Preliminary Geotech Report Worn Spring 3 4 13 201403061543332629 PDF

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
PROPOSED WORN SPRING TANK SITE (SITE 10B)

WATER STORAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

Preliminary Geotechnical Report Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B)
Water Storage Improvement Project Marin County, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WORN SPRING TANK SITE (SITE 10B)
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
1 GENERAL..............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECTLOCATION....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECTUNDERSTANDING........................................................................................................................................1
1.3 STUDYPURPOSE.........................................................................................................................................................2
1.4 PREVIOUSWORKPERFORMED&REFERENCESREVIEWED........................................................................................3
1.5 SCOPEOFSERVICES....................................................................................................................................................3
2 FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 SITEHISTORY..............................................................................................................................................................6
2.2 FIELDINVESTIGATION................................................................................................................................................6
2.3 SITECONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................................................6
2.3.1 SurfaceConditions............................................................................................................................................6
2.3.2 SubsurfaceConditions......................................................................................................................................7
2.4 GEOLOGICCONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................................7
2.4.1 RegionalGeology..............................................................................................................................................7
2.4.2 LocalGeologicSetting......................................................................................................................................8
2.4.3 Groundwater....................................................................................................................................................8
3 GEOLOGICALHAZARDS.......................................................................................................................................10
3.1 FAULTING&SEISMICITY...........................................................................................................................................10
3.1.1 SeismicSetting................................................................................................................................................10
3.1.2 HistoricalSeismicity........................................................................................................................................11
3.1.3 CBCDesignRecommendations.......................................................................................................................11
3.1.4 ProbabilisticEstimatesofStrongGroundMotion..........................................................................................11
3.1.5 SiteSpecificResponseSpectra........................................................................................................................12
3.1.6 SiteSpecificGroundMotionAnalyses............................................................................................................13
3.2 LANDSLIDES..............................................................................................................................................................13
3.3 LIQUEFACTIONANDLATERALSPREADING...............................................................................................................14
3.4 EXPANSIONPOTENTIAL&SLOPECREEP...................................................................................................................15
3.5 SOILCHEMISTRY.......................................................................................................................................................15
4 ENGINEERINGPROPERTIESOFSELECTEDONSITESOILS......................................................................................17
4.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................................17
4.2 CLASSIFICATION/INDEXTESTING.............................................................................................................................17
4.2.1 InSituDryDensity&MoistureContent..........................................................................................................17
4.2.2 Plasticity.........................................................................................................................................................18
4.2.3 MaximumDensity/OptimumMoistureContent.............................................................................................18
4.3 STRENGTH&VOLUMETRICTESTING........................................................................................................................18
4.3.1 Strength..........................................................................................................................................................18
4.3.2 Consolidation..................................................................................................................................................18
5 SLOPESTABILITY.................................................................................................................................................19
5.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................................19
5.2 DISCUSSIONREGARDINGFACTORSOFSAFETY........................................................................................................19
5.3 SURFACESLOPEGEOMETRY.....................................................................................................................................19
5.4 SUBSURFACEPROFILE..............................................................................................................................................20
5.5 ENGINEERINGPROPERTIESUSEDINSTABILITYANALYSES.......................................................................................20
5.6 LOADINGVALUES.....................................................................................................................................................20
5.7 HYDROGEOLOGICCONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................20
5.8 SLOPESTABILITYEVALUATIONS...............................................................................................................................20
5.8.1 LimitEquilibriumAnalyses..............................................................................................................................20
March 4, 2013
i CG12GR015Rev 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

6 CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................23
6.1 GENERAL..................................................................................................................................................................23
6.2 GEOLOGICHAZARDS................................................................................................................................................23
6.2.1 Faulting...........................................................................................................................................................23
6.2.2 Landslides.......................................................................................................................................................23
6.2.3 Liquefaction....................................................................................................................................................24
6.2.4 ExpansiveSoils................................................................................................................................................24
6.3 SITEPREPARATIONANDGRADING...........................................................................................................................24
6.3.1 Stripping.........................................................................................................................................................24
6.3.2 ExistingUtilities,Wells,and/orFoundations..................................................................................................24
6.3.3 KeyingandBenching......................................................................................................................................25
6.3.4 ScarificationandCompaction.........................................................................................................................25
6.3.5 Wet/UnstableSoilConditions.........................................................................................................................25
6.3.6 SiteDrainage..................................................................................................................................................26
6.3.7 ExcavationCharacteristics&Bulking.............................................................................................................26
6.3.8 TemporarySlopes...........................................................................................................................................27
6.3.9 PermanentSlopes...........................................................................................................................................27
6.3.10 Overexcavation..........................................................................................................................................29
6.3.11 OnSiteSoilMaterials................................................................................................................................29
6.3.12 ImportedFillMaterialsGeneral...............................................................................................................30
6.3.13 MaterialsGranular..................................................................................................................................30
6.3.14 ControlledLowStrengthMaterial..............................................................................................................30
6.3.15 Placement&Compaction..........................................................................................................................31
6.4 FOUNDATIONS&SLABS...........................................................................................................................................31
6.4.1 SummaryofFoundationDesignRecommendations.......................................................................................31
6.4.2 TransitionLots................................................................................................................................................32
6.4.3 ShallowFoundations......................................................................................................................................32
6.4.4 AllowableBearingPressures..........................................................................................................................32
6.4.5 EstimatedSettlements....................................................................................................................................32
6.4.6 EstimatedHeave.............................................................................................................................................33
6.4.7 SlabonGradeDesign.....................................................................................................................................33
6.4.8 LateralEarthPressures...................................................................................................................................33
6.5 RETAININGWALLS....................................................................................................................................................34
6.5.1 SummaryofRetainingWallRecommendations.............................................................................................34
6.5.2 LateralEarthPressures...................................................................................................................................35
6.5.3 DrainageMeasures........................................................................................................................................36
6.5.4 DynamicEarthPressures................................................................................................................................37
6.5.5 SlidingResistance...........................................................................................................................................38
6.5.6 PassiveResistance..........................................................................................................................................38
6.5.7 SafetyFactors.................................................................................................................................................38
6.5.8 ConstructionConsiderations...........................................................................................................................38
6.6 PIPELINES&TRENCHBACKFILL.................................................................................................................................38
6.6.1 ExternalLoadsonBuriedPipelines.................................................................................................................38
6.6.2 ModulusofSoilReaction(E)..........................................................................................................................39
6.6.3 ThrustResistance............................................................................................................................................40
6.6.4 Trenches&Dewatering..................................................................................................................................40
March 4, 2013
ii CG12GR015Rev 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)


6.6.5 PipeZone&TrenchZoneMaterials................................................................................................................41
6.6.6 Placement&Compaction...............................................................................................................................42
6.6.7 TrenchSubgradeStabilization........................................................................................................................43
6.7 SHORINGCONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................................................43
7 ADDITIONALSERVICES........................................................................................................................................43
8 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................................................44
9 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................46
PLATES
Plate 1 ......................................................................................................................................... Site Location Map
Plate 2 ................................................................................................................................Project Alternative Sites
Plate 3 ......................................................................................................................................... Geotechnical Map
Plate 4 ................................................................................................................................ Regional Geologic Map
Plate 5.1........................................................................................................... Geotechnical Cross Sections A-A
Plate 5.2........................................................................................................... Geotechnical Cross Sections B-B
Plate 5.3........................................................................................................... Geotechnical Cross Sections C-C
Plate 6 ....................................................................................................................................... Regional Fault Map
Plate 7 ............................................................................................................................. Design Response Spectra
Plate 8 ............................................................................................................................. Design Response Spectra
Plate 9 ............................................................................................................................ Shear Strength Envelopes
Plate 10........................................................................................................................Keying & Benching Details
Plate 11........................................................................................................................................ Rippability Charts
Plate 12............................................................................................................. Estimated Settlement Projections
Plate 13................................................................................................................................. Retaining Wall Details
Plate 14................................................................................................................................. Trench Nomenclature
APPENDICES
Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... Subsurface Exploration
Appendix B ............................................................................................................... Geophysical Survey Results
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................. Laboratory Testing
Appendix D...................................................................................................................... Slope Stability Analyses
Appendix E ........................................................................................................................ Settlement Projections
Appendix F............................................................................................................................... Aerial Photographs
March 4, 2013
iii CG12GR015Rev 2
1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the Worn Spring Tank Site
(Site 10B) of the Marin Municipal Water Districts (MMWD) Water Storage Improvement
Project, located in Marin County, California. CGI Technical Services, Inc. (CGI), has
prepared this report at the request of HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). The project location
is shown on Plate 1 Site Location Map. The following sections present our understanding
of the project, the purpose of our study, and the geotechnical findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for the project. Our services were performed in general accordance with
our proposal dated July 25, 2012.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) is located within the MMWDs Mt. Tamalpais watershed
lands along Worn Spring Road above Phoenix Lake and the Ross Reservoir. Latitude and
longitude for the approximate center of the site are as follows:
Latitude: 37 57 37.7 (37.960461)

Longitude: -122 34 38.1 (-122.577239)
1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

The existing Fairfax Transmission Line (FTL) services the communities of Fairfax, San
Anselmo, Ross, Kentfield, Larkspur, Corte Madera, and portions of San Rafael. We
understand that MMWD is proposing to replace two existing water storage facilities within
the (FTL) system and replace that existing treated water storage with new storage facilities.
Currently, operational and emergency storage for the FTL system is facilitated by the Pine
Mountain Tunnel, which was brought into operation in 1919 and maintains a storage
capacity of about 3-million gallons. Due to a variety of reasons, we understand that the Pine
Mountain Tunnel will be taken out of service soon. To do so, we understand that alternative
storage of at least 7.8-million gallons of treated water needs to be designed and constructed
to maintain operational and emergency capacity for the FTL.
To facilitate the overall goal of the project, we understand that an advisory committee to
MMWD evaluated fourteen possible water storage tank sites and identified two preferred
potential tank locations. Those locations, according to the RFP, are called the Five Corners
and Worn Springs sites, also referred to as Sites 7 and 10B, respectively. We understand that
a 4-million gallon water storage tank was being considered for only one of those sites.
Based on recent evaluations by the design team, we understand that the Five Corners (Site 7)
site was selected for the proposed tank and that the Worn Springs site (Site 10B), is not
currently being considered as an alternative for the project.
March 4, 2013
1 CG12GR015Rev 2
In addition, we understand the committee recommended that the existing Ross Reservoir
site be replaced with a new tank or two tanks that collectively will store 4-million gallons.
Locations of the three respective sites are shown on Plate 2 Project Alternative Sites.
This report addresses geotechnical conditions specifically for Worn Spring Tank Site (Site
10B) only. Geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations for Site 7 are
presented in a separate geotechnical report. Geotechnical laboratory data and findings will
be presented in a separate report for the Ross Reservoir site.
Based on preliminary recommendations of the committee, MMWD developed two concept

layouts for Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B), which were evaluated during this study.
Those layouts included either circular or oblong tanks using either steel shell or prestressed
concrete. The concept alternatives showed the circular tank having an internal diameter of
151 feet and the oblong tank being 200 feet long and 100 feet wide. For all concept tank
designs, the maximum operating level within the tanks was 30 feet.
Each proposed alternative involved excavation to develop the proposed pad grades. Based
on the concept drawings prepared by MMWD, the maximum depth of excavation of the site
was up to about 23 feet to a proposed pad elevation of 520 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The excavations would have resulted in a net export of excavated soil and rock materials to a
disposal area.
In addition, we understand that a portion of the project site located northwest of the
proposed tank location was being considered as a stockpile area, either temporary or
permanent, for excavated soils generated during construction of the proposed tanks.
1.3 STUDY PURPOSE

