99-0172, Preliminary digital geologic map of the Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Southern California, version 1.0.

Morton, D. M., and Weber, F, H, 1991, Geologic Amp of the Lake Elsinore 7.5. Minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, California USGS Open File Report 90-700.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2001a, Historical Earthquake Information Databases, National Earthquake Information Center, http://www.neic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic.html.

USGS, 2001b, Peak Ground Acceleration Database, 10 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years, http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/data.shtml.

Weber, F. H., 1977 Seismic Hazards Related to the Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 77-4.


Wells, D.L., and Coppersmith, K.J., 1994, New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, no. 4, p. 974-1002.


SECTION 8: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGI – Advanced Geoscience, Inc.

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CNF – Cleveland National Forest

CY – Cubic Yard

DSOD – Division of Safety of Dams

EVMWD – Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FT - Feet

GENTERRA – GENTERRA Consultants, Inc.

ISCD – Initial Stage Consultation Document

LEAPS – Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project

LF – Linear Foot

Nevada Hydro – The Nevada Hydro Company

RCC – Roller-Compacted Concrete

TBM – Tunnel Boring Machine

UBC – Uniform Building Code

USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS – United States Geologic Survey

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. FERC No. 11858 222C-EIS-LEAPS-TAbles

TABLE 2-1

LOCATIONS OF GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS

Survey Location

Starting Coordinate1

Ending Coordinate1

Range of Surface Elevation2

Morrell Canyon3

N 2,174,796.90 E 6,217,062.40

N 2,175,120.90 E 6,216,846.70 2,750.1 to 2,789.5

Ortega Oaks Site

N 2,182,660.92 E 6,218,680.67

N 2,183,558.10 E 6,218,630.50 1,379.6 to 1,441.33

Santa Rosa Site

N 2,181,637.40 E 6,222,340.20

N 2,180,497.00 E 6,221,285.30 1,326.3 to 1,461.6

Notes: 1. Coordinates based on State Plan, NAD 83, Region 6. 2. Elevations based on NAVD 1988. 3. Starting coordinate at Station 40; ending coordinate at Station 440 of profile line.

TABLE 2-2

EXPECTED VALUES OF FAULT RUPTURE LENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT

Earthquake Magnitude Rupture Length (km) Displacement (m)

6.0 7.8 0.14

6.5 18.2 0.46

7.0 42.5 1.51

7.5 100.0 4.95

Source: Berger, V.D. and Hart, M.W., Second Stage Geotechnical Evaluation, A 300-MW Advanced Pumped Storage Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, April 23, 1997.


TABLE 2-3

MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS

Fault Zone Name

Approximate Distance from

Upper Reservoir (miles)

Maximum Credible Earthquake Magnitude

Peak Bedrock Acceleration (g)

Elsinore (includes the Willard and Wildomar

Faults) 2 7.5 0.66

Murrieta Hot Springs 12 6.0 0.20

San Jacinto 21 7.5 0.28

Newport-Inglewood 25 7.0 0.20

San Andreas 30 7.75 0.23

Source: Berger, V.D. and Hart, M.W., Second Stage Geotechnical Evaluation, A 300-MW Advanced Pumped Storage Project, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, April 23, 1997.


TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF UPPER RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVES

UPPER RESERVOIR

ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Morrell Canyon – Alternative A.1

• Outside San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area.

• Natural shoreline.

• 3,100 ac-ft capacity if natural shoreline is desired.

• Morgan Trail is impacted. • Lion Spring is impacted. • Cannot feasibly line reservoir. • Access problems near San

Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area.

• Unknown cut & fill balance.


• Lion Spring is not impacted. • Minor Visual Impact from Killen

Trail. • May have security benefits. • Balance of cut & fill.

• San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area may be impacted.

• Morgan Trail is impacted.


• Outside San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area.

• Morgan Trail not impacted. • Large water surface area. • Balance of cut & fill.

• Lion Spring is impacted. • Visual impact from Killen

Trail.

Decker Canyon – Alternative B.1

• Natural shoreline. • Difficult to line reservoir to minimize seepage.

• Large and expensive dam required.

• Unknown cut & fill balance.

Decker Canyon – Alternative B.2

• Higher Water Surface Elevation than Alt. B.1

• Large water surface area. • Balance of cut & fill. • Less downstream footprint than

Alt. B.1

• Possible realignment of Killen Trail.

• Visual impact from Killen Trail


TABLE 3-2

SUMMARY OF POWERHOUSE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES

COMPARATIVE DISADVANTAGES

Santa Rosa Site

• Powerhouse excavation mostly in bedrock

• Highest ground elevation for powerhouse site

• Deepest powerhouse excavation

• Long penstock tunnel from Decker Canyon

Evergreen Site

• Lowest ground elevation for powerhouse site

• Most shallow powerhouse excavation

• Powerhouse excavation entirely in bedrock

• Short penstock tunnel from Morrell Canyon

• Shortest tailrace tunnel

• Long penstock tunnel from Decker Canyon

• Longest steel-lined penstock tunnel from Morrell Canyon or Decker Canyon

Ortega Oaks Site

• Short penstock tunnel from Decker Canyon

• Shortest steel-lined penstock tunnel from Morrell Canyon or Decker Canyon

• Significant depth to bedrock • Powerhouse excavation

within soil and bedrock • Longest penstock tunnel

from Morrell Canyon • Longest tailrace tunnel


TABLE 4-1

FILL QUANTITIES FOR UPPER RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVES

Upper Reservoir Site Alternative Fill Volume (million CY

A.1 3.0 A.2 2.5 Morrell Canyon A.3 2.5 B.1 5.0 Decker Canyon B.2 3.0

TABLE 4-2

LENGTHS OF SHAFTS AND TUNNELS FOR PENSTOCK ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Vertical

Shaft Length (LF)

Concrete-Lined

Horizon. Tunnel (LF)

Concrete-Lined Inclined Tunnel (LF)

Steel-Lined Tunnel

(LF)

H.1 1,400 5,100 N/A 2,500

H.2 50 2,150 3,250 2,500 Morrell Canyon to Santa Rosa

Site H.3 N/A 1,970 3,420 2,500

H.1 1,405 4,320 N/A 3,040

H.2 50 1,370 3,250 3,040 Morrell Canyon to Evergreen Site

H.3 N/A 1,180 3,450 3,040

H.1 1,400 6,710 N/A 2,180

H.2 50 3,910 3,100 2,180 Morrell Canyon to Ortega Oaks

Site H.3 N/A 3,210 3,400 2,180

H.1 1,390 4,520 N/A 2,180

H.2 50 1,720 3,100 2,180 Decker Canyon to Ortega Oaks

Site H.3 N/A 1,020 3,400 2,180

H.1 1,390 6,400 N/A 2,500

H.2 50 3,450 3,250 2,500 Decker Canyon to Santa Rosa

Site H.3 N/A 3,270 3,420 2,500

H.1 1,390 6,410 N/A 3,040

H.2 50 3,460 3,250 3,040 Decker Canyon to Evergreen Site

H.3 N/A 3,270 3,450 3,040


TABLE 4-3

EXCAVATION QUANTITIES FOR PENSTOCK ALTERNATIVES

(ASSUMED 16-FT INSIDE DIAMETER)

Alternative Vertical Shaft (CY)

Concrete-Lined

Tunnel (CY)

Concrete-Lined

Inclined Tunnel (CY)

Steel-Lined Tunnel (CY)

H.1 12,190 44,400 0 21,760

H.2 440 18,720 28,300 21,760 Morrell Canyon to Santa Rosa

Site H.3 0 17,150 29,780 21,760

H.1 12,230 37,610 0 26,470

H.2 440 11,930 28,300 26,470 Morrell Canyon

to Evergreen Site

H.3 0 10,270 30,040 26,470

H.1 12,190 58,420 0 18,980

H.2 440 34,040 26,990 18,980 Morrell Canyon to Ortega Oaks

Site H.3 0 27,950 29,600 18,980

H.1 12,100 39,350 0 18,980

H.2 440 14,970 26,990 18,980 Decker Canyon to Ortega Oaks

Site H.3 0 8,880 29,600 18,980

H.1 12,100 55,720 0 21,770

H.2 440 30,040 28,300 21,770 Decker Canyon to Santa Rosa

Site H.3 0 28,470 29,780 21,770

H.1 12,100 55,800 0 26,470

H.2 440 30,120 28,290 26,470 Decker Canyon

to Evergreen Site H.3 0 28,470 29,770 26,470


TABLE 4-4

QUANTITIES FOR POWERHOUSE EXCAVATION SHAFT-TYPE POWERHOUSE

Candidate Site Estimated Depth of Excavation (FT)

Estimated Quantity of Excavation (CY)

Santa Rosa Site 340 450,000

Evergreen Site 290 390,000

Ortega Oaks Site 320 430,000

TABLE 4-5

QUANTITIES FOR TAILRACE TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES (ASSUMED 22-FT INSIDE DIAMETER)

Alternative Length of Tunnel (LF)

Tunnel Volume (CY)

From Santa Rosa Site 1,950 35,500

From Evergreen Site 1,770 32,200

From Ortega Oaks Site 2,600 47,300

Figure

1-1Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage

Project (LEAPS)FERC NO. 11858

Source: Mapquest, 2003

SITE LOCATION MAP

Site

Figure

1-2SITE PLANLake Elsinore Advanced Pump

Storage Project (LEAPS)FERC NO. 11858

Source: United States Geological Survey

MORRELL CANYON

RESERVOIR

CANDIDATE PENSTOCKS

CANDIDATE POWERHOUSE

DECKER CANYON

RESERVOIR

CANDIDATE UPPER RESERVOIRS

ORTEGA O

AKS

EVERGREEN

SANTA

ROSA

CANDIDATE TAILRACE TUNNEL

Figure

2-1GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

LOCATIONS

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage Project (LEAPS)

FERC No. 11858Source: United States Geological Survey

SANTA ROSA SITE

MORRELL CANYON SITE

ORTEGA OAKS SITE

Figure

2-2PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAPLake Elsinore Advanced Pump


Base Map Source: United States Geological Survey

MORRELL CANYON

RESERVOIR

DECKER CANYON

RESERVOIR

ORTEGA

EVERGREEN

SANTA ROSA

WILDOMAR FAULT

WILLARD FAULT

INTRUSIVE DIKE

QswQal

KgKg

Kg

KgKg

Kg

Qaf

Qaf

Ql

Kg

ACTIVE OR POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULT

GEOLOGIC CONTACT

EXPLANATION

Ql LAKE SEDIMENT

Qal ALLUVIUM

Qaf OLDER ALLUVIUM FAN DEPOSITS

Kg GRANTIC ROCK

Qsw SLOPE WASH

Qaf

LEGEND

Figure

3-1Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped


CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF MORRELL CANYON UPPER RESERVOIR

Base Topography: United States Geological Survey40 ft. minor contours.200 ft major contours.

Scale: 1 inch = 600 feet

MORRELL CANYON ALTERNATIVE A.1

EMERGENCYSPILLWAY

PENSTOCKMORNING GLORY INLETEL. 2760 FT.

200-FT-HIGH DAM

WATER SURFACEEL. 2880 FT.

DAM CRESTEL. 2900 FT.

PERIMETER DIKE

SAN MATEO CANYON WILDERNESS BOUNDARY

Figure



CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF MORRELL CANYON UPPER RESERVOIR




PENSTOCK

MORNING GLORY INLETEL. 2740 FT.

EMERGENCYSPILLWAY

220-FT-HIGH DAMDAM CRESTEL. 2900 FT.

PERIMETER DIKE

PATROL ROAD


Figure



CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF MORRELL CANYON UPPER

RESERVOIR




EMERGENCYSPILLWAY

PENSTOCK


180-FT-HIGH DAM



PERIMETER DIKE

PATROL ROAD

Figure



CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF DECKER CANYON

UPPER RESERVOIR



DECKER CANYON ALTERNATIVE B.1

EMERGENCYSPILLWAY

PENSTOCK


280-FT-HIGH DAM



Figure





CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF DECKER CANYON UPPER

RESERVOIR


EMERGENCYSPILLWAY

PENSTOCK


240-FT-HIGH DAM





DECKER CANYON ALTERNATIVE B.2 - Option

EMERGENCYSPILLWAY

PENSTOCK


ROAD RELOCATION

240-FT-HIGH DAM



Figure





CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF DECKER CANYON UPPER

RESERVOIR


APPENDIX A

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIRM AND RESUMES OF THE KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL

GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GENTERRA is a recognized specialist in dams and reservoirs in southern California. A majority of the firm’s workload is related only to dams and reservoirs. The firm has specialized capabilities provided by a team of professionals with high levels of technical and management expertise and experience in areas of:

C Civil engineering C Geotechnical engineering C Geology C Engineering geology C Hydrogeology C Water resources engineering C Environmental engineering C Hydrology C Seismology C Earthquake engineering

As presented in Table A-1, GENTERRA has provided consulting engineering services on more than 50 dams and reservoirs, most of them located in southern California. The services included siting studies, feasibility studies, evaluation of stability and overall safety, design and development of plans and specifications, construction observation and consultation, design and installation of instrumentation, coordination with the State of California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) and other regulatory agencies, risk assessments and other consultation. GENTERRA fully understands the requirements of current dam design practices, FERC, and the DSOD, and integrates those requirements into our projects. GENTERRA’s ranges of services include:

C Planning, feasibility and preliminary design studies. C Review of alternative sites and site selection. C Field and laboratory investigations. C Identification and evaluation of site and borrow materials. C Seismologic and geologic studies. C Static and seismic stability analyses for natural, cut and fill slopes. C Design of earth, rockfill, and roller compacted concrete dams. C Settlement analyses for dams and appurtenant facilities. C Preliminary and final geotechnical design recommendations. C Hydrologic and hydraulic studies, water resources, and flood control. C Geotechnical quality assurance and quality control during construction. C Instrumentation design, installation and monitoring. C Static and seismic stability evaluation of existing dams and appurtenant facilities. C Risk assessments, dam failure inundation studies, and flood inundation maps. C Interaction and coordination with regulatory agencies.

For this project, GENTERRA formed a qualified team of professionals with experience in feasibility and siting studies, preliminary design, final design, and construction of water facilities in southern California. Resumes for the key project personnel are included in this Appendix. These key personnel were assigned for the duration of the project.

GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. EE NN GG II NN EE EE RR II NN GG AA NN DD EE NN VV II RR OO NN MM EE NN TT AA LL SS EE RR VV II CC EE SS

DAMS AND RESERVOIRS EXPERIENCE BY FIRM SINCE 1997

Facility Location Type Height or Capacity Owner

Arizona Dam Eastern Arizona Earth Fill TBD Confidential

Arrowhead Springs Arrowhead, CA Earth Fill 20 ft Campus Crusade for Christ

Ben Haggett Reservoir Torrance, CA Buried, Concrete 18 MG City of Torrance

Big Dalton Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 153 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Big Dalton Debris Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 59 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Big Tujunga Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 208 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Bourne Lake Dam Failure Lake Tahoe Area Earth Fill 30 ft Confidential

Bull Creek Ret. Basin Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 42 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Butte Canyon Dam, Site 1 Butte County, CA Earth Fill Est. 100 ft Confidential

Butte Canyon Dam, Site 2 Butte County, CA Earth Fill Est. 100 ft Confidential

Cogswell Dam Los Angeles Co. Rockfill 266 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Dam Near Ukiah, CA Ukiah, CA Earth Fill <50 ft Confidential

Devil's Gate Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 103 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Dove Canyon Dam Orange Co., CA Earth Fill 88 ft Dove Canyon Master Assoc.

Eaton Wash Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 63 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

El Toro Dam and Reservoir Mission Viejo, CA Earth Fill 106 ft El Toro Water District

Gavilan Hills - Smith Road Debris Dam Riverside Co., CA Earth Fill 30 ft Riverside Co. FC & WC District

Grizzly Ice Pond Dam Portola, CA Concrete Gravity 35 ft Walton Grizzly Lodge

Laguna Lake Dam Fullerton, CA Earth Fill 20 ft City of Fullerton

Laguna Regulating Basin Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 43 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public

Works

Lake Curry Dam Vallejo, CA Earth Fill 107 ft City of Vallejo

Little Dalton Debris Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 71 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Live Oak Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 76 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Magalia Dam Paradise, CA Hydraulic Fill 103 ft Paradise Irrigation District

Morris Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Gravity 66 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Pacoima Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 365 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Palisades Dam and Reservoir San Clemente, CA Earth Fill 146 ft South Coast Water District

Paradise Dam Paradise, CA Earth Fill 175 ft Paradise Irrigation District

DamExperience Page 1 of 2

GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC. EE NN GG II NN EE EE RR II NN GG AA NN DD EE NN VV II RR OO NN MM EE NN TT AA LL SS EE RR VV II CC EE SS

DAMS AND RESERVOIRS EXPERIENCE BY FIRM SINCE 1997 (Cont.)

Facility Location Type Height or

Capacity Owner

Portola Dam Coto de Caza, CA Earth Fill 53 ft Santa Margarita Water District

Potrero Dam Westlake Village, CA Concrete 30 ft Westlake Lake Mngmt. Assoc.

Puddingstone Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 147 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Puddingstone Diversion Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 34 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public

Works

Rattlesnake Canyon Dam Orange Co., CA Earth Fill 79 ft Irvine Ranch Water District

Rossmoor No. 1 Reservoir Laguna Hills, CA Earth Fill 36 ft El Toro Water District

Sand Canyon Dam Irvine, CA Earth Fill 58 ft Irvine Ranch Water District

San Joaquin Dam Newport Beach, CA Earth & Rockfill 224 ft Irvine Ranch Water District

San Dimas Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 131 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

San Gabriel Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth & Rockfill 320 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Santa Anita Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 225 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Santa Anita Debris Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 56 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Santiago Creek Dam Orange Co., CA Earth Fill 136 ft Serrano Water District

Sawpit Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 150 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Sawpit Debris Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 82 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Schlegel Reservoir San Clemente, CA Buried, Concrete 12 MG South Coast Water District

Schoolhouse Debris Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 38 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Sierra Madre Dam Los Angeles Co. Concrete Arch 69 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Thompson Creek Dam Los Angeles Co. Earthfill 66 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

Upper Oso Dam Mission Viejo, CA Earth Fill 142 ft Santa Margarita Water District

Veeh Dam Laguna Hills, CA Earth Fill 37 ft Lake Hills Community Church

Walteria Reservoir Torrance, CA Buried, Concrete 10 MG City of Torrance

Wilson Debris Dam Los Angeles Co. Earth Fill 50 ft Los Angeles County, Dept. Public Works

DamExperience Page 2 of 2

Joseph J. Kulikowski, PE, GE President/Principal Engineer

EDUCATION B. S. Civil Engineering, University of Connecticut, 1962 Graduate Studies, Civil Engineering, California State University at Long Beach, 1968-70 and

Management, Pepperdine University, 1983-84 Management Certificate, UCLA Graduate School of Management, Executive Program, 1985

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Civil Engineer, California, #C17478 Geotechnical Engineer, California, #491 Civil Engineer, Nevada, #7076 Civil Engineer, Arizona, #18763 Professional Engineer, Colorado, #19994 Professional Engineer, Wyoming, #4076 Professional Engineer, Utah, #7306

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY • GENTERRA Consultants, Inc.; President and Principal Engineer (1995-present); 15375 Barranca

Pkwy., Suite K-102, Irvine, California, 92618 [Phone 949-753-8766]; Sacramento, California [Phone 916-920-8707]; Las Vegas, Nevada [Phone 702-222-4050] and Phoenix, Arizona [Phone 602-953-7677]

• Bing Yen & Associates, Inc.; Vice President; Irvine, California (1993-95) • Leighton & Associates, Inc.; Senior Vice President/Managing Principal; Corporate Vice

President of Engineering/Director of Environmental Services; Irvine, California (1988 - 93) • The Earth Technology Corporation (EarthTech); Associate and Director of Geotechnical

Services; Long Beach and Laguna Hills, California and Phoenix, Arizona (1981-87) • Wahler Associates; Vice President/Principal Associate; Newport Beach, California (1971-81). • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Senior Sanitary Engineer; White

Plains, New York (1970-71) • California Department of Water Resources; Division of Safety of Dams; Associate Engineer

and Assistant Engineer; Sacramento, Los Angeles and Orange County, California (1964-70); Junior Civil Engineer; Division of Resources Planning; Sacramento, California (1962-63)

• Aerojet General Corp., Test Engineer-Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines; Nimbus, CA (1963) REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Kulikowski has over 40 years of progressively responsible engineering and management experience in civil, geotechnical and environmental engineering programs and projects. He has worked successfully for and with State regulatory agencies, industry and consulting engineering firms, and has extensive, specialized experience in public works, water resources, water and wastewater facilities, transportation facilities, commercial and industrial sites, residential land development, environmental and hazardous waste studies, and solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. He has project and management expertise related to dams and reservoirs; water and sewage treatment plants; mine and mill waste tailings dams and embankments; pipelines; canals;

P a g e 1 o f 7 G E N T E R R A C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c .

J o s e p h J . K u l i k o w s k i , P E , G E

utilities; tunnels; foundations for structures and buildings; hazardous waste site assessment and remediation; landfills; land development; roads; transportation facilities; ports and harbors; large research facilities; power plants; radioactive waste disposal facilities; landslides and other hazards. Mr. Kulikowski’s responsibilities included regional and office management, consultation, project management, project engineering and review for civil, geotechnical, geologic, hydrologic, geohydrologic and environmental support for planning, design, site characterization, site evaluation, field and office evaluation, design, construction, operations and regulatory review. Mr. Kulikowski has performed dam safety evaluations, reviews and implementation of dam safety monitoring and surveillance programs on more than 300 dams, of which more than 200 are in California and under the jurisdiction of the DSOD. He was Project Manager for several major projects involving the inspection and assessment of numerous dams and reservoirs under one contract, including the special inspection and evaluation of 59 Flood Control and Debris Dams for the County of Los Angeles Flood Control District, the Dam Safety Survey Program for 24 dams owned by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 50 waste deposits in the eastern U.S, and more than 150 dams in the State of California while a field engineer for the State DSOD. He was also Project Manager/Project Engineer for the geotechnical investigations and geotechnical aspects of the planning and design of over 30 major new dam and earthwork projects. The projects involved field and laboratory investigations, site appraisals, material evaluations, project feasibility studies, conceptual through final design, cost estimates, and schedules for new dams, foundations, site development and earthwork.

Mr. Kulikowski has been the Principal-In-Charge and/or Project Manager for all of GENTERRA’s projects, including those involving more than 50 dams and reservoirs, third-party review for major land development projects, as well as hydrologic and environmental studies and evaluations of buildings for damage. The projects have included geotechnical investigations, engineering analyses, reports, design recommendations, preparation of plans and specifications, construction consultation, evaluation of existing facilities, performance review and interaction with owners, other consultants, and regulatory agencies. Mr. Kulikowski's other project experience includes transportation, pipeline, tunnel and corridor projects; landfills; residential and commercial site development; hazardous waste and environmental studies; and many other types of projects on which he was Project Engineer, Project Manager, Project Director, and Principal Reviewer. These projects include the Los Angeles Metro Rail project, the Superconducting Super Collider project, the Orange County Transportation Corridors; environmental site assessments for many projects; large land development projects and other types of facilities. Mr. Kulikowski has provided input for the geotechnical, hydrologic and hazardous waste aspects of planning and environmental impact reports for a variety of projects. He has conducted site investigations and preliminary design of covers, liners and drainage systems for waste disposal sites, and prepared geotechnical designs for tailings dams, impermeable dikes, walls, liners, surface impoundments and both surface and subsurface drainage components for waste disposal facilities. He has reviewed plans and reports for several landfills in southern California, and was co-author of the permit applicant’s guidance document for the EPA dealing with landfills, waste piles and impoundments, which included geotechnical design requirements for liners and covers.