The purpose of our geotechnical study was to explore and evaluate selected site surface and
subsurface conditions in order to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations related
to the design and construction of the proposed improvements, and to identify potential
geologic hazards that could impact the project. Those tasks had a four-fold purpose:
To characterize geologic hazards that pose an adverse effect on the performance

of the proposed tank site;
To characterize geotechnical conditions for proposed temporary and permanent
cut slopes to identify appropriate slope inclinations or if slope stabilization
measures are needed to achieve currently acceptable factors of safety against
slope failure;
To estimate settlement and allowable bearing values for proposed subgrade soils
for use in designing the proposed tank foundation and tank slab; and
To develop geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the
proposed project.
March 4, 2013
2 CG12GR015Rev 2
1.4 PREVIOUS WORK PERFORMED & REFERENCES REVIEWED

No known prior site-specific geotechnical studies have been performed for Worn Spring
Tank Site (Site 10B).
Previous regional geologic studies and maps have been prepared for the project area, which
are relevant to the proposed project. Those studies that we obtained and reviewed consist of:
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC & GEOTECHNICAL REFERENCES

Source Date General Title
Wentworth & Frizzell 1975 Reconnaissance of Landslides in parts of Marin & Sonoma Counties.
Rice, Smith & Strand 1976 Geology for Planning: Central and Southeastern Marin County.
Ellen et al. 1997 Map Showing Principal Debris-Flow Source Areas in Marin County.
Wentworth et al. 1997 Summary Distribution of Slides & Earth Flows in Marin County.
Blake, Graymer &
2000 Geologic Map and Map Database of Parts of Marin County.
Jones
Those references noted above are fully cited in Section 9.0 of this report.
In addition to the aforementioned geotechnical and geological references reviewed, CGI

obtained and reviewed historical aerial photograph stereo-pairs of the project region. That
review was to observe potential geomorphic indicators present on those aerial photographs
that would assist us in our evaluation of potential slope instability. Aerial photographs
reviewed included the following:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED

Date Flight Line Frames Scale Type
11-20-1952 DRH 1952 DRH-1K-114, 115, 151 1:20,000 B/W Stereo
6-12-1965 CAS-65-130 MRN-40-73, 74, 75 1:12,000 B/W Stereo
6-12-1965 CAS-65-130 MRN-40-98, 99, 100 1:12,000 B/W Stereo
1-1-2000 HM-USA-2000 2-1526-105, 106, 107 1:10,800 Color Stereo
Copies of the aerial photographs reviewed are included in Appendix F Aerial Photographs.
Additional documents were referred to during this study and are referenced in the text and
cited in Section 9.0 of this report.
1.5 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Services performed for this study are in general conformance with the proposed scope of
services presented in our July 25, 2012 proposal. Our scope of services included:
March 4, 2013
3 CG12GR015Rev 2
Reconnaissance of the site surface conditions, topography, and existing drainage

features;
Attempted acquisition of existing, available geotechnical data relevant to the
project site;
Review of pertinent, selected regional geological data;
Acquisition and review of selected historical aerial photographs of the project
region;
Advancement of six drill holes at selected locations shown on Plate 3
Geotechnical Map. Exploration procedures and Logs of Drill Holes are
presented in Appendix A Subsurface Exploration;
Advancement of two backhoe test pits at selected locations shown on Plate 3.
Exploration procedures and Logs of Test Pits are presented in Appendix A;
Performance of two geophysical refraction survey lines at selected locations
shown on Plate 3. Exploration procedures and the results of the geophysical
refraction survey lines are presented in Appendix B Geophysical Survey
Results;
Performance of laboratory testing on selected samples obtained during our field
investigation. Laboratory test procedures and results of those tests are presented
in Appendix C Laboratory Testing;
Performed limit-equilibrium slope stability analyses on existing and planned
project slopes. Methods used and results of the slope stability analyses are
presented in Appendix D Slope Stability Analyses;
Estimated settlement for the proposed project. Results of those estimates are
discussed within the report and included in Appendix E Settlement
Evaluations.
Preparation of this report, which includes:
A description of the proposed project;
A summary of our field exploration and laboratory testing programs;
A description of site surface and subsurface conditions encountered
during our field investigation;
Site specific seismic response spectra along with 2010 California
Building Code (CBC) seismic design criteria;
A geotechnical map showing approximate field exploration locations,
presented as Plate 3;
Geotechnical recommendations for:
Stabilizing proposed and existing slopes at the project site;
March 4, 2013
4 CG12GR015Rev 2
Controlling groundwater to reduce impacts to the project and

site maintenance;
Site preparation, engineered fill, site drainage, and subgrades;
Suitability of on-site materials for use as engineered fill;
Methods to reduce total and differential settlement and
swell/heave beneath the proposed tanks;
Foundation and slab-on-grade design;
Temporary excavations, shoring, and trench backfill;
Trench backfill and compaction recommendations;
Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design and
construction; and
Preliminary structural pavement design.
Appendices that present a summary of our field investigation
procedures and laboratory testing programs.
March 4, 2013
5 CG12GR015Rev 2
2 FINDINGS
2.1 SITE HISTORY
Based on review of aerial photographs, it appears that, aside from the site being largely
fallow, it has never been developed other than for recreational purposes. Currently, Worn
Spring Road traverses the southern margin of the site. No other current improvements are
present. An older, currently nonfunctional, vegetated dirt road at one time crossed the site
and traces of that road can be seen on the slope north of the proposed tank site. No other
prior land use is known for the Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) location.
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

CGI conducted a geotechnical field investigation to:
Evaluate subsurface soil and rock conditions at selected locations;

Provide subsurface data for evaluation of slope stability and the proposed tank
improvements; and
Estimate the rippability of underlying soil and rock materials at the proposed tank
sites.
Our field geotechnical investigation consisted of reconnaissance-level geologic mapping of

the project site and adjacent areas, geophysical refraction surveys along two 210-foot long
survey lines, and subsurface exploration through advancement of six drill holes and
excavation of two test pits. The drill holes were advanced on September 11, 12, 25, and 26,
2012. The test pits were excavated on September 11, 2012. Geophysical refraction surveys
were performed on September 5, 2012. The exploration locations are shown on Plate 3.
Descriptions of soils and rocks encountered are presented on the drill hole and test pit logs
included in Appendix A and results of geophysical surveys are presented in Appendix B.
2.3 SITE CONDITIONS
2.3.1 Surface Conditions

The study area consists of bench and slope topography descending to the southeast from
Bald Hill. A gently inclined bench is located at the base of a moderately steep slope and is
the location of the proposed tanks, as shown on Plate 3. The bench is about 160 feet wide
and 300 feet long and is inclined to the south at an inclination of less than about 10 degrees.
Immediately to the north and south of the bench, natural slopes are inclined up to about 30
degrees and local cut slopes inclined as steep as about 45 degrees.
The project area is covered with seasonal grasses and scattered shrubs. To the east, the
landscape is covered with dense shrubs and ferns. To the south and west, scattered to dense
stands of oak trees are present. North of the site, the landscape is covered with seasonal
grasses
March 4, 2013
6 CG12GR015Rev 2
Drainage from the site occurs as sheetflow to the south and west. Drainage flowing to the
south discharges into Ross Creek. Drainage flowing to the west is captured by an unnamed
creek that conveys discharge from Worn Spring. That creek, in turn discharges into Phoenix
Lake and potentially Ross Creek (if the lake spills). Ross Creek discharges into the San
Francisco Bay.
Elevations at the proposed tank site range from about 520 to 562 feet above mean sea level
(MSL NAVD88; MMWD, 2012).
2.3.2 Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions were explored at selected locations at the site during this study. As
noted in Section 2.2, six drill holes, two test pits, and two geophysical survey lines were
advanced for this study.
Based on the subsurface information collected during this and prior studies, the subsurface
conditions consist of about 15 to 20 feet of soil overlying highly fractured greywacke
sandstone, greenstone, and chert, as shown on Plates 5.1 through 5.3 Geotechnical
Sections A-A through C-C.
The soil materials consisted of clayey silt, silty clay, to clay with varying amounts of gravel.
The soils were dry to wet, medium stiff to stiff, moderately plastic to plastic, and contained
local fine to medium subangular gravel.
Beneath the soils, highly fractured greywacke sandstone, relatively massive greenstone, and
highly fractured chert were encountered. Those materials were damp to wet, weak to slightly
hard for the greywacke sandstone and chert, hard for the greenstone, highly to moderately
weathered, and highly fractured for the greywacke and chert.
2.4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
2.4.1 Regional Geology

The project site is located in the Coast Ranges Geomorphic/Geologic province of California.
The Coast Ranges province is a northwest-trending mountain range that is about 50 miles
wide and extends about 400 miles from its southern terminus in Santa Barbara County north
into Shasta County and southern Oregon. It is bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean, to
the south by Transverse Ranges Province, to the east by the Great Valley province, and to
the north by the Klamath Mountains Province. The province is separated into the Northern
and Southern Coast Ranges at the Golden Gate (Hinds, 1952).
The Coast Ranges province is composed predominately of Cenozoic- and Mesozoic-age

sedimentary rocks. Lesser amount of Pleistocene-aged volcanic rocks occur locally within this
March 4, 2013
7 CG12GR015Rev 2
province (such as at Clear Lake) as do granitic rocks of the Salinian Block, located west of the
San Andreas fault.
The project site is located at the southern end of the Northern Coast Ranges within the Mt.
Tamalpais watershed area. That area is underlain predominately by Cretaceous- through
Jurassic-age meta-sedimentary, meta-volcanic, and intrusive rocks of the Franciscan
Formation, as shown on Plate 4 Regional Geologic Map.
2.4.2 Local Geologic Setting

Based on mapping by Wentworth & Frezzell (1975) and Rice et al, (1976), the project area is
underlain by landslide deposits. That landslide is nested within a relatively large landslide
complex that extends from Bald Hill down to Ross Creek, as shown on Plate 4 Geologic
Map.
The landslide deposits beneath the site vary in thickness but are at least 60 feet thick and
likely extend much deeper. Multiple landslide failure planes were observed during downhole
logging of two relatively large diameter drill holes. Those failure plane orientations were
measures as dipping downward towards the southwest at inclinations varying from 18 to 50
degrees. The failure planes consisted of zones of highly sheared, plastic clay that ranged
from a few inches to a few feet thick.
2.4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in each of the drill holes advanced for this study and is
surface was likely imaged during geophysical refraction surveys performed at the site.
Groundwater encountered in the drill holes was found at the following depths:
GROUNDWATER INFORMATION
Depth Elevation
Exploration
(ft) (ft above MSL)
BA-1 17 519
BA-2 20 504
DH-10B-1 391 4991
DH-10B-2 271 5061
DH-10B-3 20 513
DH-10B-4 26 497
1 Groundwater elevations were not given time to equalize during drilling and
may be lower than equalized level.
Depths to groundwater was observed during down hole logging of two drill holes.
Groundwater elevations were allowed to equalize in two auger drill holes. In general, the
groundwater in the auger drill holes appeared perched and rose an additional four to six feet
from where first encountered implying confined groundwater conditions.
March 4, 2013
8 CG12GR015Rev 2
However, it needs to be noted that groundwater elevations will fluctuate over time. The
depth to groundwater can vary throughout the year and from year to year. Intense and long
duration precipitation, modification of topography, and cultural land use changes can
contribute to fluctuations in groundwater levels. Localized saturated conditions or perched
groundwater conditions near the ground surface could be present during and following
periods of heavy precipitation or if on-site sources contribute water. If groundwater is
encountered during construction, it is the Contractors responsibility to install mitigation
measures for adverse impacts caused by groundwater encountered in excavations.
March 4, 2013
9 CG12GR015Rev 2
3 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
3.1 FAULTING & SEISMICITY
3.1.1 Seismic Setting