REPRESENTATIVE DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECTS Dams and Reservoirs in California (1970-2003) Principal Engineer, Project Manager and Project Engineer for the evaluation, geotechnical investigation and stability analyses of more than 300 dams in California, the design and construction of more than 20 new or enlarged dams and reservoirs, all under the jurisdiction of the California DSOD. El Toro Dam and Reservoir, Mission Viejo, California. GENTERRA Client: El Toro Water District (1998 – 2002) Project Manager and Principal Engineer for GENTERRA for the site investigation, design and construction of the enlargement of the 100-foot-high El Toro Dam and Reservoir for the El Toro Water District in Orange County, CA. The project includes a geotechnical investigation, seismic hazards analysis, stability analyses of the dam and reservoir under static and seismic loading conditions, analyses of safe reservoir drawdown rates, installation of new piezometers and coordination of review with the DSOD. Geotechnical Investigation and Design Recommendations, Gavilan Hills – Smith Road Channel and Debris Basin, Riverside Co., California. GENTERRA Client: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2002) Principal-In-Charge for the geotechnical investigation and recommendations for the Gavilan Hills – Smith Road Channel and Debris Basin in Riverside County, California. The project included construction a debris basin with a 30-foot high embankment and a 3000 ft long concrete channel as part of a flood-prevention and water quality improvement project. The embankment is protected from erosion using soil-cement on the upstream and downstream faces. Stability of Upper Oso Dam, Mission Viejo, California. GENTERRA Client: Santa Margarita Water District (1998-2000) Project Manager for the geotechnical investigation, design and construction consultation for the Upper Oso Dam in Orange County, California, with a height of 142 feet and a foundation cutoff excavation depth of 135 feet, for the Santa Margarita Water District. The site and laboratory investigation for this 4800-acre-feet reclaimed water reservoir included a geologic and site exploration, laboratory testing of foundation materials, and location and testing of borrow materials. Static and dynamic stability analyses were performed as part of the design of the dam, and appropriate plans and specifications were prepared for the dam. Magalia Skyway Enlargement Project, Magalia Dam. GENTERRA Client: Paradise Irrigation District (2000 to Present) Principal Engineer for the Magalia Dam Skyway enlargement project. Analyses indicated that the dam embankment may be unstable under severe earthquake loading conditions. By using the results of a FLAC analysis to determine potential seismic deformations, and two-dimensional static and pseudo-static stability analyses, GENTERRA evaluated preliminary alternatives for widening the crest of the dam. The alternatives included remediation of the dam embankment to achieve acceptable seismic deformations. GENTERRA prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Findings report presenting the results of our analyses, which is currently being reviewed by the dam owner and the County of Butte. P a g e 3 o f 7 G E N T E R R A C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c .


Stability Analyses, Palisades Dam and Reservoir, San Clemente, California GENTERRA Client: South Coast Water District (1997 t0 2001) Project Manager/Principal Engineer for GENTERRA for the geotechnical investigation, seismic hazards analysis, stability analyses and dam safety program for Palisades Dam and Reservoir in San Clemente, California. This is an earthfill dam with a height of approximately 146 feet. Dam Safety Programs for Irvine Ranch Water District Dams; GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District (1999-present) Principal-In-Charge for the dam safety surveillance programs at Rattlesnake Canyon Dam and Sand Canyon Dam for the Irvine Ranch Water District, and for the dam safety surveillance program at Santiago Creek Dam for the Irvine Ranch Water District and the Serrano Water District. The work included coordination with the State DSOD for outlet tower modifications at Santiago Creek Dam. Stability of Right Abutment, Rattlesnake Canyon Dam, Irvine, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District (1999-present) Project Manager and Principal Engineer for GENTERRA during the design and construction of a stability berm and drainage improvements at Rattlesnake Canyon Dam for the Irvine Ranch Water District in Orange County, California. Work included preparation of design plans, specifications, a Work Plan and an Application for Approval with the DSOD. San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport Beach, California; for Irvine Ranch Water District and Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (2000 to present) Project Manager for GENTERRA while providing geotechnical services to place existing 2,500 acre-feet reservoir back into operation. GENTERRA engineers and geologists performed a geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, and assisted in preparation of the Preliminary Design Report. Geotechnical improvements included installation of impermeable geomembrane, and the installation of monitoring wells. Confidential Project, Lake Tahoe, Nevada. GENTERRA Client: Confidential (1999-2002) Principal Engineer for the review and evaluation of the geotechnical and hydraulic issues related to the design and construction of a dam and spillway in the area of Lake Tahoe, Nevada for a legal firm and insurance company representing a contractor. Engineer with California Division of Safety of Dams (1964 to 1970) Review and analysis of plans and specifications for earthfill dams and appurtenant structures, the coordination of the compilation of results of special evaluations of over 1,100 dams in California, and the inspection, evaluation and monitoring of more than 100 dams and reservoirs, while employed by the California Division of Safety of Dams, including the construction, enlargement, repair, alteration and maintenance of dams, reservoirs and appurtenant structures PIPELINES AND TUNNELS Hollywood Water Quality Improvement Project, Los Angeles, California. GENTERRA Client: City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (1998-2000) Consultant for peer review of constructibility, design and environmental mitigation for earth and water resources issues related to the Hollywood Water Quality Improvement Project in Los Angeles, California, as part of the Jacobs Associates and Higman-Doelhe team under contract to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The project includes two tunnels up to six feet in diameter and up to one mile in length, two large (30 million gallons each)



underground water storage tanks, a microfiltration plant and associated pipelines, access roads and other facilities. Diemer Intertie Pipeline Project (1978-79) Project Manager for the geotechnical investigation and design studies for the Diemer Intertie Pipeline project for the Municipal Water District of Orange County, a 12-mile long, 120-inch diameter pipeline that includes structures, river crossings, and tunneling. Los Angeles Metro Rail Project (1985-87) Project Manager for the geotechnical and hazardous materials investigation for a proposed segment of the Los Angeles Metro Rail project near Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, which included tunnels and pipelines. Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Project (1985-87) Project Director for the geotechnical and environmental services for preliminary design studies and site selection for the Department of Energy's Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project, which included a 52-mile long large-diameter tunnel and associated facilities. Metro Rail Red Line Project (1993-1995) Deputy Project Manager for the environmental engineering services (EnviroRail Joint Venture) contract for the Los Angeles Metro Rail Red Line project, Mid-Cities Segment with Western and Eastern Extensions for the Rail Construction Corporation (RCC) of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA). LANDFILLS, COVERS AND LINERS Principal-In-Charge for geotechnical field studies and engineering analyses for liner design at the Highgrove Landfill in Riverside County, California (1985) Principal In Charge for identification of suitable cover materials and evaluation of permeability of alternative cover designs for the Coyote Canyon Landfill in Orange County, California for the County Integrated Waste Management Department (1984-1986) Principal Reviewer for design of evaporation pond liners at the Ocotillo Power Plant for Arizona Public Service as part of a RCRA Permit Application(1984) Principal In Charge for development of geotechnical design recommendations for the liner at waste evaporation ponds for the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona, and for geotechnical observation and laboratory testing services during construction ( 1983-85) Co-author of permit applicant’s guidance document for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to landfills, waste piles and impoundments, including geotechnical design requirements for liners and covers (1984) Consultant for geotechnical and hydrologic issues during review and preparation of environmental documentation for a proposed solid waste landfill in north San Diego County, CA; represented Local Enforcement Agency of the County Department of Environmental Health (1995-96) Consultant for conceptual design and cost estimate for closure of an industrial landfill in San Diego County for a confidential client (1995)



MINE WASTE AND TAILINGS DAM PROJECTS Engineering and management of programs and projects for mine waste, hazardous waste, sanitary landfills, and special studies for contamination and environmental studies for large sites and critical facilities; co-author for guidance documents for the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the Environmental Protection Agency (1973-84). Field evaluation of over 50 coal waste dumps and impoundments in the Appalachian Region of the eastern United States, and participation in the development of regulations, standards, criteria, and guidelines for mine waste disposal for the U.S. Bureau of Mines (1973). Project Manager for the investigation and design of three large phosphate tailings dams in Brazil, as well as conceptual design of two iron ore tailings dams (1976-78). Project Manager/Project Engineer for the investigation, final design and construction of a 75-foot high starter dam and a 420-foot high copper tailings dam in Bagdad, Arizona, and the investigation and conceptual design of a nearby 750-foot high copper tailings dam (1976). Project Manager/Project Engineer for the site and laboratory investigations, final design and preparation of plans and specifications for a large coal sludge impoundment dam and facilities at Hazard, Kentucky for River Processing, Inc. This was the first impoundment dam classified as high to be approved by the State and Federal agencies under new regulations (1979-81). Project Manager for the geotechnical investigation and preliminary design of an earth filled dam and evaluation of an existing soda ash tailings impoundment in Granger, Wyoming for Texasgulf Chemicals Company (1981-82). HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Project Manager for the geotechnical and hazardous materials investigation for a proposed segment of the Los Angeles Metro Rail project at a town gas site near Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, including tunnels and pipelines (1985-87). Principal-In-Charge for the remedial investigation and monitoring at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento for the U.S. Air Force (1989-90). Principal-In-Charge for the remediation of soils contaminated with jet fuels at McCarren Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada (1989-90). Project Manager for the environmental assessment and groundwater investigation for a Superfund Site in Riverside, California (1989-91). Principal-In-Charge for hazardous waste site assessments for over 30 projects in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties, California (1989-Present). Principal-In-Charge for the environmental site assessment for the proposed 28-mile Alameda Corridor for the Port of Long Beach (1993). Principal Reviewer for the Phase II investigation and remediation of several large sites in Los Angeles and Orange Counties for sites with contaminated soil and groundwater, including



facilities for electronics manufacturers, aerospace industries and municipal clients (1991 - 2001). Deputy Project Manager for the environmental engineering services (EnviroRail Joint Venture) contract for the Los Angeles Metro Rail Red Line project, Mid-City Segment for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) (1993-1995). Project Manager and Principal-In-Charge for geotechnical observation and testing of backfill in a large excavation formed during building demolition and remediation of contaminated soil at an aerospace facility in Hawthorne, CA (1995-96) Principal-In-Charge for environmental site assessment and remediation of a portion of a business park with soils contaminated by chlorinated solvents in San Diego, CA (1996) Principal-In-Charge for environmental site assessment of a medical building in Escondido, CA in which patients and staff were experiencing respiratory problems reportedly related to indoor air quality (1995-96). Consultant for geotechnical and hydrologic issues during review and preparation of environmental documentation for the proposed Gregory Canyon solid waste landfill in north San Diego County, CA; represented Local Enforcement Agency of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (1995-96) Consultant for peer review of constructibility, design and environmental mitigation for earth and water resources issues related to the Hollywood Water Quality Improvement Project in Los Angeles, California, as part of the Jacobs Associates and Higman-Doelhe team under contract to the City of Los Angels Department of Water and Power. The project includes two tunnels up to six feet in diameter and up to one mile in length, two large (30 million gallons each) underground water storage tanks, a microfiltration plant and associated pipelines, construction access roads and other facilities (1997 to 2001). Project Director for the geotechnical and environmental services for preliminary design studies and site selection for the Department of Energy's Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project, which included a 52-mile long large-diameter tunnel and associated facilities (1985-87). PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

• ASCE-American Society of Civil Engineers (Fellow) • CELSOC – Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California • ACEC Nevada – American Council of Engineering Companies in Nevada • ACEC Arizona - American Council of Engineering Companies in Arizona • USSD-United States Society on Dams (Subcommittee- Dam Construction) • ASDSO-Association of State Dam Safety Officials • AWWA - American Water Works Association • ACWA - Association of California Water Agencies • OCWA- Orange County Water Association



Ralph W. Rabus, PE, GE Vice President/Principal Engineer

EDUCATION M.S. Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1976 B.S. Geo-Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1971

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION California Geotechnical Engineer #2222 California Civil Engineer #44466 Colorado Professional Engineer #18773

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Rabus has over 25 years of experience of professional engineering experience in civil and geotechnical engineering practice. He has worked on more than 25 dams and reservoirs for water districts and authorities. His project experience includes the design and inspection of dams, reservoirs and other water resource facilities, preliminary geotechnical investigation and review of grading plans for residential and commercial developments, third-party review of geotechnical reports, and geotechnical investigation and design for dams and transportation facilities. He is very knowledgeable with current state-of-the-practice criteria for the preparation of geotechnical reports. He has extensive experience in field investigations, laboratory testing, slope stability analyses, and the design of embankment dams, liners, hydraulic structures and slope stabilization measures (including buttresses, retaining walls, and geogrid reinforced slopes). He has performed design/installation of monitoring instrumentation. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Geotechnical Investigation and Design Recommendations, Gavilan Hills – Smith Road Channel and Debris Basin, Riverside Co., California. GENTERRA Client: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Project Manager for the geotechnical investigation and recommendations for the Gavilan Hills – Smith Road Channel and Debris Basin in Riverside County, California. The project included construction a debris basin with a 30-foot high embankment and a 3000 ft long concrete channel as part of a flood-prevention and water quality improvement project. The embankment is protected from erosion using soil-cement on the upstream and downstream faces. Mr. Rabus was responsible for coordination of the work which included a geologic hazards review, field investigation, laboratory testing, and formulation of geotechnical recommendations. El Toro Dam and Reservoir Enlargement, Mission Viejo, California. GENTERRA Client: El Toro Water District Project Engineer for the site investigation, design and construction of the enlargement of the 100-foot-high El Toro Dam and Reservoir for the El Toro Water District in Orange County, California. The project includes a geotechnical investigation, seismic hazards analysis, stability analyses of the dam and reservoir under static and seismic loading conditions, installation of new piezometers and coordination of review with the DSOD. San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport Beach, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District and Berryman & Henigar, Inc. Project Engineer for geotechnical services to place existing 2,500 acre-feet reservoir back into operation. Supervised geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses.

R a l p h W . R a b u s , P E , G E

Assisted in preparation of the Preliminary Design Report. Geotechnical improvements included installation of impermeable geomembrane, and the installation of monitoring wells. Stability of the Calle Aqua Slope, Palisades Dam, San Clemente, California. GENTERRA Client: South Coast Water District (1999) Project Engineer for evaluating the stability of the Calle Agua Slope. Performed investigation of stability of cut slope located adjacent to left abutment of existing dam. Study included borings, sampling of subsurface materials, installation of piezometers, laboratory testing, stability analyses, and report preparation. Work performed under review of California Division of Safety of Dams. Stability of Upper Oso Dam, Mission Viejo, California. GENTERRA Client: Santa Margarita Water District (1999-2000) Project Engineer for the study which included installation of piezometers upstream of dam core, sampling of subsurface materials, laboratory testing, and analysis of the stability of the dam under steady-state seepage, seismic, and rapid drawdown conditions. Work performed under review of California Division of Safety of Dams. Stability of Right Abutment, Rattlesnake Canyon Dam, Irvine, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District (1999-present) Project Engineer for the evaluation of the impact of high groundwater conditions on stability of right abutment of dam under steady-state seepage and seismic conditions. Responsible for the conceptual and final designs of remedial measures to improve stability. Annual Surveillance Program, Irvine, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District Project Manager for the annual surveillance program for the Sand Canyon and Rattlesnake Canyon dams. The work includes monthly evaluation of piezometer and seepage data for the dams. Site visits are performed twice a year to visually evaluate the dam safety. An annual report is prepared that summarizes the evaluation of the data and site visits and recommendations regarding future monitoring and safety of the dams. Annual Surveillance Program, Irvine, California. GENTERRA Client: South Coast Water District Project Manager for the annual surveillance program for the Palisades Dam. The work includes weekly evaluation of piezometer and seepage data for the dams. Site visits are performed twice a year to visually evaluate the dam safety. An annual report is prepared that summarizes the evaluation of the data and site visits and recommendations regarding future monitoring and safety of the dams. Magalia Surveillance Program, Magalia Dam. GENTERRA Client: Paradise Irrigation District Project Engineer for the annual dam safety monitoring program and for development of a work plan for feasibility studies for the possible enlargement of Paradise Dam and Reservoir and Magalia Dam and Reservoir for the Paradise Irrigation District in Northern California. The work plan was part of the District’s Grant Application for Local Projects to the California Department of Water Resources under the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act approved by Proposition 204. (1998-2000) Magalia Skyway Enlargement Project, Magalia Dam. GENTERRA Client: Paradise Irrigation District Project Engineer for the Magalia Dam Skyway enlargement project. Analyses indicated that the dam embankment may be unstable under severe earthquake loading conditions. By using the results of a FLAC analysis to determine potential seismic deformations, and two-dimensional static and pseudo-static stability analyses, GENTERRA evaluated preliminary alternatives for widening the crest of the dam. The alternatives included remediation of the dam embankment P a g e 2 o f 4 G E N T E R R A C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c .


to achieve acceptable seismic deformations. GENTERRA prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Findings report presenting the results of our analyses, which is currently being reviewed by the dam owner and the County of Butte. Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Reclaimed Water Storage Ponds. Client: Rancho California Water District (1993-1994) Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation for Reclaimed Water Storage Ponds, Rancho California Water District, Murrieta, California (1993 - 1994). Supervised investigation that included borings, sampling, percolation tests, laboratory testing, stability analyses, and preparation of report and earthwork specifications. Geotechnical Investigation, General Kearney Reservoir No. 2. Client: Rancho California Water District (1992) Geotechnical Investigation for General Kearney Reservoir No. 2, Rancho California Water District, Temecula, California (1992). Performed geotechnical investigation for a proposed 7.7-MG reservoir and pipeline alternatives. Geotechnical Investigation for Water System Improvements. Client: City of El Segundo (1992) Geotechnical Investigation for Water System Improvements; City of El Segundo, California (1992). Performed geotechnical investigation for pressure reducing station and valve vaults, which included borings, laboratory testing, determining lateral earth pressures, preparing report, and construction observation. Geotechnical Investigation, Dale Street Reservoir Pump Station. Client: Rancho California Water District (1992) Geotechnical Investigation for Date Street Reservoir, Pump Station, and Pipeline; Rancho California Water District, Murrieta, California (1992). Performed a geotechnical investigation for a 10-MG prestressed concrete reservoir, appurtenant pump station, and a 1-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter water main. Analyses included stability of a 72-foot-high cut slope and a 40-foot-high fill slope, determination of bearing capacity, and static and seismic design parameters for retaining walls. Prepared final report that included conclusions, recommendations, and earthwork specifications. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Orange County, California. Client: Transportation Corridor Agencies San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Transportation Corridor Agencies, Orange County, California (1992 - 1995). Performed final geotechnical design for a 15-mile-long tollway, which included 34 bridges and 33 concrete or reinforced earth retaining walls. Analyses included estimates of settlement for bridge abutments, stability of 28 major cut slopes (up to 90-feet high) and 28 major fill slopes (up to 31-feet high), and developing static and seismic lateral earth pressures for retaining walls. Prepared a Final Geotechnical/Materials Report for each of the nine design segments of the corridor. Eastern Transportation Corridor, Loma Ridge Section, Client: Transportation Corridor Agencies (1990-1993) Performed preliminary geotechnical investigation for 3.5-mile-long section of proposed tollway. Stability analyses were performed for 43 cut slopes (up to 300-feet high) and fill slopes (up to 220-feet high). Foundation criteria were developed for 4 major bridges. A Geotechnical/Materials Report was prepared.



Construction Monitoring, Aliso Viejo Planning Area 25, Client: Mission Viejo Company Responsible for supervising engineers and technicians involved in field observation and testing during grading of residential development. Approximately 12 million cubic yards of earthfill placed with depths of fill up to 120 feet. Guard Pond Dam, Colony Shale Oil Project, Colorado. Client: Supervised the design of an 88-foot-high rockfill dam with an impervious upstream membrane to contain oil-contaminated water. Supervised the geologic investigation, researched the use of synthetic membranes, and prepared the Design Basis Memorandum. Modification of Lower Dam, Ventura County. Client: Modification of Lower Dam, Ventura County, California. Project Manager involved in the safety evaluation of an existing 40-foot-high embankment dam located 6.5 miles from the San Andreas fault. Performed design of modifications to the dam to correct existing dam deficiencies. Modifications include adding a berm to the downstream slope of the dam, adding a drop spillway structure, and a low-level outlet. Project included preparation of design report, plans, and specifications for review by the California Division of Safety of Dams. SEED (Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams) Program. Client: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Project Manager involved in onsite examinations of embankment and concrete dams, the preparation and review of technical reports, the evaluation of the safety of dams, and the development of recommendations for future action. Personally evaluated the safety of 27 dams located throughout the western United States. Major dams included: New Melones Dam, California: 625-foot-high earth and rockfill dam; Elephant Butte Dam, New Mexico: 301-foot-high concrete gravity dam; Black Canyon Diversion Dam, Idaho: 183-foot-high concrete gravity dam; Stampede Dam, California: 239-foot-high earth and rockfill dam; Sugar Pine Dam, California: 205-foot-high earth and rockfill dam; and Nambe Falls Dam, New Mexico: 150-foot-high thin-arch dam.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers U.S. Society on Dams Association of State Dam Safety Officials Orange County Water Association

PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS Subcommittee of Dam Incidents and Accidents of the Committee on Dam Safety of the U.S. Committee on Large Dams. Lessons from Dam Incidents, USA-II, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 1988.



Donald H. Babbitt, PE, GE Principal Engineer

EDUCATION B.S. Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1957 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Civil Engineer, California (No. 13028) Registered Geotechnical Engineer, California (No.104)

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY Don Babbitt, currently a part time employee and Principal Engineer for GENTERRA Consultants, Inc., has 40+ years experience in dam design, dam safety, earthquake engineering, and water resources engineering. He was employed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for 40 years. He was one of the lead designers of the dams of the California State Water Project. His duties were subsequently expanded to include responsibility for DWR’s canal designs, including of the Peripheral Canal for the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. He was later assigned to the Division of Safety of Dams, where he became the chief of the two major branches of the organization. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Principal Engineer, GENTERRA Consultants, Inc. (1999-Present) Mr. Babbitt provides technical expertise for the design, construction, repair, alteration and evaluation of dams, appurtenant structures and other hydraulic structures. Examples of his assignments are: Independent Consulting Board for the Sites Reservoir Feasibility Study for the California

Department of Water Resources Review of plans and specifications to enlarge or rehabilitate dams Inspection, evaluation and recommendation of repairs for an old concrete dam Peer review of reports on evaluation of the performance of dams Review of the cause of failure of an embankment dam Expert witness in legal cases and insurance claims related to dams and reservoirs

Chief, Design Engineering Branch, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (1992-98) Mr. Babbitt was responsible for review of plans, specifications and reports for construction and modification of dams; reevaluation of existing dams for seismic stability, spillway adequacy and other safety concerns; and review of structural performance instrumentation data and reports. Projects included construction of Eastside Reservoir, Los Vaqueros Dam, and Seven Oaks Dam and the rehabilitation of Butt Valley, Lake Almanor, and Devils Gate Dams.