The State of California designates faults as active, potentially active, and inactive depending
on the recency of movement that can be substantiated for a fault. Fault activity is rated as
follows:
FAULT ACTIVITY RATINGS

Geologic Period of
Fault Activity Rating Time Interval (Years)
Last Rupture
Active Holocene Within last 11,000 Years
Potentially Active Quaternary >11,000 to 1.6 Million Years
Inactive Pre-Quaternary Greater than 1.6 Million Years
The California Geologic Survey (CGS) evaluates the activity rating of a fault in fault
evaluation reports (FER). FERs compile available geologic and seismologic data and evaluate
if a fault should be zoned as active, potentially active, or inactive. If an FER evaluates a fault
as active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special Studies Zone in accordance with the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazards Act (AP). AP Special Studies Zones require site-specific
evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the fault is found traversing a
project site.
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no active faults
are known to pass through the project site (Jennings, 1994; Hart & Bryant, 1997). However,
a number of potentially active and active faults are located proximal to the project site, as
shown on Plate 6 Regional Fault Map.
The closest mapped active or potentially active fault to the site is the San Andres fault zone
located about 6 miles west of the site. The San Andreas fault is a 680-mile long right-lateral
strike-slip fault that extends from the Salton Sea in Southern California, to Mendocino Point
in Northern California. It defines the boundary between the Pacific tectonic plate to the west
and the North American plate to the east. The fault segment closest to the project site
ruptured in 1906 resulting in the great San Francisco earthquake. According to recent
studies, the San Andreas has been estimated to have a 21-percent chance of having an
earthquake with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.7 or greater by the year 2036 (Fields et al.,
2008).
The active Hayward-Rogers Creek fault system is located about 12 miles east of the project
site. Numerous additional pre-Quaternary (inactive) faults have been mapped proximal to
the project site, as shown on Plate 6. According to recent studies, the Hayward-Rogers
March 4, 2013
10 CG12GR015Rev 2
Creek fault system has been estimated to have a 31-percent chance of having an earthquake
with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.7 or greater by the year 2036 (Fields et al., 2008).
3.1.2 Historical Seismicity

Northern California is a seismically active area that has been subjected to numerous
historical earthquakes. A search of the California Historical Earthquake Database (CGS,
2012) found a total of 132 moment magnitude (MW) 4.0 or greater earthquakes have
occurred within a 100-mile radius of the project site. Of those earthquakes, 31, 9, and 2 had
an MW of >5.0, >6.0, and >7.0, respectively, between 1769 and 2000. Of those earthquakes,
the largest was a MW 7.8 that occurred on April 18, 1906 along the San Andreas fault.
3.1.3 CBC Design Recommendations

At a minimum, structures should be designed in accordance with the 2012 CBC seismic
design criteria as follows:
CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

California Building Code Parameter CBC Designation
Latitude 37.960461
Site Coordinates
Longitude -122.577239
Section 1613.5.3
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0
Table 1613.5.3(1)
Section 1613.5.3
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.5
Table 1613.5.3(2)
Site Class Designation D
Section 1613.5.1 Seismic Factor, Site Class
1.500g
Figure 1613.5 B at 0.2 Seconds, Ss
Seismic Factor, Site Class
0.643g
B at 1.0 Seconds, S1
Site Specific Response
Parameter for Site Class D 1.500g
at 0.2 Seconds, SMS
Section 1613.5.3
Site Specific Response
Parameter for Site Class D 0.964g
at 1.0 Seconds, SM1
SDS=2/3SMS 1.000g
Section 1613.5.4
SD1=2/3SM1 0.643g
3.1.4 Probabilistic Estimates of Strong Ground Motion

Probabilistic evaluations of horizontal strong ground motion that could affect the site were
performed using attenuation evaluation methods provided by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS, 2012). The evaluations were performed using an estimated shear wave velocity in
the upper 100 feet of the profile of 275 meters per second. Evaluations were performed for
upper-bound (UBE) and design-basis (DBE) probabilistic exposures. The UBE corresponds
March 4, 2013
11 CG12GR015Rev 2
to horizontal ground accelerations having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 100-

year exposure period, with a statistical return period of 949 years. The DBE corresponds to
horizontal ground accelerations having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year,
with a statistical return period of 475 years.
The results of these evaluations are presented in the following table:
PROBABILISTIC GROUND MOTION DATA

Probabilistic
Probability of Return Estimated Peak
Estimate
Earthquake Level Exceedance Period Horizontal Ground
Exposure
(%) (years) Acceleration (g)
Period (years)
Upper-Bound Ground-
100 10 949 0.60
Motion
Design-Basis Ground-
50 10 475 0.48
Motion
It should be noted that although the seismic hazard models used for this study predict the
probability of exceedance for various levels of acceleration in a given exposure period, the
models are not able to account for the effect that the passage of time since past earthquakes
has on future earthquake probability. Thus, while time may affect the incipient risk of
earthquakes occurring, the UBE and DBE values are based on any 100-year and 50-year
exposure period, respectively, regardless of how recently earthquakes have occurred.
3.1.5 Site Specific Response Spectra

The project site is located within 10 kilometers of an active fault zone (the San Andreas
fault). As required, a site-specific seismic hazard analysis was performed in accordance with
Chapter 11 and Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-05 and the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) Standard for welded steel tanks for water storage. Seismic design values for the
project were estimated using code guidelines, the most recent version of the Seismic Hazard
Curves, Response Parameters and Design Parameters application from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS, 2011), EZ-FRISK software (Version 7.62, 2012), and subsurface information
obtained from explorations performed on site. Latitude and longitude for the site used in
the software are described in Sections 1.1 and 3.1.3. Attenuation curves of Campbell &
Bozorgnia (2007), Boore-Atkinson (2007), and Chiou Youngs (2006), all for soil conditions,
were used for deterministic and probabilistic spectral ground motion estimates.
Design response spectra are presented as Plates 7 and 8 Design Response Spectra. The
estimated values of spectral acceleration (Sa) for the Design Response Spectra at damping
rations of 5 percent were adjusted to 0.5 percent using the procedure recommended by
American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards, are presented on Plate 8.
March 4, 2013
12 CG12GR015Rev 2
Empirical attenuation relationships allow for the estimation of response spectral ordinates for
periods up to 5 seconds. For tank design, spectral ordinates are extrapolated to higher
sloshing periods of up to 15 seconds. The spectral values beyond a 5-second period were
extrapolated assuming constant spectral displacement.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, a shallow soil profile was used for both
probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazards evaluations for the site. The MCE used to
generate the spectra is defined both probabilistically and deterministically. The
recommended design spectrum shown on Plate 8 is estimated from the following
comparisons of probabilistic MCE and deterministic MCE: the lesser of the probabilistic
ground motion having a 2-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (2,475-year return
period MCE) calculated with 5-percent damping, the greater of 150-percent of the median
deterministic ground motion calculated for 5-percent damping, and a deterministic lower-
bound spectrum calculated according to ASCE 7-05 Section 21.22. Additionally, the
recommended design response spectrum presented on Plate 12 is defined by ASCE 7-05 as
the greater of the site-specific MCE calculated above, or 80-percent of the general response
spectrum calculated according to ASCE 7-05 Section 11.4. The deterministic, probabilistic,
and general spectra used for comparison are shown on Plate 7.
3.1.6 Site Specific Ground Motion Analyses

Section 3.1.3 above provides CBC codified ground motion values. Site specific ground
motion values were also estimated for the project site using EZ-FRISK (version 7.62)
software with the same site latitude and longitude values noted in Section 3.1.3. The
following site-specific ground motion values have been estimated for this project:
SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION VALUES

Parameter Value
Seismic Factor, Site Class B at 0.2
1.524g
Seconds, SDS
Seismic Factor, Site Class B at 1.0
0.900g
Seconds, SD1
Site Specific Response Parameter for
1.014g
Site Class D at 0.2 Seconds, SMS
Site Specific Response Parameter for
0.600g
Site Class D at 1.0 Seconds, SM1
3.2 LANDSLIDES
As noted on Plate 3 and 4, landslides have previously been mapped at the site and were
observed during this study. The landslide deposits underlie the entire proposed
development area, including the proposed access road leading to the tank site.
March 4, 2013
13 CG12GR015Rev 2
According to Rice et al. (1976):
The landslides on the flanks of Bald Hill are the result of sandstone slopes having been
oversteepened, and in collapsing, undermining some of the overlying greenstone.Parts of
these landslide deposits exhibit signs of very recent movement.
The landslide deposits observed at and in the vicinity of the proposed tank site did not
express signs of incipient or on going failure. Those landslide deposits do infer relatively
recent failure geologically, as expressed by Rice et al. (1976); however, the presence of fresh
scarps, tension cracks, bulging, etc., all of which are indicative of movement, were not
observed.
It is our opinion that the landslide deposits beneath the project site are relatively thick and
were not fully penetrated by exploration advanced during this study.
3.3 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING

Liquefaction is described as the sudden loss of soil shear strength due to a rapid increase of
soil pore water pressures caused by cyclic loading from a seismic event. In simple terms, it
means that a liquefied soil acts more like a fluid than a solid when shaken during an
earthquake. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following are needed:
Granular soils (sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and some gravels);
A high groundwater table; and
A low density in the granular soils underlying the site.
If those criteria are present, then there is a potential that the soils could liquefy during a
seismic event.
The adverse effects of liquefaction include local and regional ground settlement, ground
cracking and expulsion of water and sand, the partial or complete loss of bearing and
confining forces used to support loads, amplification of seismic shaking, and lateral
spreading. In general, the effects of liquefaction on the proposed project could include:
Lateral spreading;
Vertical settlement; and/or
The soils surrounding lifelines can lose their strength and those lifelines can
become damaged or severed.
Lateral spreading is defined as lateral earth movement of liquefied soils, or soil riding on a
liquefied soil layer, down slope toward an unsupported slope face, such as a creek bank, or
an inclined slope face. In general, lateral spreading has been observed on low to moderate
gradient slopes, but has been noted on slopes inclined as flat as one degree.
March 4, 2013
14 CG12GR015Rev 2
Medium dense to dense and stiff to hard soils and fractured rock materials were encountered
in explorations advanced at the site. Based on the presence of fractured rock, it is our
opinion that liquefaction potential poses a low risk to development of the proposed project
at the site.
3.4 EXPANSION POTENTIAL & SLOPE CREEP

There is a direct relationship between plasticity of a soil and the potential for expansive
behavior, with expansive soil generally having a high plasticity. Thus, granular soils typically
have a low potential to be expansive, where as, clay-rich soils can have a low to high
potential to be expansive. Atterberg limit testing was performed on select samples during
this study to estimate the plasticity of soils on site. The results of that testing found that on-
site soils have a Plasticity Indices (PI) of less than 25. PIs of less than 25 are correlated to
soils have a low to medium potential for expansion (Day, 1999). Furthermore, swell tests
were performed on two near-surface soil samples and both exhibited relatively low
expansion pressures. This is indicative of soils having a low potential for expansion. Soils
with medium plasticity and low expansion pressures typically are not prone to significant
slope creep deformation.
3.5 SOIL CHEMISTRY

One selected sample of near-surface soils encountered at the site was subjected to chemical
analysis for the purpose of assessment of corrosion and reactivity with concrete. The
samples were tested for soluble sulfates and chlorides. Testing was conducted by
HDR/Schiff of Claremont and results are presented below, as well as included in the
appendix of laboratory results.
SOIL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

Sample Sample Sulfates Chlorides Resistivity
pH
Location Depth (ppm) (ppm) (ohms-cm)
BA-1 5 8 14 4.2 5.9 4,080
According to the ACI-318, a sulfate concentration below 0.10 percent by weight (1,000
ppm) is negligible. A chloride content of less than 500 ppm is generally considered non-
corrosive to reinforced concrete.
Minimum resistivity testing performed on the soil sample indicated the soils are considered
to be moderately corrosive to buried metal objects. A commonly accepted correlation
between soil resistivity and corrosivity towards ferrous metals (NACE Corrosion Basics,
1984) is provided below:
March 4, 2013
15 CG12GR015Rev 2
RESISTIVITY & CORROSION CORRELATION

Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Corrosion Potential
0 to 1000 Severely Corrosive
1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive
2,000 to 10,000 Moderately Corrosive
Over 10,000 Mildly Corrosive
Thus, according to the table above, the soils are estimated to be moderately corrosive to
corrosive based upon the soil resistivity.
Because engineered fill materials will be placed during construction, we recommend that
verification samples be tested to confirm that soils in contact with concrete and steel have
similar corrosion potential characteristics as the sample tested for this study.
March 4, 2013
16 CG12GR015Rev 2
4 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SELECTED ON-SITE SOILS

4.1 GENERAL
The purpose of the laboratory testing program was to help classify soils and rock materials,
and provide relevant physical indices and engineering properties of the subsurface materials.
The primary objectives of the program were to:
Classify and characterize selected sampled subsurface materials;
Evaluate existing selected in situ conditions; and
Develop relevant consolidation, strength, and permeability estimates of selected
subsurface materials.
To meet these objectives, various tests were performed on selected samples. Test types are
generally grouped into the following categories: classification/index tests, moisture
content/density evaluations, consolidation tests, permeability tests, relevant strength tests,
and subgrade characterization tests
The numbers of the various tests performed for the project are noted below:
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED

Number of Standard
Laboratory Test
Tests Designation1
Dry Density/Moisture Content 34 ASTM D2216
Atterberg Limits 1 ASTM D4318
Modified Proctor 1 ASTM D1557
Direct Shear 3 ASTM D3080
Swell 2 ASTM D3877m
Torsional Ring Shear 1 ASTM D6467
Consolidation 3 ASTM D2435
ASTM G51 & G57
Soil Chemistry 1
Caltrans 417 & 422
1 ASTM International (2007), Caltrans (2000)
Results of those tests are presented on the Logs of Drill Holes located in Appendix A
and/or in Appendix C.
4.2 CLASSIFICATION/INDEX TESTING

The purpose of the laboratory testing program was to supplement field classification of soils
4.2.1 In-Situ Dry Density & Moisture Content

In-situ moisture values obtained from this study are noted on the project drill hole logs
presented in Appendix A. Moisture content values obtained during this study ranged from
4.0 to 35.4 percent. The average moisture content obtained during this study is 15.8 percent.
March 4, 2013
17 CG12GR015Rev 2
Density values ranged from 80.4 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 138.8 pcf with an average of
about 119.8 pcf.
4.2.2 Plasticity
Plasticity of two selected samples was tested during this as discussed in Section 3.4 of this
report. The samples tested were lean clay (USCS symbol CL) with a maximum liquid limit
of 48.2 and a PI of 24.6.
4.2.3 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content

Maximum density and optimum moisture content tests were performed on a selected sample
during this study. The maximum density obtained from that test was 111.1 pcf and
optimum moisture content was 18.0 percent.
4.3 STRENGTH & VOLUMETRIC TESTING
4.3.1 Strength
Strength of on-site soils was evaluated using direct shear and torsion-ring shear testing. We
compiled shear strength data and plotted those data on Plate 9 Shear Strength Envelopes.
As noted on Plate 9, the shear strength envelope encompassing the strength data was
relatively wide. Shear strength values used in stability analyses during this study were taken
from the lower portion of the strength envelope. Based on the data generated and compiled,
we used the following strength values in evaluation of slope stability at the site.
SHEAR STRENGTHS USED IN STABILITY ANALYSES

Condition Cohesion (psf) (degrees)
Within fine-grained soil materials
200 30
(landslide deposits & colluvium)
Within granular soil materials
250 41
(landslide deposits)
Along landslide failure planes 0* 6 *
* - Ultimate values
4.3.2 Consolidation
The consolidation characteristics of the foundation soils were estimated by performing one-
dimensional consolidation in general accordance with ASTM test method D2435. The
consolidation data provides evaluation of the soil pre-consolidation pressure and
compression indices for evaluating post-construction settlements.
March 4, 2013
18 CG12GR015Rev 2
5 SLOPE STABILITY
5.1 GENERAL
The proposed project includes design and construction of temporary and permanent cut
slopes. The stability of a slope or landslide is dependent upon the balance of forces driving
and resisting slope failure. Those forces are based upon a wide range of geological and
physical influences, of which the most significant are:
Surface slope geometry;

Subsurface soil or rock profiles;
Strength of underlying earth materials; and
Hydrogeologic conditions within the slope.
Earthquake forces and surcharge loads can also greatly affect slope stability and are
considered during this study.
The following sections discuss the influences noted above and the results of our stability
analyses.
5.2 DISCUSSION REGARDING FACTORS OF SAFETY

Design of cut and fill slopes generally takes into consideration a number of soil and rock
strength parameters, geologic conditions within the slope, hydrogeologic conditions, and
surcharge and seismic loads that could affect the slope. Those parameters are typically
modeled using limit-equilibrium methods (and less commonly using finite-element or finite-
difference modeling) to estimate a slope inclination that meets or exceeds a target minimum
factor of safety (FOS) against failure. The FOS is estimated by calculating the forces
resisting slope failure divided by the forces causing slope failure. Thus, a FOS of greater
than 1 implies a stable slope, a FOS of less than 1 a slope that is failing, and a FOS of 1, a
slope that is on the verge of failure.
Conventional engineered cut or fill slopes typically utilize a minimum FOS of 1.5 and 1.1 for
static and pseudostatic (pseudo-earthquake forces) evaluations, respectively, of slope stability
for acceptable maximum slope inclinations. In addition, temporary slopes, which in this
study are defined as slopes exposed for less than a year and not during winter, typically
utilize a minimum static FOS of 1.2. These FOS thresholds have been incorporated into this
study.
5.3 SURFACE SLOPE GEOMETRY

Existing surface topography used in or slope stability analyses is based upon site-specific
topographic surveys provided by MMWD (2012) as shown on Plate 3. Proposed surface
topography is based on preliminary grading schemes that develop a pad having an elevation
of 520 feet above MSL, as presented on Plates 5.1 through 5.3.
March 4, 2013
19 CG12GR015Rev 2
5.4 SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Subsurface geological conditions within the proposed development area were estimated
through field mapping and subsurface exploration. A number of cross sections were
developed across the site, which depict anticipated subsurface conditions. Locations of
those cross sections are noted on Plate 3. The cross sections are presented on Plates 5.1
through 5.3.
5.5 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USED IN STABILITY ANALYSES

Strengths of earth materials tested during this study are presented in Section 4.3 of this
report and presented in Appendix C. Soil moist unit weight used in the analyses ranged
from 110 to 130 pcf.
5.6 LOADING VALUES

External loads from the proposed tank and from seismic forces will affect slopes design and
constructed for this project. For the proposed tank, we have used a loading value of 3,000
psf in the analyses. For seismic loading conditions, we have used a value of 0.16g, which
represented one-third of the design basis probabilistic ground motion presented in Section
3.1.4, as recommended by Seed (1979).
5.7 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

As noted in Section 2.4.3, groundwater was encountered at a depths ranging from about 17
to 20 feet beneath the ground surface. Parametric evaluations of slope stability, modeling
groundwater as at various depths were performed to estimate the sensitivity of the slope
stability to groundwater elevations.
5.8 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS
5.8.1 Limit-Equilibrium Analyses

CGI performed a series of slope stability evaluations to evaluate FOS versus slope
inclination for varying slope heights and conditions. Those analyses were performed using
the computer program SLIDE (Rocscience, 2012a). Results of the evaluations are presented
in Appendix D. Limit-equilibrium analyses were performed to estimate the FOS against
sliding for the gross stability of proposed cut slopes located adjacent to the tank and natural
slopes underlying the tank pad.
Gross Stability of Natural Slopes. Stability analysis of natural slopes, as they exist now
(prior to construction), was performed to assess the FOS of current, existing conditions.
Stability analyses were performed along geotechnical section C/C (Plate 5.3). Those analyses
were performed using SLIDE (Rocscience 2012a) using strength values discussed in Section
4.3.1. Analyses were performed using both circular and noncircular failure surfaces to
estimate the sensitivity of slope stability to different failure mechanisms.
March 4, 2013
20 CG12GR015Rev 2
Based on the results of our analyses, it was estimated that the natural slope at the project site
has a static and pseudostatic FOS of 1.18 and 0.91, respectively, and that the most critical
mode of failure is translational along existing failure planes.
Gross Stability of Proposed Tank Developments. Stability of proposed grading schemes

for both circular and oblong tanks was performed using the program SLIDE (Rocscience,
2012a). Those analyses were performed along geotechnical section C-C using strength
values discussed in Section 4.3.1 of this report. Groundwater elevations were modeled as
measured during our exploration program and at elevations closer to the ground surface in
order to assess the sensitivity of slope stability to hydrogeologic conditions. Analyses were
performed using both circular and noncircular failure surfaces to estimate the sensitivity of
slope stability to differing failure mechanisms. Based on the results of our analyses, we
estimate the static and pseudostatic slope stability for the proposed development schemes to
be as follows:
STABILITY OF PROPOSED GRADING SCHEMES

Groundwater Tank Analysis Factor of Safety
Condition Shape Type Static Pseudostatic
Circular 1.56 1.13
Round
As observed during Noncircular 1.26 1.08
exploration Circular 1.61 1.14
Oblong
Noncircular 1.28 1.03
Circular 1.09 0.86
Round
Elevated
Circular 1.02 0.86
Oblong
Gross Stability of Temporary Cut Slopes. Stability analyses of temporary cut slopes were
evaluated to provide estimates of maximum temporary slope inclinations. Analyses were
performed using SLIDE (Rocscience, 2012a) utilizing strength information presented in
Section 4.3.1 of this report. Static analyses were performed using groundwater surfaces
observed in explorations advanced for this study. Earth materials exposed in temporary cut
slopes were assumed to consist of fine-grained landslide deposits. The following table
presents the maximum slope inclination that achieves a FOS of about 1.15 for varying slope
heights.
TEMPORARY CUT SLOPE DATA