D o n a l d H . B a b b i t t , P E , G E

Chief, Field Engineering Branch, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (1985-92) Mr. Babbitt was responsible for maintenance inspections and safety evaluations of more than 1200 existing dams, as large as 770-foot high (Oroville Dam), and for inspections to confirm safe construction and modification of dams. Major construction projects included New Spicer Meadow and McKays Point Diversion Dams, and modification of Gibraltar Dam. Section Chief in Design Engineering Branch, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (1976-85) Mr. Babbitt supervised the review of plans, specifications and reports for construction and modification of dams; reevaluation of existing dams for seismic stability, spillway adequacy and other safety concerns. He also reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation’s investigation and repair of the San Luis Dam landslide in 1981-82. He was a member of the review panel for the Lower Quail Canal break in 1984. California Department of Water Resources, Chief, Dams and Canals Design Unit, Division of Design and Construction (1960-76) Mr. Babbitt was responsible for design of the proposed Peripheral Canal for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; completing the design of the embankments of Pyramid and Perris Dams; design of the embankments of Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay, Parish Camp and Bidwell Bar Saddle Dams (Oroville Reservoir) and Bethany Dams 1, 2, 3 and 4 and design of cross drainage, a pipeline reach and remedial construction for the California Aqueduct, including canal failures. His last position in that division was Chief of the Dams and Canals Design Unit. Military Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi - Civil Engineering Assistant (1958-60) Mr. Babbitt performed research and testing of pavement subgrades and strength of culverts. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Design and Construction, Sacramento, CA - Junior Civil Engineer (1957-58) Mr. Babbitt provided canal, pipeline, drainage and small structure design and reservoir operation studies for the State Water Project. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES American Society of Civil Engineers

- Chairman, Session on Slopes and Embankments, Earthquake Engineering/Soil Dynamics Specialty Conference, 1978

- President, Sacramento Section,1980 - Invited Lecturer, Geotechnical Practice in Dam Rehabilitation, 1993.

U.S. Society on Dams - Board of Directors 1997 – 2003 - Technical Activities Committee 1979-84 - Foundations Committee 1987-97 - Earthquakes Committee 1987-

National Research Council- Committee on Safety Criteria for Dams, 1984 Federal Emergency Management Agency

- Workshop on Dam Safety Research, 1985 - Workshop on Current Developments in Dam Safety Management, 1985

Building Seismic Safety Council (for FEMA) - Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines, 1986


D o n a l d H . B a b b i t t , P E , G E

AUTHOR OR CO-AUTHOR OF: "Dams, Embankments and Reservoirs", Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines, FEMA, 1987

“Improving Seismic Safety of Dams in California”, Geotechnical Practice in Dam

Rehabilitation, ASCE, 1993 "Foundation Treatment for Embankment Dams on Rock", Journal Soil Mechanics and

Foundations Division, ASCE, 1972 "California's Seismic Reevaluations of Embankment Dams", Seismic Design of Embankments

and Caverns, ASCE, 1983 Safety of Dams - Flood and Earthquake Criteria, National Research Council, 1985

United States General Papers for the International Congress on Large Dams, 1982 and 1985

Observed Performance of Dams During Earthquakes, USSD, 1992 and 2000

Guidelines for Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Structures Appurtenant to Dams,

USCOLD, 1995 “General Approach to Seismic Stability Analysis of Embankment Dam”, California

Department of Water Resources for the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 1996 Updated Guidelines for Selecting Seismic Parameters for Dam Projects, USCOLD, April 1999

“Emergency Drawdown Capability”, USCOLD Nineteenth Annual Meeting and Lecture, May

1999 Guidelines for Inspection of Dams Following Earthquakes, USSD, 2003

Guidelines on Design Features of Dams to Effectively Resist Seismic Ground Motion, USSD,

2003 Dam Modifications to Improve Performance During Strong Earthquakes, USSD, 2003



Warren D. Pedersen, CEG Engineering Geologist

EDUCATION B.A., Geology, Pomona College, California, 1953 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Geologist, California, RG 2817 Certified Engineering Geologist, California, CEG 817

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Pedersen has more than thirty years of engineering geology experience, of which more than half has been devoted exclusively to dams and reservoirs. As Southern Regional Engineering Geologist with the California Division of Safety of Dams, he provided geologic consultation to the civil engineering staff that supervised the safety of approximately 250 dams and reservoirs under State jurisdiction in Southern California. Mr. Pedersen has been associated with GENTERRA Consultants, Inc. (GENTERRA) since 1995. He is employed as an Associate Engineering Geologist. Following is a representative list of Mr. Pedersen’s representative project experience: REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Dam Safety Survey Program for 24 Dams, Los Angeles Co., California. GENTERRA Client: Los Angeles Department of Public Works As part of the GENTERRA project team, Mr. Pedersen assisted in an evaluation of the 24 dams and debris basins that are included in the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works dam safety survey program and on which precise surveys are routinely conducted as part of the monitoring and surveillance program. The dams range in height up to 365 feet, made of concrete and earth fill/rockfill. Work effort includes a thorough evaluation of the historical performance of the dams based on field and office evaluation deformation records, evaluation of existing equipment and procedures used by the Department towards the design of a more cost-effective survey programs to monitor movement at each dam and debris/retention basin. Considerations for instrumentation and monumentation automation as well as coordination with the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) are integral parts of project approval of this challenging program. Dam Safety Review, Palisades Dam and Reservoir, San Clemente, California. GENTERRA Client: South Coast Water District Mr. Pedersen is the Project Geologist for GENTERRA for the Palisades Dam and Reservoir safety review, coordination of the surveillance and monitoring program, design of a new instrumentation system, supervision of drilling and sampling, installation of eight new piezometers and observation wells and provided ongoing consultation to the Tri-Cities Municipal Water District (now the South Coast Water District). The project includes a geotechnical investigation, seismic hazards analysis, stability analyses of the dam and reservoir under static and seismic loading conditions, a review of groundwater conditions around the reservoir, studies related to the stability of the reservoir slopes during rapid drawdown of the reservoir, installation of new piezometers and coordination of review with the DSOD. The instrumentation include survey monuments for monitoring horizontal and vertical movements as well as an underdrain discharge manhole. Alternatives also include considerations for future automation of the existing and proposed instrumentation.


W a r r e n D . P e d e r s e n , C E G

Stability of Upper Oso Dam, Mission Viejo, California. GENTERRA Client: Santa Margarita Water District (1999-2000) Project Engineering Geologist for the annual dam safety monitoring program, geotechnical investigations and other work at Upper Oso Dam and Reservoir in Mission Viejo, California. The project includes a study of the dam embankment that included the installation of new piezometers to measure water levels upstream of the embankment core and analyzing the stability of the dam embankment under steady-state seepage, rapid drawdown, and seismic loading conditions. The stability study included the development of a Design Basis Earthquake and peak ground accelerations, as well as deformation analyses. All work was reviewed by the DSOD. Stability of Right Abutment, Rattlesnake Canyon Dam, Irvine, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District (1999-present) Project Engineering Geologist for special studies of seepage, erosion, stability and maintenance issues at Rattlesnake Canyon Dam and Reservoir in Irvine. The project includes geotechnical investigations and a stability evaluation of the right abutment of the dam under static and seismic conditions, which included deformation analyses and the development of conceptual remedial measures. The work includes coordination and review with the DSOD (1998 - Present). Annual Surveillance and Monitoring Programs, Several Dams in Southern California. GENTERRA Clients: Irvine Ranch Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, South Coast Water District, Serrano Water District, El Toro Water District (1998-present) Mr. Pedersen is the Project Engineering Geologist for GENTERRA for the Dam Safety Evaluations and Annual Surveillance and Monitoring Programs for several dams in southern California, including those owned by the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Santa Margarita Water District, the El Toro Water District, the South Coast Water District and the Serrano Water District. The work includes review and consultation for the instrumentation and monitoring programs at the dams, the performance of detailed evaluations and studies where required, and the coordination with the State Division of Safety of Dams (1998-Present). SEED (Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams) Program. Client: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Safety evaluation of existing dams (SEED Program) for the following U.S. Bureau of Reclamation dams: Auburn Cofferdam and New Melones, California; Gibson, Sun River Diversion and Canyon Ferry, Montana; and Crane Prairie, Wickiup, Crescent Lake, Thief Valley, Unity, Pineville and Ochoco, Oregon. Site evaluation and exploration of Springerville Ash Disposal Dam, Arizona Construction inspection of Coronado Evaporation Dam, Arizona Participation in the investigation of the near-failure of Upper and Lower San Fernando Dams,

California Design review and construction inspection of numerous large dams in southern California,

including Cedar Springs, Castaic, Pyramid, and Auld Valley Dams Participation in the forensic investigation of failure of Baldwin Hills Reservoir, California Safety surveillance, review and monitoring programs for Santiago Creek Dam for the Serrano

Irrigation District, and Wood Ranch Dam for the Calleguas Municipal Water District


Alan V. Pace, RG, CEG Project Geologist

EDUCATION B.S., Geology, Colorado State University, 1987

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Certified Engineering Geologist, California, 1995, #1952 Registered Geologist, California, 1995, #6229

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Pace’s experience comprises 15 years of performing and managing geotechnical and environmental investigations for proposed development of roads, pipelines and tunnels, landfill improvements, residential/industrial projects, including groundwater monitoring well installation and soil and groundwater sampling for analytical testing. These investigations addressed the potential effects of adverse geologic conditions (e.g., active faulting, landslides, slope stability, suitability of fill/foundation materials, depth to bedrock and groundwater). During these investigations he has used various types of drilling including; bucket-auger, hollow-stem auger, rotary wash, air rotary, coring, and odex, and performed seismic refraction surveys to aid in subsurface mapping and rippability studies and has conducted numerous trenching studies to evaluate faulting and characterize near surface materials. He has also performed geotechnical construction management of large earthwork projects involving several million cubic yards of compacted fills and numerous other types of civil construction materials. In addition, he has supported geotechnical engineering staff in performing slope stability analysis, evaluating settlement of engineered fills and native materials, and evaluating results of geomechanical testing of rock and soil samples. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Design-Level Investigation Mission Valley East Tunnel, San Diego, California Lead geologist during field investigation, currently underway, to supplement the work performed by others during the preliminary investigation. Work scope included managing field program which included air rotary drilling with coring, large-diameter bucket auger borings to facilitate collection of bulk samples and downhole geologic logging, a gravity survey to delineate the contact with metavolcanic rocks underlying the sedimentary rocks, downhole geophysics to obtain P and S wave velocities of the rock units, installation of piezometers, a groundwater pumping test, and a grouting test program. City of Placentia, Orange County Gateway, Placentia and Anaheim, CA Project Geologist for a planned 5.6 mile long trench for separating railway and road grades through the cities of Placentia and Anaheim. Work included evaluation of existing subsurface data and providing preliminary geotechnical recommendations regarding liquefaction, potential construction-induced damages to neighboring facilities, retaining wall designs, bridge foundations, environmental quality conditions of soil and groundwater, and temporary and permanent groundwater control. Pipeline Relocation, Marina Del Rey, CA Project geologist for investigation to evaluate feasibility of proposed pipe-jacking plan for relocation 24-inch waterline feeder. Work included drilling of three hollow-stem auger boring to