Temporary Cut Slope Height Recommended Maximum
(feet) Cut Slope Inclination
10 40
20 38
30 35
40 34
50 33
March 4, 2013
21 CG12GR015Rev 2
The Contractor should independently assess safe and stable inclinations for temporary cut
slopes as part of their services. The information resented above is strictly to assist in
planning and budget projections during predevelopment phases of the project.
March 4, 2013
22 CG12GR015Rev 2
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of our investigation, Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) may not be
suitable for use for a tank development due to concerns regarding slope stability. It is our
opinion that the site currently does not meet acceptable factors of safety against slope failure
and without significant stabilization measures, may not be inherently stable. In addition,
Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) is estimated to be subject to significant differential
settlement beneath the proposed tank. Such settlement will likely necessitate significant
ground improvement measures to reduce the differential settlement magnitudes to values
tolerable for a tank slab and foundation.
Specific comments and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of project

design and construction are presented in the following sections of this report and are
intended to be refined, where needed, as the project moves from predesign to design stages.
Recommendations presented, herein, are based upon the preliminary site plans provided by
MMWD and HDR along with stated assumptions. Changes in the configuration from those
studied during this investigation may require supplemental recommendations.
6.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.2.1 Faulting
No known faults pass through the project site. Surface faulting is not anticipated to pose a
significant risk to the proposed project.
6.2.2 Landslides
Landslide deposits underlie the entire project site and project region, as shown on Plates 3
and 4. We did not observe indications that those landslide materials are currently moving or
showing signs of incipient movement. However, slope stability evaluations of natural slopes
(pre-proposed construction) indicate that those slopes currently have a FOS below 1.5 and
1.1 under modeled static and pseudostatic conditions, respectively. Thus, in its current
state, the slope does not meet current engineering thresholds for slope stability.
Evaluations were performed on proposed project slopes to evaluate the stability of the
slopes relative to the proposed project improvements. Proposed grading configurations for
both a round and oblong tank were evaluated. For those evaluations FOS values of less
than 1.5 and 1.1 under modeled static and pseudostatic conditions, respectively, were not
achieved. Those evaluations were performed with groundwater at elevations observed
during this study. Parametric evaluations that elevate the groundwater table indicate that the
proposed development scenarios approach FOS of 1.0 under static conditions, indicating
that the stability of the development site is sensitive to groundwater elevations.
March 4, 2013
23 CG12GR015Rev 2
Methods of increasing the stability of the slope at the specific tank site have been performed
and discussed in Section 6.3.9 of this report. If those or other alternatives to increase
stability to currently accepted engineering standards are not incorporated into the project
design at this site, we recommend that the site be discarded as an option for one of the
proposed tank sites.
6.2.3 Liquefaction
Based on our observations and material exposed during the investigation, it our opinion that
liquefaction and lateral spreading pose a low risk of adversely affecting the project site or
proposed improvements.
6.2.4 Expansive Soils

Soils with a low to moderate expansion potential are present at the project site. See Section
3.4 of this report for a description of those soils. The foundation materials that the tank will
be situated on should consist of moderately to slightly weathered rock that should have a
lower potential for expansion. It is our opinion that expansive soils should have relatively
little adverse affect on the project design, construction, or performance.
6.3 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
6.3.1 Stripping
Prior to general site grading and/or construction of planned improvements, existing
vegetation, trees, organic topsoil, debris, and deleterious materials should be stripped and
disposed of off-site or outside the construction limits. Stripping depths of about 4 to 6
inches should be anticipated for the project. Where trees and large shrubs are currently
present, or have fallen or been removed within the last seven years, deeper stripping to
remove root balls will be needed. Such deeper stripping could exceed three or more feet in
depth.
6.3.2 Existing Utilities, Wells, and/or Foundations

It is not anticipated that existing pipelines and/or subsurface improvements are located
within the proposed tank site. In the unlikely event buried improvements are encountered
during construction, they should be removed and/or rerouted beyond construction limits.
Buried tanks or wells, if present, should be removed in compliance with applicable regulatory
agency requirements. Existing, below-grade utility pipelines that extend beyond the limits of
the proposed construction and that will be abandoned in-place should be plugged with lean
concrete or grout to prevent migration of soil and/or water. All excavations resulting from
removal and demolition activities should be cleaned of loose or disturbed material prior to
placing any fill or backfill.
March 4, 2013
24 CG12GR015Rev 2
6.3.3 Keying and Benching

The proposed tank pads will involve cutting the existing bench down to an elevation of 520
feet above MSL. No fill placement is anticipated during the grading of the tank pad. Some
fills may be placed once the tank is constructed; however, it is anticipated that those fill
materials will be placed on relatively flat and level cut-pad surfaces. Therefore, keying is not
anticipated to be necessary for construction of the tank. However, construction of the
proposed access road might include placement of engineered fill materials on slopes. Such
construction would require keying and benching.
Plate 10 - Keying and Benching Details provides details on creations of keyways and
benches at the project site. Keyways should be founded in competent soils or rocks. The
keyway bottom should be approved by an experienced, California licensed geotechnical
engineer or engineering geologist prior to placement of engineered fill materials. It is
recommended that keyways be a minimum of 12 feet wide, inclined back into the slope at a
minimum of 2 percent and that a subdrain be placed at the back of the keyway to capture
and remove groundwater, as shown on Plate 10.
As engineered fill materials are placed against existing slopes or temporary cut slopes created
during tank construction, benches should be graded into those slopes to tie the engineered
fill and competent intact soil materials together. Benches should be a minimum of 6 feet
wide and have vertical backcuts at least 4 feet tall. The benches should be inclined into the
slope a minimum of 2 percent, as shown on Plate 10.
6.3.4 Scarification and Compaction

Following site stripping and overexcavation, areas to receive engineered fill should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, uniformly moisture-conditioned to near optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined using standard test method ASTM D15571.
6.3.5 Wet/Unstable Soil Conditions

Following periods of precipitation and following the rainy season, near-surface on-site soils
may be significantly over optimum moisture content. In addition, soils near the groundwater
table may also be significantly above optimum moisture content. These conditions could
hinder equipment access as well as efforts to compact site soils to a specified level of
compaction. If over optimum soil moisture content conditions are encountered during
construction, disking to aerate, replacement with imported material, chemical treatment,
stabilization with a geotextile fabric or grid, and/or other methods will likely be required to
facilitate earthwork operations. The applicable method of stabilization is the Contractors
responsibility and will depend on the contractor's capabilities and experience, as well as other
project-related factors beyond the scope of this investigation. Therefore, if over-optimum
1
This test procedure applies wherever relative compaction, maximum dry density, or optimum moisture
content is referenced within this report.
March 4, 2013
25 CG12GR015Rev 2
moisture within the soil is encountered during construction, CGI should review these
conditions (as well as the contractor's capabilities) and, if requested, provide
recommendations for their treatment.
6.3.6 Site Drainage

Grading should be performed in such a manner that provides positive surface gradient away
from all structures. The ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to structures,
retaining walls, or the top of cut or fill sections. Surface runoff should be directed toward
engineered collection systems or suitable discharge areas and not allowed to flow over
slopes. Discharge from structures should also be collected, conveyed, and discharged away
into engineered systems, such as storm drains. Landscape plantings around structures
should be avoided or be dry climate tolerant and require minimal irrigation.
6.3.7 Excavation Characteristics & Bulking

Geophysical refraction surveys performed across the site (see Appendix B) indicate seismic
velocities within the proposed depths of construction (down to about elevation 520 feet
above MSL) to be less than about 5,600 feet per second (ft/sec). According to rippability
charts published by the Caterpillar (2012), a D9R/D9T Caterpillar bulldozer, or equivalent,
equipped with single or multiple shanks should be capable of ripping sedimentary rock
materials with velocities of about 7,200 ft/sec or slower and has marginal rippability up to
seismic velocities exceeding 9,000 ft/sec for the materials encountered on site. Rippability
charts for D8R/D8T, D9R/D9T, and D10T bulldozers, or equivalent, are presented on
Plate 11 - Rippability Charts.
It needs to be noted that the ability of a piece of equipment to rip a rock materials does not
imply that that same piece of equipment will or can reduce the ripped fragment sizes down
to an acceptable level for use as engineered fill materials or other select construction
materials. Additional crushing may be required to perform those tasks to meet project
specifications.
Bulking or shrinkage of excavated materials at the project site can be estimated using the
following information:
SHRINKAGE & BULKING FACTORS

Material Shrinkage
Landslide deposits in upper 15 feet
5% to 7%
of profile
Landslide deposits below a depth
3% to 5%
of 15 feet
The shrinkage and bulking factors do not include the shrinkage due to segregation of
oversized rock materials or zones of highly organic soils from engineered fill materials being
placed. Based on our observations, we estimate that less than 10 percent should contain
March 4, 2013
26 CG12GR015Rev 2
oversize materials. This number could locally be larger. These factors should be included in
volume calculations for on-site soils that are excavated then compacted per
recommendations within this report.
6.3.8 Temporary Slopes

This section explicitly excludes trench slopes for buried utilities. Temporary trench
excavations are discussed in Section 6.6.4 of this report.
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to require temporary slopes to facilitate

construction of below-ground improvements. All temporary excavations must comply with
applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation
and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety is the responsibility of the Contractor,
who should be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction
operations so that a safe working environment is maintained.
Based on stability analyses discussed in Section 5.0, we recommend that temporary cut
slopes be based on slope height and inclined no steeper than those angles referred to in
Section 5.8.1. Those slopes should have static FOS values for gross stability exceeding 1.2.
We recommend that temporary slopes in excess of 20 feet in height be exposed only during
seasonal dry times of year and not be allowed to remain exposed between November and
March.
Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic
should not be allowed within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the toe of the
excavation to the ground surface, unless shoring is being used and has specifically been
designed for those surcharge loads. Where the stability of adjoining improvements, walls, or
other structures is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring,
bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability and to protect
personnel working within the excavation.
During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff
water from entering excavations. All runoff water entering the excavation(s) should be
collected and disposed of outside the construction limits.
6.3.9 Permanent Slopes

As noted in Section 6.2.2, the proposed development scenarios for both round and oblong
tanks result in FOS values below currently accepted engineering thresholds. It is our
recommendation that without installation of measures to increase slope stability, the site
should be eliminated as a potential site for development of a tank. If the site is to be
considered for future development, it is recommended that mitigations be designed and
constructed to increase the FOS to meet or exceed the minimum values of 1.5 and 1.1 for
March 4, 2013
27 CG12GR015Rev 2
static and pseudostatic conditions, respectively. To do so, CGI evaluated a number of

alternatives that should increase the slope stability at the site. Those alternatives include:
Installation of tieback walls;

Installation of ground anchors; and
Construction of buttress stabilization.
Those alternatives are discussed in greater detail below.
Tieback Wall Stabilization. A tieback wall consists of some form of structural retention
wall that is anchored into a slope using a prestressed element. Most commonly, it consists of
vertical steel I-beams constructed like a soldier pile wall and restrained by prestressed bars or
tendons forming the tiebacks.
For this project, an upper and lower tieback walls were modeled with tendons extending at
least 100 feet into the slope face at an angle of up to 20 degrees off of horizontal. The
tendons were modeled using a 400 kip force. Because the observed slide planes within the
landslide mass dip at relatively flat angles, we could not achieve the target FOS values
without constructing unreasonably long tiebacks. Thus, this alternative was not given
further consideration.
Ground Anchors. Ground anchors consist of prestressed bars or tendons that are
constructed into a slope behind a concrete or steel plate or some other structural element.
The anchors can be constructed from relatively flat to steep angles off of horizontal.
For this study, we modeled the resistance force needed to establish the minimum FOS
values for the Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B). It was found that a force of about 55,000
pounds per foot-wide slice made through the slope would be needed to achieve the target
FOS values. This would result in numerous, relatively long anchors being needed to support
that slope.
For illustrative and cost-estimating purposes, we evaluated an anchor distribution pattern

that could be used if this alternative was utilized to increase the stability of the site. With an
estimated soil-grout bond strength of 75 pounds per square foot, we estimate that 80-foot
long anchors bonded over 80 percent of their length should have a grid spacing of no more
than 10 feet by 10 feet along the slope beneath the proposed tank site. That spacing will
result in about 180 ground anchors being constructed with a total lineal footage of about
14,500 feet. It is estimated that this alternative would cost between about $4.5- and $5.5-
million to construct.
Buttress Stabilization. Buttress stabilization consists of the placement of engineered fill

materials near the base of a slope to increase the forces resisting slope failure. In landslide
March 4, 2013
28 CG12GR015Rev 2
deposits, this can consist of removal of existing landslide materials to eliminate preferential
planes of weakness, such as existing landslide planes, and replacement with engineered fill
materials.
Slope stability analyses for this project evaluated the removal and replacement of landslide
deposits to create a buttress. For our evaluations, we varied possible buttress widths and
depths to evaluate the buttress dimensions needed to achieve the target FOS values. For the
project site, we estimate that a buttress with a width of about 120 feet and depth of at least
38 feet would be needed to meet those values. Subdrains should be installed at the bottom
of the buttress and a drainage blanket included along the buttress back cut to reduce the
groundwater elevation. The buttress should be constructed in slots perpendicular to the
slope face so that the entire temporary back-slope is not exposed at one time, which could
destabilize the slope. It is estimated that the buttress stabilization will cost about $1.3-
million to construct.
Further Slope Considerations. As previously noted in Section 6.2.2 and as shown on

Plates 3 and 4, the Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) is located on a larger landslide complex
that extends from the top of Bald Hill down to Phoenix Creek. The stability of that larger
landslide complex is unknown at this time. The mitigation alternatives noted above for
stabilizing the proposed tank site will have little influence on the stability of the overall
landslide complex on which the proposed tank site rests.
If the proposed Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) is ever proposed for development, we
recommend that the gross stability of the larger landslide complex be evaluated. That should
include additional exploration and laboratory testing along with stability analyses. If the
static and/or pseudostatic FOS of that landslide complex is estimated to be below the
currently accepted target values, then mitigation alternatives should be developed. It has
been our experience that control of groundwater elevations and/or grading to reduce
landslide driving forces or increase landslide resisting forces are typically the most efficient
methods of improving stability or relatively large landslide complexes, such as that being
discussed herein.
6.3.10 Overexcavation
Overexcavation of soils and/or rock materials at the site is not anticipated to be needed
unless the buttress stabilization discussed in Section 6.3.9 is utilized.
6.3.11 On-Site Soil Materials

It is our opinion that most of the near-surface soils encountered at the site can be used for
general engineered fill provided they are free of organics, debris, oversized particles (>3)
and deleterious materials. If highly plastic clayey materials (materials having a plasticity index
exceeding 30 and a liquid limit in excess of 50) are encountered during grading, those
materials should be segregated and excluded from engineered fill, where possible. If
March 4, 2013
29 CG12GR015Rev 2
potentially unsuitable soil is considered for use as engineered fill, CGI should observe, test,
and provide recommendations as to the suitability of the material prior to placement as
engineered fill.
6.3.12 Imported Fill Materials - General

If imported fill materials are used for this project, they should consist of soil and/or soil-
aggregate mixtures generally less than 3 inches in maximum dimension, nearly free of
organic or other deleterious debris, and essentially non-plastic. Typically, well-graded
mixtures of gravel, sand, non-plastic silt, and small quantities of clay are acceptable for use as
imported engineered fill within foundation areas. Imported fill materials should be sampled
and tested prior to importation to the project site to verify that those materials meet
recommended material criteria noted below. Specific requirements for imported fill
materials, as well as applicable test procedures to verify material suitability are as follows:
IMPORTED FILL RECOMMENDATIONS

GRADATION
General Fill Granular Fill Test Procedures
Sieve Size
Percent Passing ASTM AASHTO
3-inch 100 100 D422 T88
-inch 70 100 70 100 D422 T88
No. 200 0 - 30 <5 D422 T88
PLASTICITY
Liquid Limit <30 NA D4318 T89
Plasticity Index <12 Nonplastic D4318 T90
ORGANIC CONTENT <3% <3% D2974 NA
6.3.13 Materials - Granular

All granular fill should consist of imported soil mixtures generally less than 3 inches in
maximum dimension, nearly free of organic or other deleterious debris, and essentially non-
plastic. Specific requirements for granular fill, as well as applicable test procedures to verify
material suitability are presented in Section 6.3.12 of this report.
6.3.14 Controlled Low Strength Material

Controlled low strength material (CLSM) can be used to backfill excavated areas or as
engineered fill materials. CLSM consists of a fluid, workable mixture of aggregate, cement,
and water that is of limited strength as to allow future excavation and maintenance of buried
improvements yet capable of supporting the proposed improvements. If CLSM is used as
engineered fill materials, we recommend that those materials conform and be placed
according to specifications presented in Section 19-3.062 of the 2006 Caltrans Standard
Specifications.
March 4, 2013
30 CG12GR015Rev 2
6.3.15 Placement & Compaction

Soil and/or soil-aggregate mixtures used for engineered fill should be uniformly moisture-
conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in horizontal lifts less
than 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction2
for general engineered fill and 95 percent relative compaction beneath the tank. It is
recommended that fill materials be placed and compacted uniformly in elevation around the
buried structures and that the vertical elevation differential of contiguous lifts diverge no
more then three feet around the structure during compaction. Testing should be performed
to verify that the relative compactions are being obtained as recommended herein.
Compaction testing, at a minimum, should consist of one test per every 500 cubic yards of
soil being placed or at every 1.5-foot vertical fill interval, whichever comes first.
In general, a sheeps foot or wedge foot compactor should be used to compact fine-
grained fill materials. A vibrating smooth drum roller could be used to compact granular fill
materials and final fill surfaces.
6.4 FOUNDATIONS & SLABS
6.4.1 Summary of Foundation Design Recommendations

The following table provides a summary of foundation design recommendations made in
Section 6.4.
FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommended
Foundation Element
Value
Shallow Foundation System (Spread Footings)
Landslide
Anticipated foundation materials:
deposits
Minimum embedment depth: 18 inches
Allowable bearing capacity: 1,500 psf
Allowable bearing capacity increase with depth: 150 psf/ft
Maximum allowable bearing capacity: 2,500 psf
Passive Pressure & Coefficient of Friction

Passive pressure: 200 psf
Base coefficient of friction: 0.30
Estimated Settlement
Total: >7
Differential: 5.5 in 50 ft
Slab-on-Grade
Modulus of subgrade reaction (K1s) 100 ksf
2
This test procedure applies wherever relative compaction, maximum dry density, or optimum moisture
content is referenced within this report.
March 4, 2013
31 CG12GR015Rev 2
We recommend that the following section be consulted for more details regarding the above
recommendations.
6.4.2 Transition Lots

We recommend that the tank and structure foundations be founded entirely within native,
undisturbed soil/rock. Structure foundations should not be founded on a combination of
mlange and engineered fill materials (transition lot). For the proposed tank sites, transition
lots are not anticipated for either round or oval scenarios, as shown on Plates 5.1 through
5.4, and it is anticipated t hat foundations will be founded entirely in rock units of the
mlange.
6.4.3 Shallow Foundations

Foundations must be sized, embedded, and reinforced in accordance with recommendation
made by the project structural engineer. All foundation excavations should be made level,
with the exception of vertical steps. The allowable bearing pressures provided below are
based on a recommended minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below the graded
engineered fill surface and a minimum width of 12 inches. Footing thicknesses should be
determined by the Structural Engineer.
6.4.4 Allowable Bearing Pressures

It is assumed that all foundations for the proposed structures will rest entirely on mlange
materials as discussed above. Isolated and continuous footing elements should be
proportioned for dead loads plus probable maximum live load, and a maximum allowable
bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing pressure can
be increased by 150 psf for each additional foot of footing depth above the minimum
recommended. However, the maximum allowable bearing pressure should not exceed 2,500
psf.
The allowable bearing pressures provided are net values. Therefore, the weight of the
foundation (which extends below finished subgrade) may be neglected when computing
dead loads. The allowable bearing pressure applies to dead plus live loads and includes a
calculated factor of safety of at least 3. An increase of allowable bearing pressure by one-
third for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces should NOT be incorporated
unless an alternative load combination, as described in Section 1605.3.2 of the 2010 CBC, is
applied. The allowable bearing value is for vertical loads only; eccentric loads may require
adjustment to the values recommended above. We recommend that CGI be allowed to
observe foundation excavations to confirm projected site conditions.
6.4.5 Estimated Settlements

The anticipated total settlement for the tank foundations, if construction occurs without
mitigations, should be about seven inches. Differential settlement for the structure
foundations is anticipated to be about 1-inch in 10 feet. Potential settlement was evaluated
March 4, 2013
32 CG12GR015Rev 2
for various stages of construction using SETTLE3D, developed by Rocscience (2012c).

Results of those evaluations are presented on Plate 12 Estimated Settlement Projections
6.4.6 Estimated Heave

Swell tests performed for this study indicated relatively low expansion pressures for soils in
the vicinity of the proposed tank subgrade. Those expansion pressures resulted in no
volumetric change with applied loads of less than 200 psf. Thus, for this site, heave should
not pose an adverse condition that requires design mitigations for the proposed tank.
6.4.7 Slab-on-Grade Design

All ground-supported slabs should be designed by a Civil Engineer to support the
anticipated loading conditions. Reinforcement for slabs should be designed by a Civil
Engineer to maintain structural integrity, and should not be less than that required to meet
pertinent code, shrinkage, and temperature requirements. Reinforcement should be placed
at mid-thickness in the slab with provisions to ensure it stays in that position during
construction and concrete placement.
The mat can be designed using a flat slab on an elastic half-space analog. A modulus of
subgrade reaction (ks1) of 100 kcf is recommended for design of mat-type foundations. That
modulus of subgrade reaction value represents a presumptive value based on soil
classification. No plate-load tests were performed as part of this study. The modulus value
is for a 1-foot-square plate and must be corrected for mat size and shape, assuming a
cohesionless subgrade.
Subgrade soils supporting interior concrete floor slabs should be scarified to a minimum
depth of 8 inches, uniformly moisture-conditioned to near the optimum moisture content,
and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
6.4.8 Lateral Earth Pressures

It is our understanding that buried structures and retaining walls (heretofore referred to as
retaining walls) might be utilized in this project. Retaining walls, including buried concrete
tank walls, should be designed to resist earth pressures exerted by the retained, compacted
backfill plus any additional lateral force that will be applied to the wall due to surface loads
placed at or near the wall. The recommended equivalent fluid weights presented below are
for static (non-earthquake) conditions.
March 4, 2013
33 CG12GR015Rev 2
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES UNDER STATIC

CONDITIONS
Equivalent Fluid Weight
Lateral Earth Pressure Slope Inclination (pcf)
Condition Above Structure
Drained
At-Rest Flat 85
Active Flat 60
At-Rest 2:1 100
Active 2:1 75
The resultant force of the static lateral force prism should be applied at a distance of 30
percent of the wall height above the soil elevation on the toe side of the wall.
The tabulated values are based on a soil unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and
do not provide for surcharge conditions resulting from construction materials, equipment, or
vehicle traffic. Loads not considered as surcharges should bear behind a 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical) line projected upward from the base of the shoring. If surcharges are expected,
CGI should be advised so that we can provide additional recommendations as needed.
Surcharge loads induce additional pressures on earth retaining structures. An additional
lateral load on non-yielding walls equal to 0.5 times the applied surcharge pressure should be
included in the design for uniform area surcharge pressures. Lateral pressures for other
surcharge loading conditions can be provided, if required.
Ultimate sliding resistance, passive pressures, and safety factors are discussed below in
Section 6.4.10, 6.4.11, and 6.4.12, respectively.
6.5 RETAINING WALLS
6.5.1 Summary of Retaining Wall Recommendations