A l a n V . P a c e , R G , C E G

collect samples for grain size analysis to evaluate dewatering potential and install groundwater monitoring wells for groundwater pumping and for monitoring of groundwater levels. A constant rate pumping test was conducted for 72 hours for groundwater quality sampling and testing in support of an NPDES permit required to dewater the site for pipe–jacking. City of Coronado, Traffic Diversion Tunnel, Coronado, CA Project geologist for a planned 6,400 feet long traffic tunnel beneath the City of Coronado. Work included planning and evaluation of geotechnical explorations, consultation on tunneling methods and risks, potential surface effects on neighboring structures and utilities, and estimated project costs. Geotechnical Study, Foothill Transit Maintenance Facility, Irwindale, California Project geologist for geotechnical study of a vacant site which had been used as dumping ground for construction and demolition debris and disposal site for animal rendering waste. Site was investigated using drilling test pit excavation and geophysical testing. Results of study were used to develop plans to develop site to pre-existing conditions. Subsurface explorations were used to make estimate of the volume of animal waste which would need to be dealt with during rehabilitation of the site. Geotechnical Study, Scholl Canyon Culvert Replacement Tunnel, Eagle Rock, California Project geologist for geotechnical study of a replacement of a distressed 90-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe culvert which extended 170 linear feet beneath a critical access road. The culvert was corroded and was failing and needed to be replaced. Performed field investigation using hollow-stem auger borings, laboratory analyses, tunneling/pipe jacking analyses. Provided recommendations for earthwork, corrosion protection, tunnel lining pressures, pipe jacking support, settlement analyses, groundwater dewatering, and tunneling methodology. Both pipe jacking and manual tunneling with shield were evaluated to address challenges associated with varying grades and the existing pipe culvert. Design-Level Geologic Investigation Inland Feeder Tunnel, San Bernardino, California Rig geologist during horizontal corehole boring at proposed tunnel portal and geologic logging of a trench excavated across the San Andreas Fault for the design-level geotechnical investigation for the San Bernardino Mountains segment of the Inland Feeder Tunnel. Also researched the groundwater hydrology of the tunnel alignment and geothermal aspects of the arrowhead canyon area. Provided geologic logging during drilling to characterize the rock mass including detailed descriptions of the discontinuities and rock hardness. Slope Stability Evaluation and Construction Monitoring Upper Oso Reservoir/Foothill Transportation Corridor, Mission Viejo, California Lead field geologist for slope stability evaluation and geologic monitoring during grading of the Foothill Transportation Corridor adjacent to the existing Upper Oso Reservoir in Mission Viejo, California. A temporary slope on the order of 150 high was excavated near the left abutment. A portion of the slope failed due localized folding of the bedrock requiring modification to the excavation schedule and close geologic monitoring. This project included review by and coordination with the State of California Division of Safety of Dams. Feasibility Level Investigation, Westside Conveyance Project, Southern California Lead field geologist for feasibility investigation for the Westside Conveyance project which includes approximately 25 miles of pipeline and 12,000 feet of tunnel for water transmission from Castaic Lake to Calleguas Water District. Investigation involved geologic mapping and


A l a n V . P a c e , R G , C E G

reconnaissance, aerial photograph interpretation, bucket auger drilling at the proposed portals and core drilling to a depth of 400 feet in the central portion of the alignment. Feasibility Level Investigation, Granada Hills Tunnel, Southern California Project geologist during feasibility-level investigations of the proposed Granada Hills tunnel in the Santa Susana Mountains in southern California. Performed geologic reconnaissance and aerial photograph analysis of alignment and detailed literature search to evaluate potentially fatal geotechnical concerns to project. Design Level Geotechnical Investigation and Construction Monitoring Allen-McColloch Parallel Pipeline, Irvine, California Field geologist for design level geotechnical investigation for the 18,500-foot long, 66-inch diameter Allen-McColloch Parallel Pipeline through the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in Orange County, California. Performed geologic mapping, aerial photograph review, and subsurface exploration. Conducted the subsurface Investigation consisting of drilling 19 exploratory borings using the bucket auger method and 16 trenches. Geotechnical concerns involved soft alluvium, high groundwater, rippability, and stability of trench sidewalls. Active Faulting Investigation, Children’s Museum Tower, San Diego, California Project geologist for active faulting study to satisfy the city of San Diego’s Special Studies Zone. Detailed logging of a trench excavated into the Bay Point Formation found unbroken sedimentary strata indicating that active faulting did not traverse the site and building could proceed. Active Fault Investigation, Olinda Alpha Landfill, Orange County, California Subsurface investigation involving excavation of over 150 feet of trench to depths of over 18 feet to determine the closest trace of the Whittier Fault to the location of a proposed site office. Investigation was performed in accordance with Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone investigation requirements to determine a building setback zone. Earthquake Fault Zone Investigation, Hemet Water Treatment Plant, Hemet, California Performed detailed geologic logging of approximately 500 feet of trench excavated to depths of approximately nine (9) feet to evaluate the active Casa Loma Fault. This investigation was conducted in accordance with the guidelines presented in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning act Photolineament Evaluation, Henry J. Mills Water Treatment Facilities, Riverside, California Project geologist during evaluation of potentially active faulting/photolineament by trenching and aerial photograph interpretation for the Henry J. Mills Water Treatment Facilities in Riverside, California. Trenching through surficial soils extended into the granitic rock below to try and locate offset of the bedrock to and trace, if present, into the younger deposits to evaluate the recency of faulting. Two trenches as deep as nine feet for a total length of 325 feet were excavated and graphically logged. Investigation concluded that photographic lineament was related to the margins of a buried ancient stream course and not the result of fault activity. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Association of Engineering Geologists South Coast Geological Society, President 1995 San Diego Association of Geologists Geological Society of America



Geoffrey L. Smith, PE Project Engineer

EDUCATION M.S., Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 1999 B.S., Civil Engineering, Oregon State University, 1997

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer, California No. C62410 Certified, OSHA HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.120) Certified, 8-hr OSHA Supervisor Certified, 8-hr Nuclear Moisture/Density Gauge Operator

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Mr. Smith has over 5 years of experience in geotechnical and civil engineering practice. His geotechnical experience includes geotechnical site investigations, foundation studies, lining studies for reservoirs, design of geosynthetics, analyses for static and seismic slope stability, seismic response and deformation, landfill and waste geotechnics, field soil sampling and testing, instrumentation (inclinometers and piezometers), and construction quality assurance. At GENTERRA, Mr. Smith performs geotechnical engineering analyses and coordinates field and laboratory geotechnical investigations for GENTERRA’s projects involving dams and reservoirs, structures, and other facilities. Mr. Smith brings an expertise in the use of geosynthetics for civil construction projects with extensive design experience using geomembranes, geocomposites, geotextiles, GCLs, and geogrids for a broad range of applications. In addition, Mr. Smith has experience in civil engineering design for landfills such as liner design, waste mass stability, surface water system design, concrete design, and leachate collection system design. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Seismic Performance Review, Rattlesnake Canyon Dam, Orange County, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District (2002-2003) Project Engineer for the seismic performance review for this 80-ft high homogeneous earth dam in Orange County, California. The dam was constructed on a 40-ft-thick alluvium foundation that is considered susceptible to liquefaction. As a result, the reservoir has been placed under a restricted reservoir level by the DSOD. Mr. Smith performed a seismic review of the dam which included reviewing previous field and laboratory data, performing seismic stability analyses including deformation analyses, and evaluating conceptual-level alternatives to remedial the dam. The deformation analyses were used to optimize the conceptual-level alternatives which included installation of stone columns, removal and replacement, dewatering, and berm construction. Mr. Smith prepared cost estimates of the various remedial alternatives. Grizzly Ice Pond Dam, Plumas County, California. GENTERRA Client: Walton’s Grizzly Lodge Project Engineer for the repairs to this 40 ft-high, 130-ft long concrete gravity dam built in 1915. The dam is situated at high elevations and subjected to extreme environmental forces. The dam was suffering from extensive freeze/thaw damage, primarily as a result of seepage through the dam from major cracks in the upstream face. Mr. Smith designed the repair remedies which included epoxy grouting the major cracks through the dam, patching the spalling concrete on the upstream and downstream faces, installing drain holes, and additional reinforcement for the

G e o f f r e y L . S m i t h , P E

dam. Mr. Smith prepared the construction documents and was involved with the approval process with the State Division of Safety of Dams. Geotechnical Investigation and Design Recommendations, Gavilan Hills – Smith Road Channel and Debris Basin, Riverside Co., California. GENTERRA Client: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2002) Project Engineer for the geotechnical investigation and recommendations for the construction of a debris basin with a 30-foot high embankment and a 3,000-ft-long concrete channel as part of a flood-prevention and water quality improvement project. The embankment is protected from erosion using soil-cement on the upstream and downstream faces. The work included a geologic hazards review, field investigation, laboratory testing, and formulation of geotechnical recommendations. Mr. Smith performed the engineering analyses that included evaluation of static and seismic stability of the debris basin and embankment slopes, seismic settlement, liquefaction, and collapse potential. Geotechnical recommendations included slope inclination, soil-cement, corrosion, foundation design parameters, bedrock rippability, and erosion control. An extensive laboratory testing program was implemented to evaluate representative soil properties. Mr. Smith evaluated the laboratory results and assisted in preparation of the final geotechnical report. Annual Surveillance Program, Irvine, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District Mr. Smith is the geotechnical engineer for the annual surveillance program for the Sand Canyon and Rattlesnake Canyon dams. The work includes monthly evaluation of piezometer and seepage data for the dams. Site visits are performed twice a year to visually evaluate the dam safety. An annual report is prepared that summarizes the evaluation of the data and site visits and recommendations regarding future monitoring and safety of the dams. Annual Surveillance Program, Orange County, California. GENTERRA Client: Santa Margarita Water District Mr. Smith is the geotechnical engineer for the annual surveillance program for the Upper Osos and Portola dams in Mission Viejo and Cota de Caza, respectively. The work includes weekly evaluation of piezometer and seepage data for the dams. Site visits are performed twice a year to visually evaluate the dam safety. An annual report is prepared that summarizes the evaluation of the data and site visits and recommendations regarding future monitoring and safety of the dams. San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport Beach, California. GENTERRA Client: Irvine Ranch Water District and Berryman & Henigar, Inc. Mr. Smith performed was responsible for engineering analyses and design services related to the clay, asphalt, and PVC geomembrane lining, and subdrain system for the reservoir sideslopes. Mr. Smith performed stability analyses to evaluate the geosynthetic-lined stability and maximum inclination to minimize cost. Mr. Smith was also responsible for management to balance fill (from existing clay stockpiles) and cut quantities (from slope preparation activities) to meet the client’s needs for the reservoir lining. Mr. Smith assisted with preparation of the Preliminary Design Report for approval from the Division of Safety of Dams. He provided engineering support for field and laboratory geotechnical investigations and soil testing. Mr. Smith will prepare the technical specifications for asphalt, soil, and geosynthetics installation.

Bakersfield Metropolitan (Bena) Sanitary Landfill, Bakersfield, California. Client: Kern County Waste Management Department. Mr. Smith was the design engineer responsible for Module 1, Phase 2 design tasks that included preparation of a design report, preparation of an alternative liner demonstration report, performing design calculations (geosynthetics and civil design), and preparation of the design documents (drawings, specifications,and CQA plan). For the Design P a g e 2 o f 3 G E N T E R R A C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c .

G e o f f r e y L . S m i t h , P E

Report, Mr. Smith presented the results of an alternative liner analysis, static and seismic slope stability analyses, and general design analyses (e.g., surface water calculations). Mr. Smith performed and presented design calculations for the leachate collection system, veneer stability of the combined operations/leachate collection layer, anchor trench design, geomembrane puncture evaluation, and Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) analyses. The Design Report demonstrated that an encapsulated GCL (e.g., GSE’s GundSeal) could be safely used in the high seismic region while utilizing 3H:1V interim and final waste slopes. In addition, the Design Report demonstrated that the sideslope operations layer could also be used as a combined LCRS drainage layer – resulting in significant cost saving for the client. Corrective Action Management Unit, Henderson, Nevada. Client: Basic Remediation Company. Mr. Smith performed all aspects of geotechnical and geosynthetic design for the base and final cover liner systems for the 26-acre site used to contain contaminated soils. Design analyses conducted by Smith included cut, waste mass, and liner slope stability, veneer stability, geosynthetics design, HELP model analysis, leachate collection system design, and design details. Mr. Smith performed seismic deformation analyses for the final cover and base liner using the Newmark method based on output from one-dimensional seismic (SHAKE91) analyses. In addition, Mr. Smith developed technical specifications and the CQA Plans for the base liner and cover liner system. Mr. Smith prepared two design reports summarizing the results of the base liner and cover system calculations. Olympic View Sanitary Landfill, Port Orchard, Washington. Client: Waste Management, Inc. Mr. Smith has been involved in all aspects of landfill design and planning for the Olympic View Sanitary Landfill (OVSL). Mr. Smith has played a key role in the following projects:

5-acre Phase II, Stage B3 lateral expansion; 6-acre Phase I, East and West Slopes Cover final closure; and Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance plans.

Mr. Smith completed all tasks associated with the above projects including preparation of grading plans, design details, technical specifications, and the construction quality assurance plan. Design calculations included static and seismic slope stability and geosynthetics design as well as leachate collection system design and surface water system design. In addition, Mr. Smith prepared a GCL equivalency document that won approval from the Washington Department of Ecology to use an alternative geosynthetic clay liner for the base liner in lieu of the burdensome prescriptive 2-ft low-permeability liner. For the Final Closure Plan, Mr. Smith designed final grades for the landfill that included design of final surface water control features, erosion control measures, and design of diversion berms. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) International Geosynthetics Society (IGS) North American Geosynthetics Society (NAGS) Member, Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) Volunteer, Disaster Recovery Program for the California Office of Emergency Services

PUBLICATIONS Smith, G.L., Gilbert, R.B. (2001), “A Simplified Model of Spatial Variability to Evaluate Effects of Spatial Averaging on Foundation Capacity,” ‘01 International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Newport Beach 17-22 June 2001. Smith, G.L., (1999), “Effects of Spatial Variability in Undrained Shear Strength on the Capacity of Deep and Shallow Foundations”, M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1999. P a g e 3 o f 3 G E N T E R R A C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c .

TABLE C-1HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 KM

LAKE ELSINORE ADVANCED PUMPED STORAGE PROJECTRIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Year Month Day Latitude Longitude MagnitudeDistance From

Site (km)1800 11 22 33.0 -117.3 6.5 711812 12 8 33.7 -117.9 6.9 491889 2 7 34.1 -116.7 5.3 801889 8 28 34.1 -117.9 5.2 691892 6 14 34.2 -117.5 4.9 621894 7 30 34.3 -117.6 5.9 751899 7 22 34.2 -117.4 5.5 611899 7 22 34.3 -117.5 6.5 731899 12 25 33.8 -117.0 6.6 381902 6 11 33.7 -117.1 4.5 261903 9 16 33.8 -117.6 4.0 271906 3 3 33.0 -117.0 4.5 791907 9 20 34.2 -117.1 6.0 661908 7 3 34.0 -117.5 4.0 411910 4 11 33.7 -117.4 5.0 61910 5 13 33.7 -117.4 5.0 61910 5 15 33.7 -117.4 6.0 61911 8 11 33.8 -116.7 4.0 641911 8 11 33.8 -116.7 4.5 641913 10 21 33.8 -118.0 4.0 601916 9 30 33.5 -116.5 5.0 821918 4 21 33.8 -117.0 6.8 361918 6 6 33.8 -117.0 5.0 361918 10 11 33.4 -116.5 4.0 851920 1 1 33.2 -116.7 5.0 791920 6 18 33.5 -118.3 4.5 821923 6 30 34.0 -117.0 4.5 521923 7 23 34.0 -117.3 6.3 411925 8 8 33.5 -117.0 4.5 381929 7 8 33.9 -118.1 4.7 721929 9 13 33.6 -118.2 4.0 761930 1 16 34.2 -116.9 5.2 721930 1 16 34.2 -116.9 5.1 721930 5 12 33.2 -116.7 4.2 781931 2 16 34.1 -117.3 4.0 501931 3 31 34.1 -117.8 4.0 631931 9 10 33.8 -116.6 4.0 731931 11 3 33.8 -118.3 4.0 871932 2 11 34.4 -116.9 4.0 981932 6 23 33.2 -116.5 4.0 97

Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage ProjectFERC No. 11858 C-1

GENTERRA CONSULTANTS, INC.APPENDIX C




Site (km)1932 6 23 33.2 -116.5 4.0 971932 11 1 34.0 -117.3 4.0 411933 1 25 33.9 -116.8 4.0 651933 3 11 33.6 -118.0 6.3 541933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.9 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.3 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 5.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.6 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.8 661933 3 11 33.6 -118.0 4.5 581933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.6 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 5.1 661933 3 11 33.6 -118.0 4.4 581933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.6 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 5.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.6 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.9 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.7 661933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 5.1 641933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.7 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.6 -118.0 5.2 561933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.9 -118.3 4.4 85






Site (km)1933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 5.5 621933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.5 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 5.1 641933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 5.1 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.6 711933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 4.4 621933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 4.4 671933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.9 -118.3 5.0 851933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 4.4 671933 3 11 33.9 -118.3 4.9 911933 3 11 33.7 -118.1 4.4 671933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.8 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 11 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.2 66






Site (km)1933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.6 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.5 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 12 33.8 -118.1 4.5 661933 3 13 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 13 33.8 -118.1 4.7 661933 3 13 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 13 33.8 -118.1 5.3 661933 3 13 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 13 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 14 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 14 33.8 -118.1 4.5 661933 3 14 33.6 -118.0 5.1 591933 3 14 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 15 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 15 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 15 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 15 33.6 -118.0 4.9 591933 3 16 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 3 16 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 16 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 17 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 18 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 19 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 3 20 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 21 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 23 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 23 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 25 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 3 30 33.8 -118.1 4.4 661933 3 31 33.8 -118.1 4.1 661933 4 1 33.8 -118.1 4.2 661933 4 2 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 4 2 33.8 -118.1 4.0 661933 5 16 33.8 -118.2 4.0 74






Site (km)1933 8 4 33.8 -118.2 4.0 751933 10 2 33.8 -118.1 5.4 711933 10 2 33.6 -118.0 4.0 591933 10 25 34.0 -118.1 4.3 771933 11 13 33.9 -118.2 4.0 801933 11 20 33.8 -118.1 4.0 711934 1 9 34.1 -117.7 4.5 571934 1 18 34.1 -117.7 4.0 571934 1 20 33.6 -118.1 4.5 681934 1 26 34.1 -116.5 4.0 961934 2 20 33.5 -116.6 4.0 711934 4 17 33.6 -118.0 4.0 571934 10 17 33.6 -118.4 4.0 951934 11 16 33.8 -118.0 4.0 591935 6 7 33.3 -117.0 4.0 531935 6 19 33.7 -117.5 4.0 151935 7 13 34.2 -117.9 4.7 781935 9 3 34.0 -117.3 4.5 431935 10 24 34.1 -116.8 5.1 731935 10 24 34.1 -116.9 4.5 671935 10 24 34.1 -116.9 4.5 671935 10 24 34.1 -116.9 4.0 671935 11 4 33.5 -116.9 4.5 451935 12 2 33.2 -116.6 4.0 911935 12 25 33.6 -118.0 4.5 591936 2 23 34.1 -117.3 4.5 531936 2 26 34.1 -117.3 4.0 541936 7 29 33.5 -116.9 4.0 491936 8 22 33.8 -117.8 4.0 431937 1 15 33.6 -118.1 4.0 641937 3 19 34.1 -117.4 4.0 511937 3 25 33.4 -116.4 4.0 911937 3 25 33.4 -116.4 4.0 911937 3 26 33.5 -116.6 4.0 761937 3 27 33.5 -116.6 4.0 761937 3 27 33.5 -116.6 4.5 761937 3 29 33.4 -116.5 4.0 851937 7 7 33.6 -118.0 4.0 571937 9 1 34.2 -117.5 4.5 641937 9 1 34.2 -117.6 4.5 61






Site (km)1938 1 4 33.5 -116.6 4.5 761938 2 8 34.1 -116.4 4.0 981938 5 21 33.6 -118.0 4.0 611938 5 31 33.7 -117.5 5.5 131938 6 10 34.1 -117.0 4.0 661938 6 16 33.5 -116.9 4.0 491938 7 5 33.7 -117.6 4.5 161938 8 6 33.9 -116.8 4.0 661938 8 6 33.7 -117.5 4.0 141938 8 31 33.8 -118.3 4.5 821938 12 27 34.1 -117.5 4.0 551939 4 3 34.0 -117.2 4.0 461939 5 12 33.5 -116.4 4.5 891939 11 4 33.8 -118.1 4.0 701939 11 7 34.0 -117.3 4.7 401939 12 27 33.8 -118.2 4.7 771940 1 13 33.8 -118.1 4.0 711940 2 8 33.7 -118.1 4.0 641940 2 11 34.0 -118.3 4.0 931940 2 19 34.0 -117.1 4.6 511940 4 18 34.0 -117.4 4.4 431940 6 5 33.8 -117.4 4.0 201940 6 6 33.3 -116.4 4.0 991940 7 20 33.7 -118.1 4.0 641940 10 12 33.8 -118.4 4.0 971940 10 14 33.8 -118.4 4.0 971940 11 1 33.8 -118.4 4.0 971940 11 1 33.6 -118.2 4.0 761940 11 2 33.8 -118.4 4.0 971941 1 30 34.0 -118.1 4.1 711941 2 23 33.5 -116.5 4.5 841941 3 22 33.5 -118.1 4.0 681941 3 25 34.2 -117.5 4.0 631941 4 11 34.0 -117.6 4.0 381941 10 22 33.8 -118.2 4.9 801941 11 14 33.8 -118.3 5.4 821942 1 25 34.4 -116.9 4.0 931942 2 1 34.4 -116.9 4.0 931942 2 1 34.4 -116.9 4.5 931942 2 1 34.4 -116.9 4.5 93






Site (km)1942 2 27 34.3 -117.0 4.0 831942 3 1 34.1 -116.5 4.0 961942 4 16 33.4 -118.2 4.0 781942 4 26 34.0 -116.7 4.0 681942 8 22 34.1 -116.8 4.0 771942 9 21 33.5 -116.6 4.0 691943 1 2 33.4 -116.4 4.5 921943 2 23 32.9 -117.5 4.0 881943 8 29 34.3 -117.0 5.5 781943 8 29 34.3 -117.0 4.0 781943 8 29 34.3 -117.0 4.0 781943 10 14 34.3 -116.9 4.5 881943 10 15 34.4 -116.9 4.5 911943 10 24 33.9 -117.4 4.0 311943 11 17 33.9 -116.7 4.5 691944 5 5 34.0 -116.4 4.0 991944 6 10 34.0 -116.8 4.5 691944 6 10 34.0 -116.8 4.0 661944 6 12 34.0 -116.7 5.1 701944 6 12 34.0 -116.7 5.3 721944 6 12 34.0 -116.7 4.2 721944 6 19 33.9 -118.2 4.5 811944 6 19 33.9 -118.2 4.4 811944 8 25 34.0 -116.7 4.2 731944 10 28 33.9 -116.8 4.4 661945 4 18 34.4 -117.0 4.3 941945 9 7 34.0 -116.8 4.3 641946 2 24 34.4 -117.8 4.1 921946 9 28 34.0 -116.9 5.0 591947 7 24 34.0 -116.5 5.5 901947 7 24 34.0 -116.5 4.3 901947 7 24 34.0 -116.5 4.9 901947 7 25 34.0 -116.5 5.0 901947 7 25 34.0 -116.5 4.6 901947 7 25 34.0 -116.5 4.3 901947 7 25 34.0 -116.5 5.2 901947 7 25 34.0 -116.5 4.2 901947 7 25 34.0 -116.5 4.5 901947 7 26 34.0 -116.5 4.2 901947 7 26 34.0 -116.5 5.1 90