The following table provides a summary of retaining wall and retainage improvement
recommendations.
March 4, 2013
34 CG12GR015Rev 2
RETAINAGE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Foundation Element Recommended
Value
Shallow Foundation System (Spread Footings)
Landslide
Anticipated foundation materials:
deposits
Minimum embedment depth: 18 inches
Allowable bearing capacity: 1,500 psf
Allowable bearing capacity increase with depth: 150 psf/ft
Maximum allowable bearing capacity: 2,500 psf
Lateral Earth Pressures

At-rest (level ground above): 85 pcf
Landslide Active (level ground above): 60 pcf
Deposits At-rest (2:1 slope above): 100 pcf
Active (2:1 slope above): 75 pcf
Dynamic (seismic) forces: See Section 6.5.4
Soil Nails
Material Cohesion Unit Weight
Landslide soil 30 0 psf 120 pcf
Landslide - rock 41 0 psf 130 pcf
Minimum diameter: 6 inches
Landslide soil 500 psf

Skin Friction
Landslide - rock 750 psf
We recommend that the above recommendations be utilized following review of section 6.4
and 6.5 of this report, which contain additional details.
6.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressures

If retaining walls are utilized in this project, they should be designed to resist earth pressures
exerted by the retained, compacted backfill plus any additional lateral force that will be
applied to the wall due to surface loads placed at or near the wall. The recommended
equivalent fluid weights are presented in section 6.4.8 of this report.
The resultant force of the static lateral force prism should be applied at a distance of 30
percent of the wall height above the bottom of the foundation on the back of the wall.
The tabulated values are based on a soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and
do not provide for surcharge conditions resulting from foundations, vehicle traffic, or
compaction equipment. The drained values do not provide for hydrostatic forces (for
example, standing water in the backfill materials). Foundation loads not considered as
surcharges should bear behind a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) line projected upward from the
base of the wall. If conditions such as surcharge resulting from footings or hydrostatic
March 4, 2013
35 CG12GR015Rev 2
forces are expected, CGI should be advised so that we can provide additional
recommendations as needed.
Surcharge loads induce additional pressures on earth retaining structures. An additional

lateral load on non-yielding walls equal to 0.5 times the applied surcharge pressure should be
included in the design for uniform area surcharge pressures. Lateral pressures for other
surcharge loading conditions can be provided, if required.
6.5.3 Drainage Measures

Drainage measures should be constructed behind the proposed retaining walls to reduce the
potential for groundwater accumulation. To help reduce the potential for the buildup of
hydrostatic forces behind walls, a granular free-draining backfill, at least 2 feet thick, should
be placed behind the wall, as shown on Plate 13 Retaining Wall Details. The two-foot
thick layer can be decreased to one foot in thickness if wrapped with a geosynthetic filter
fabric; however, the structural engineer should be consulted to confirm that the retaining
wall is design to withstand potential increased stresses due to compaction closer to the wall.
The free-draining backfill should consist of clean, coarse-grained material with no more than
5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Acceptable backfill would be:
Pervious Backfill conforming to Item 300-3.5.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction (Greenbook), most current edition;
Permeable Material (Class 2) conforming to Item 68-1.025 if the Caltrans Standard
Specifications, most current edition;
Pea gravel having a nominal diameter or -inch; or
Crushed stone sized between -inch and -inch.
In lieu of free-draining backfill materials of the types suggested above, manufactured

(geosynthetic) drainage systems (for example MiraDrain manufactured by TC Mirafi, Inc., or
equivalent) can be used against retaining or below-grade walls. Manufacturer
recommendations for the installation and maintenance of these products should generally be
followed, although they should be reviewed by CGI for approval. In addition, manufactured
drainage systems should be attached to the retaining wall face as opposed to the excavated
slope face. This implies that provisions to protect the integrity of the drainage panels will
need to be made while fill materials are placed behind the walls.
A perforated drainpipe system should be installed at the base of the wall to collect water
from the free-draining material and/or geosynthetic drainage system. The drainpipe system
should allow gravity drainage of the collected water away from the buried wall or, as a less
preferred option, should be tied into a sump and pump system to remove the water to an
acceptable outlet facility.
March 4, 2013
36 CG12GR015Rev 2
Finish surface grades should be sloped away from the retaining walls and designed to
channel water to an acceptable collection and offsite disposal system. Provisions should be
included for removal of surface runoff that may tend to collect behind the backs of walls and
for drainage of water away from the fronts of walls. Also, provisions should be included to
mitigate the infiltration of surface water into the below-ground, free-draining
backfill/geosynthetic drainage system by placing a minimum of 18-inches of low
permeability compacted soil over the top of those materials.
6.5.4 Dynamic Earth Pressures

For unrestrained walls, the increase in lateral earth pressure acting on the wall resulting from
earthquake loading can be estimated using the approach of Seed and Whitman (1970). That
theory is based on the assumption that sufficient wall movement occurs during seismic
shaking to allow active earth pressure conditions to develop. For restrained walls, the
increase in lateral earth pressure resulting from earthquake loading also can be estimated
using these relations. Because that theory is based on the assumption that sufficient
movement occurs so that active earth pressure conditions develop during seismic shaking,
the applicability of the theory to restrained or basement walls is not direct; however, there
have been studies (Nadim and Whitman, 1992) that suggest the theory can be used for such
walls.
In the Seed and Whitman (1970) approach, the total dynamic pressure can be divided into
static and dynamic components. The estimated dynamic lateral force increase (based on
seismic loading conditions) for either unrestrained or restrained walls, could be taken as the
following:
PE=3/8*pga* t*H2
Where:
PE = Seismically-induced horizontal force (lbs per lineal foot of wall)
Pga = Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
t = Total unit weight of backfill (pcf)
H = Height of the wall below the ground surface (ft)
Peak ground acceleration (pga) values for the site are provided in Section 3.1 of this report.
The centroid of the dynamic lateral force increment should be applied at a distance of 0.6*H
above the base of the wall.
To estimate the total dynamic lateral force, the dynamic lateral force increase should be
added to the static earth pressure force computed using recommendations for active lateral
earth pressures presented above. That recommendation is based on the concept that during
shaking, earth pressures recommended for permanent conditions will be reduced to those
more closely approximating active conditions.
March 4, 2013
37 CG12GR015Rev 2
6.5.5 Sliding Resistance

Ultimate sliding resistance generated through a compacted soil/concrete interface can be
computed by multiplying the total dead weight structural loads by the friction coefficient of
0.30 and 0.35 for native soils and imported granular engineered fill, respectively.
6.5.6 Passive Resistance

Ultimate passive resistance developed from lateral bearing of shallow foundation elements
bearing against compacted soil surfaces for that portion of the foundation element extending
below a depth of 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade can be estimated using an
equivalent fluid weight if 200 pcf.
6.5.7 Safety Factors

Sliding resistance and passive pressure may be used together without reduction in
conjunction with recommended safety factors outlined below. A minimum factor of safety
of 1.5 is recommended for foundation sliding, where sliding resistance and passive pressure
are used together
6.5.8 Construction Considerations

Prior to placing steel or concrete, foundation excavations should be cleaned of all debris,
loose or disturbed soil, and any water. A representative of CGI should observe all
foundation excavations prior to concrete placement.
6.6 PIPELINES & TRENCH BACKFILL
6.6.1 External Loads on Buried Pipelines

External loads on buried pipes will consist of loads due to the overlying earth materials,
loads due to construction activities, loads due to traffic, and other post construction land
uses. It is recommended that the pipe be designed to resist the imposed loads with a factor
of safety and an amount of deflection, as recommended by the pipeline manufacturer.
Loads on the pipe due to the overlying soil will be dependent upon the depth of placement,
type and method of backfill, the configuration of the trench, the depth of ground water, and
whether any additional fill will be placed above the pipeline, on the ground surface. The
earth loads on the pipe can be estimated using formulas developed by Marston (1930) and
Spangler (1982). Trench conditions will likely occur along the alignment, and there is a low
probability that embankment conditions will be present. Trench conditions are defined as
those in which the pipe is installed in a relatively narrow trench, cut in undisturbed ground,
and covered with earth backfill to the original ground surface. Embankment conditions are
defined as those in which the pipe is covered with fill above the ground surface or when a
trench in undisturbed ground is so wide that trench sidewall friction does not affect the load
on the pipe. When using Marstons formulas, the unit weight of the backfill materials should
be assumed to be 120 pcf.
March 4, 2013
38 CG12GR015Rev 2
The pipe may be subject to surcharge pressures due to construction activities and traffic.
Those surcharge pressures should be considered in the design of the pipe.
6.6.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction (E)

Flexible and semi-rigid pipes are typically designed to withstand a certain amount of
deflection from applied earth loads. Those deflections can be estimated with the equations
developed by Spangler (1982). The modulus of soil reaction (E) values for the project were
estimated using relations of Howard (1996). The table below presents Eb values, which are
recommended E values for pipezone backfill materials (pipezone backfill). The
recommended Eb values presented in the table below apply to the initial backfill materials
along the sides of the pipe at the recommended level of compaction.
MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION FOR PIPE ZONE BACKFILL

MATERIALS (EB)
Soil Type Depth of Burial Recommended Eb (psi)
5 1,000
Pipe Bedding and Pipe Embedment 10 1,500
(clean crushed rock or sand) 15 1,600
15+ 1,700
Soil-Cement Slurry (backfilled
within 2 days of placement) Not Applicable 3,000
Where the zone of backfill beside the pipe is less than five times the pipeline diameter, the
Eb values above may not be applicable and the constrained soil modulus En will affect
flexible pipe design. En corresponds to the E value for the natural trench wall soils. The
actual lateral soil modulus at the pipe depth will lie somewhere in between Eb and En
depending on the trench width. The following En values are recommended for varying
earth materials based on data obtained in our field and laboratory investigations.
EN VALUES FOR ON-SITE MATERIALS

Earth Material En Value (psi)
Mlange 2,000
Engineered Fill 600
Landslide Deposits 400
Intact mlange can be anticipated along the lower portions of the North Access road within
about 300 feet of the Ross reservoir. Engineered fill materials can be anticipated in areas of
landslide repair adjacent to (east of) Ross Reservoir, along portions of the North Access
Road (especially along the outboard edge of road). Landslide deposits can be anticipated
along the North Access Road and beneath the Worn Spring Tank Site (Site 10B) tank pad.
March 4, 2013
39 CG12GR015Rev 2
For trench widths less than five times the diameter of the pipe, the composite design E (Eb
and En) may be calculated using the Soil Support Combining Factors (Sc) presented in the
table below, where Bd is the trench width at pipe springline and D is the diameter of the
pipe.
SOIL SUPPORT COMBINING FACTORS (SC)

En/Eb Bd/D=1.5 Bd/D=2.0 Bd/D=2.5 Bd/D=3.0 Bd/D=4.0 Bd/D=5.0
0.1 0.15 0.30 0.60 0.80 0.90 1.00
0.2 0.30 0.45 0.70 0.85 0.92 1.00
0.4 0.50 0.60 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.00
0.6 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.00
0.8 0.85 0.90 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00
1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.5 1.30 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 1.00
2.0 1.50 1.30 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00
3.0 1.75 1.45 1.30 1.20 1.08 1.00
>5.0 2.00 1.60 1.40 1.25 1.10 1.00
Source: Pipeline Installation, A. Howard, 1996
The corresponding composite design E can be calculated by selecting the appropriate Sc

value from the table above and multiplying the appropriate Eb value by Sc, as noted below:
E=Eb(Sc)
6.6.3 Thrust Resistance