Site (km)1947 7 26 34.0 -116.5 4.5 901947 7 26 34.0 -116.5 4.1 901947 7 29 34.0 -116.5 4.2 901947 7 30 34.0 -116.5 4.2 901947 8 1 34.0 -116.5 4.1 901947 8 8 34.0 -116.5 4.0 901948 3 1 34.2 -117.5 4.7 591948 10 3 34.2 -117.6 4.0 621948 12 4 33.9 -116.4 6.5 971948 12 5 33.9 -116.4 4.9 981948 12 5 34.0 -116.4 4.6 941948 12 5 34.0 -116.5 4.4 921948 12 6 34.0 -116.5 4.3 921948 12 10 33.9 -116.4 4.4 951948 12 11 34.0 -116.5 4.5 921948 12 28 33.5 -116.7 4.0 651949 9 23 34.0 -116.7 4.0 751950 1 11 33.9 -118.2 4.1 831950 1 13 34.0 -116.4 4.1 941950 8 12 34.3 -116.8 4.3 911950 8 28 34.3 -116.8 4.2 881950 9 5 33.7 -116.8 4.8 571950 12 22 33.4 -116.6 4.0 791951 2 15 33.5 -116.5 4.8 831951 2 15 33.5 -116.5 4.8 831951 9 22 34.1 -117.3 4.3 521951 10 16 34.2 -117.0 4.0 681952 2 8 33.1 -116.6 4.0 911952 2 17 34.0 -117.3 4.5 401953 2 4 33.4 -116.6 4.3 791954 2 12 33.3 -116.4 4.5 941954 4 30 34.0 -116.8 4.2 691954 10 26 33.7 -117.5 4.1 121955 4 25 33.5 -116.7 4.0 671955 5 15 34.1 -117.5 4.0 531956 1 3 33.7 -117.5 4.7 141956 3 16 34.3 -116.8 4.8 921956 3 16 34.3 -116.8 4.0 871956 3 16 34.3 -116.8 4.0 891956 3 16 34.3 -116.7 4.4 96






Site (km)1956 3 18 34.3 -116.8 4.4 901956 5 11 34.2 -116.8 4.7 841956 9 23 33.5 -116.6 4.3 761957 1 24 33.1 -116.5 4.6 981957 12 4 34.1 -116.4 4.3 981959 4 17 33.9 -116.4 4.2 901959 6 12 33.5 -116.8 4.0 581959 6 27 34.0 -116.9 4.0 571959 8 26 34.1 -116.6 4.3 871960 6 28 34.1 -117.5 4.1 531960 8 1 33.2 -116.5 4.2 991961 10 4 33.9 -117.8 4.1 411961 10 20 33.7 -118.0 4.3 571961 10 20 33.7 -118.0 4.0 561961 10 20 33.7 -118.0 4.0 561961 10 20 33.7 -118.0 4.1 591961 11 20 33.7 -118.0 4.0 571962 4 27 33.7 -117.2 4.1 201962 10 29 34.3 -116.9 4.8 881962 11 30 34.3 -116.9 4.3 871962 12 1 34.3 -116.9 4.3 871962 12 2 34.3 -116.9 4.4 881963 9 14 33.5 -118.3 4.2 901963 9 23 33.7 -116.9 5.0 421964 11 17 33.9 -116.6 4.0 791965 1 1 34.1 -117.5 4.4 561965 4 15 34.1 -117.4 4.5 541965 10 17 34.0 -116.8 4.9 661967 1 8 33.7 -118.4 4.0 961967 5 21 33.5 -116.6 4.7 741967 6 15 34.0 -118.0 4.1 671967 8 11 33.5 -116.6 4.1 701968 4 18 34.3 -116.9 4.0 851969 5 5 34.3 -117.6 4.4 751969 10 27 33.5 -117.8 4.5 411970 9 12 34.3 -117.5 4.1 701970 9 12 34.3 -117.5 5.4 701970 9 13 34.3 -117.6 4.4 721971 2 23 33.5 -116.4 4.2 891971 6 22 33.8 -117.5 4.2 14






Site (km)1972 1 31 34.3 -116.9 4.0 861973 2 25 33.2 -116.8 4.2 721973 10 5 34.3 -116.8 4.1 861973 10 23 33.8 -117.7 4.9 361974 1 31 34.1 -117.0 4.0 541974 2 11 33.4 -116.5 4.3 811974 9 21 33.8 -117.3 4.2 171974 10 22 34.0 -118.4 4.1 991974 12 19 34.1 -118.1 4.0 811975 1 3 33.6 -117.7 4.3 271975 2 18 33.9 -117.8 4.0 451975 3 17 34.2 -117.5 4.6 561975 8 1 33.7 -116.8 4.9 571975 8 2 33.5 -116.6 4.7 771975 8 14 34.0 -116.4 4.2 961975 10 21 34.0 -116.4 4.8 971976 1 1 34.0 -117.9 4.6 591976 8 11 33.5 -116.5 4.3 811976 10 22 33.5 -116.6 4.5 751977 12 26 34.0 -116.9 4.3 621978 4 1 34.2 -117.0 4.2 721978 4 29 33.8 -117.7 4.6 391978 6 5 33.4 -116.7 4.4 671978 8 11 34.2 -117.5 4.0 561978 11 20 34.2 -117.0 4.2 671979 2 12 33.5 -116.4 4.2 901979 6 29 34.3 -116.9 4.5 801979 6 30 34.3 -116.9 4.9 801979 6 30 34.3 -116.9 4.4 801979 8 22 33.7 -116.9 4.0 491979 10 19 34.2 -117.5 4.2 631980 2 25 33.5 -116.6 5.6 771981 3 18 34.1 -117.0 4.0 611982 5 25 33.5 -118.2 4.7 771982 6 15 33.6 -116.7 4.8 661982 11 10 34.1 -116.7 4.4 791983 1 8 34.1 -117.5 4.2 541983 2 22 33.0 -118.0 4.3 861984 8 6 34.0 -116.7 4.5 711984 9 7 32.9 -117.8 4.8






Site (km)1984 9 7 33.5 -116.4 4.11984 10 10 33.1 -116.5 4.6 981985 1 19 34.0 -116.4 4.2 971985 2 15 34.0 -116.4 4.0 971985 8 29 34.3 -116.8 4.3 891985 10 2 34.0 -117.3 4.8 441986 7 8 34.0 -116.6 6.01986 7 8 34.0 -116.6 4.3 811986 7 8 34.1 -116.7 4.4 791986 7 8 34.1 -116.7 4.0 811986 7 9 34.0 -116.6 4.4 831986 7 13 33.0 -117.9 5.8 871986 7 13 33.0 -117.9 4.8 841986 7 14 33.0 -117.8 4.0 841986 7 17 34.0 -116.7 4.4 771986 7 17 34.0 -116.7 4.4 771986 7 29 32.9 -117.8 4.3 901986 8 29 34.0 -116.6 4.0 771986 10 15 34.0 -116.6 4.7 811987 10 1 34.1 -118.1 6.1 791987 10 1 34.1 -118.1 4.6 801987 10 1 34.1 -118.1 4.1 811987 10 1 34.1 -118.1 4.9 811987 10 1 34.1 -118.1 4.8 791987 10 1 34.1 -118.1 4.0 791987 10 4 34.1 -118.1 5.6 811988 2 11 34.1 -118.1 4.8 781988 6 26 34.1 -117.7 4.6 621988 7 2 33.5 -116.4 4.0 881988 11 20 33.5 -118.1 5.0 661988 12 3 34.2 -118.1 5.0 891988 12 16 34.0 -116.7 5.2 741989 1 15 33.0 -117.7 4.5 841989 2 18 34.0 -117.7 4.3 521989 4 7 33.6 -117.9 5.0 481989 6 12 34.0 -118.2 4.5 851989 6 12 34.0 -118.2 4.2 851989 12 2 33.7 -116.7 4.2 581989 12 28 34.2 -117.4 4.5 601990 2 18 33.5 -116.5 4.1 87






Site (km)1990 2 28 34.1 -117.7 6.2 621990 3 1 34.1 -117.7 4.0 611990 3 1 34.2 -117.7 4.8 641990 3 2 34.1 -117.7 4.6 621990 4 4 33.0 -117.8 4.5 851990 4 17 34.1 -117.7 4.7 601990 4 20 34.1 -117.7 4.0 611991 6 28 34.3 -118.0 5.8 891991 6 28 34.3 -118.0 4.3 871991 12 4 33.1 -116.8 4.2 831991 12 4 34.2 -117.0 4.0 671992 4 24 34.0 -116.4 4.2 981992 6 28 34.2 -116.8 4.0 831992 6 28 34.1 -116.7 4.1 841992 6 28 34.2 -116.9 5.5 741992 6 28 34.2 -116.8 4.4 761992 6 28 34.2 -116.8 6.7 791992 6 28 34.2 -116.8 4.9 841992 6 28 34.2 -116.8 4.2 841992 6 28 34.2 -116.9 5.0 721992 6 28 34.3 -116.9 4.6 801992 6 28 34.2 -116.8 4.0 791992 6 29 34.3 -116.7 4.1 911992 6 29 34.1 -117.0 4.5 631992 6 29 34.3 -116.7 4.9 901992 6 30 34.1 -116.7 4.8 801992 6 30 34.1 -117.0 4.4 601992 7 1 34.3 -116.7 4.2 941992 7 1 34.3 -116.7 4.1 921992 7 1 34.3 -116.7 4.2 911992 7 1 34.3 -116.7 4.0 921992 7 5 33.9 -116.4 4.0 961992 7 5 34.3 -116.8 4.0 891992 7 9 34.2 -116.8 5.7 821992 7 9 34.2 -116.8 4.7 801992 7 9 34.2 -116.8 4.1 821992 7 10 34.2 -116.9 4.8 811992 7 21 34.2 -116.8 4.1 841992 7 21 34.1 -116.6 4.0 891992 8 17 34.2 -116.9 5.3 77






Site (km)1992 8 18 34.2 -116.9 4.2 771992 8 24 34.3 -116.8 4.3 891992 11 27 34.3 -116.9 5.6 881992 11 27 34.4 -116.9 4.1 901992 11 29 34.4 -116.9 4.0 921992 12 4 34.4 -116.9 5.4 911992 12 4 34.4 -116.9 4.8 911992 12 4 34.4 -116.9 4.5 901992 12 7 34.4 -116.9 4.0 891993 3 20 34.0 -117.2 4.0 431993 5 31 34.1 -117.0 4.4 631994 4 6 34.2 -117.1 5.0 651995 6 21 33.0 -117.8 4.6 831996 12 28 33.8 -116.9 4.0 461997 6 28 34.2 -117.3 4.2 581997 7 26 33.4 -116.4 4.8 981997 7 26 34.2 -117.3 4.2 571997 9 19 34.1 -116.9 4.1 721997 12 5 34.1 -117.0 4.5 611998 1 5 34.0 -117.7 4.3 451998 3 11 34.0 -117.2 4.5 441998 8 16 34.1 -116.9 4.7 671998 8 20 34.4 -117.7 4.4 841998 10 1 34.1 -116.9 4.7 661998 10 27 34.3 -116.8 4.9 891998 10 27 34.3 -116.9 4.1 891999 7 19 33.6 -116.7 4.2 601999 9 20 34.3 -116.9 4.2 892000 2 21 34.1 -117.3 4.5 452000 3 7 33.8 -117.7 4.0 362000 12 2 34.3 -116.8 4.1 882001 2 10 34.3 -117.0 5.3 812001 2 11 34.3 -116.9 4.2 812001 10 28 33.9 -118.3 4.0 882001 10 31 33.5 -116.5 5.2 812001 12 14 34.0 -117.8 4.0 482002 1 2 33.4 -116.4 4.2 922002 9 3 33.9 -117.8 4.8 472003 2 22 34.3 -116.9 5.4 882003 2 22 34.3 -116.9 4.0 88






Site (km)2003 2 22 34.3 -116.9 4.3 882003 2 22 34.3 -116.9 4.0 892003 2 22 34.3 -116.9 4.1 892003 2 22 34.3 -116.9 4.5 882003 2 25 34.3 -116.8 4.6 882003 2 27 34.3 -116.8 4.0 88



FERC No. 11858 - Leaps Hydroleapshydro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/... · FERC No. 11858 ES-1...

Documents

Transcript of FERC No. 11858 - Leaps Hydroleapshydro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/... · FERC No. 11858 ES-1...