Where the proposed pipeline changes direction abruptly, resistance to thrust, if needed, can
be provided by mobilizing frictional resistance between pipe and the surrounding soil, by use
of a thrust block, by use of restrained pipe joints, or by a combination of the above.
To design thrust resistance by mobilizing frictional resistance, we recommend that a

coefficient of lateral earth pressure at-rest value, Ko, of 0.5 be used in conjunction with a
coefficient of friction of 0.20 for PVC or HDPE pipelines. Those frictional values include a
factor of safety of 1.5 and are based on the assumption that a sand with a sand equivalent
(SE) of 28 or greater will be placed within the pipezone in accordance with
recommendations presented in Section 6.6.5.1.
6.6.4 Trenches & Dewatering

Excavations greater than 5 feet deep should be braced or shored, or the slopes inclined at a
safe angle, in accordance with good construction practices and all applicable safety
ordinances. In general, soils having a tendency to run or flow were not observed at shallow
depths (less than 10 feet deep) during our study. The actual construction of the trench walls
and worker safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
March 4, 2013
40 CG12GR015Rev 2
Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic
should not be allowed within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the toe of the
trench excavation to the ground surface. Where the stability of project improvements is
endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or
underpinning may be required to provide structural stability and to protect personnel
working within the excavation.
Groundwater might be encountered within the depths of typical trench excavations made
during or shortly after precipitation and the wet weather season, and could enter utility
trenches and pipe support foundations excavated for this project. If groundwater is
encountered during construction, it is recommended that the contractor install measures to
capture and/or divert groundwater from entering the excavations. If this is not possible,
then the contractor should channel groundwater to flow towards collection points to be
removed from the excavations and disposed of at an approved area.
6.6.5 Pipe Zone & Trench Zone Materials

The use of appropriate pipe zone and trench zone backfill materials is critical for the long
term performance of a buried, flexible pipeline. Pipe zone and trench zone backfill materials
are discussed below. Plate 14 - Trench Nomenclature, graphically illustrates the locations of
pipe zone and trench zone backfill areas.
6.6.5.1 Pipe Zone Backfill

The pipe zone, as discussed herein, is that cross sectional area that extends from the bottom
of the trench to 6 inches over the crown of the pipeline, and from trench wall to trench wall,
as shown on Plate 14. Pipe zone backfill materials should consist of imported soil having an
SE of no less than 30 and having a particle size no greater than -inch in maximum
dimension, per Section 306-1.2.1 of the Greenbook. On-site soils will likely not meet these
recommendations.
6.6.5.2 Trench Zone Backfill

Trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the top of pipe zone backfill and finished
subgrade) may consist of on-site soils or imported materials. If on-site soils are used, then
those materials should be screened of deleterious materials, organic debris, highly plastic
clay, and oversized materials having dimensions of greater than 3 inches in any direction
prior to placement within the trench.
Alternatively, imported soils can be used as trench zone backfill. We recommend that
imported trench zone materials conform to recommendations presented for imported
general engineered fill materials presented in Section 6.3.12 of this report. Those imported
materials should be free of deleterious materials, organic debris, or clasts exceeding 3 inches
in diameter in any direction.
March 4, 2013
41 CG12GR015Rev 2
6.6.5.3 Controlled Low Strength Backfill

An alternative to the use of pipe zone and trench zone backfill materials noted above is the
use of controlled low strength material (CLSM) as pipe and/or trench zone backfill. CLSM
consists of a fluid, workable mixture of aggregate, cement, and water that is of limited
strength as to allow future excavation and maintenance of buried improvements yet capable
of supporting the proposed pipeline and backfill. If CLSM is used in the pipe zone or
trench zone, we recommend that those materials conform and be placed according to
specifications presented in Section 19-3.062 of the 2006 Caltrans Standard Specifications.
Care should be taken during placement of CLSM materials to prevent the pipeline from
floating.
6.6.6 Placement & Compaction

Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations
previously provided for engineered fill. Mechanical compaction should be the means in
which compaction is achieved. Jetting should not be allowed as a means of compaction.
According to Section 306-1.3.3 of the Greenbook, jetting is not allowed if the trench
sidewalls have an SE of less than 15. On site soils are clay-rich and should have an SE that
is less than 15. Thus, compaction jetting for this project would not conform with
Greenbook specifications.
Special care should be given to ensuring that adequate compaction is made beneath the
haunches of the pipeline (that area from the pipe springline to the pipe invert, as shown on
Plate 18) and that no voids remain in this space. Compaction tests of pipe zone backfill
should be performed at horizontal intervals of no more than 300 feet and vertical intervals
of no more than 18 inches. Within the pipe zone, compaction tests should be performed
near springline and near the top of the pipe zone backfill. Assessment of the potential
presence of voids within the haunch area should be performed following completion of
those compaction tests. If voids are observed, then the contractor should be required to
rework the pipe zone materials to eliminate the presence of voids in the pipeline haunches.
Retesting of the pipe zone materials should then be performed. All areas of failing
compaction tests should be reworked and retested until the specified relative compaction is
achieved.
Compaction of trench zone backfill should be performed at horizontal intervals of no more

than 300 feet and vertical intervals of no more than 18 inches. If imported trench zone
backfill materials are used, then periodic compaction testing services will be required by the
geotechnical engineer in order to comply with the testing recommendations noted above.
Placement of CLSM materials should be performed in accordance with specifications

presented in Caltrans Standard Specification 19-3.062. If CLSM is used, then compaction
tests are not required; however, a minimum of four hours should be allowed between
placement of CLSM and placement of engineered fill materials above the CLSM, as noted in
March 4, 2013
42 CG12GR015Rev 2
Caltrans Standard Specification 19-3.062.
6.6.7 Trench Subgrade Stabilization

Soft and yielding trench subgrade could be encountered along the bottom of trench
excavations. If yielding subgrade is observed, it is recommended that the bottom of
trenches be stabilized prior to placement of the pipeline bedding so that, in the judgment of
the geotechnical engineer, the trench subgrade is firm and unyielding. The Contractor
should have the sole responsibility for design and implementation of trench subgrade
stabilization techniques. Some methods that we have observed used to stabilize trench
subgrades include the following:
Use of inch to 1-inch floatrock worked into the trench bottom and covered
with a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 500X;
Placement of a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X, on the trench bottom and
covered with at least one foot of compacted processed miscellaneous base (PMB)
conforming to the requirements of Section 200-2.5 of the Greenbook, latest edition;
Overexcavation of trench subgrade and placement of two-sack sand-cement slurry;
and
In extreme conditions, injection grouting along the trench alignment.
If floatrock is used, typically sand with an SE of 50 or more should be used to fill the voids
in the rock prior to placement of pipe bedding materials.
6.7 SHORING CONSIDERATIONS

If shoring systems are utilized in this project, they should be designed to resist earth
pressures exerted by the retained soils plus any additional lateral force that will be applied to
the shoring due to surface loads placed at or near the excavation. Retaining systems that are
free to rotate or translate laterally (for example, cantilevered retaining walls) through a
horizontal distance to shoring height ratio of no less than 0.004 are referred to as
unrestrained or yielding retaining structures. Such shoring systems can generally move
enough to develop active conditions. Retaining systems that are unable to rotate or deflect
laterally (for example, restrained basement walls) are referred to as restrained or non-
yielding. If such shoring systems cannot move or translate very much, then at-rest
conditions develop.
Recommended equivalent fluid weights for active and at-rest conditions are presented in
Section 6.4.8.
7 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
This report and its associated recommendations were intended to assist HDR during
predesign stages of the project. We recommend that as the project becomes better defined
March 4, 2013
43 CG12GR015Rev 2
and moves into design-level services that CGI be given the opportunity to collaborate on the
project refinements so that: 1) we can confirm that project design conforms with
recommendations made, herein; and 2) preliminary recommendations made within this
report can be refined, where necessary, based on the design elements of the project.
8 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice, as it existed in the site area at the time our services were
rendered. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made.
Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report were based on the conditions
encountered during our field investigation and are applicable only to those project features
described herein (see Section 1.2 Project Understanding). Soil and rock deposits can vary
in type, strength, and other geotechnical properties between points of observation and
exploration. Additionally, groundwater and soil moisture conditions can also vary seasonally
and for other reasons. Therefore, we do not and cannot have a complete knowledge of the
subsurface conditions underlying the project site. The conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report are based upon the findings at the points of exploration, and
interpolation and extrapolation of information between and beyond the points of
observation, and are subject to confirmation based on the conditions revealed by
construction. If conditions encountered during construction differ from those described in
this report, or if the scope or nature of the proposed construction changes, we should be
notified immediately in order to review and, if deemed necessary, conduct additional studies
and/or provide supplemental recommendations. When final site design plans (grading,
foundation, retaining walls, etc.) become available, CGI should have the opportunity to
review the plans to ensure the recommendations presented in this report remain valid and
applicable to the proposed project.
Recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an experienced,
properly licensed geotechnical engineering company will conduct an adequate program of
testing and observation during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with
our recommendations.
The scope of services provided by CGI for this project did not include the investigation
and/or evaluation of toxic substances, or soil or groundwater contamination of any type. If
such conditions are encountered during site development, additional studies may be
required. Further, services provided by CGI for this project did not include the evaluation
of the presence of critical environmental habitats or culturally sensitive areas.
March 4, 2013
44 CG12GR015Rev 2
This report may be used only by our client and their agents and only for the purposes stated
herein, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions, and other
factors may change over time that may require additional studies. In the event significant
time elapses between the issuance date of this report and construction, CGI shall be notified
of such occurrence in order to review current conditions. Depending on that review, CGI
may require that additional studies be conducted and that an updated or revised report is
issued.
Any party other than our client who wishes to use all or any portion of this report shall
notify CGI of such intended use. Based on the intended use as well as other site-related
factors, CGI may require that additional studies be conducted and that an updated or revised
report be issued. Failure to comply with any of the requirements outlined above by the
client or any other party shall release CGI from any liability arising from the unauthorized
use of this report.
--
March 4, 2013
45 CG12GR015Rev 2
9 REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A. et al. (2003), Summary of Scaling Relations for Spectral Damping, Peak
Velocity, and Average Spectral Acceleration, dated October 14.
ASTM (2007), Volume 4.08 Soil and Rock D420 to D5876.
Blake, M.C., Jr., Graymer, R.W, and Jones. D.L. (2000), Geologic Map and Map Database of
parts of Marin, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Sonoma Counties,
California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Fields Studies MF-2337, V 1.0.
BNI Building News (2009), Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction Greenbook,
Anaheim.
Boore, D.M. and Atkinson, G.M. (2007), Boore-Atkinson NGA Ground Motion Relations
for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground
Motion Parameters, PEER 2007/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Berkeley, California.
California Building Code (2010), International Code Council.
California Department of Transportation (2000), Standard Test Methods.
_______ (2006), Standard Specifications.
California Geological Survey (2012), Historical California Earthquakes, accessed at:

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/quakes/Pages/index.aspx accessed on
November 2, 2012
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2007), Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion

Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral
Ground Motion Parameters, PEER 2007/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley, California.
Caterpillar, Inc. (2012), Performance Handbook, Caterpillar, Inc., Peoria, Ill, p. 1-75.
Chiou, B.S.-J., and Youngs, R.R. (2006), Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground
Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Acceleration and
Pseudo-Spectral Acceleration for Spectral Periods of 0.01 to 10 Seconds, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California.
March 4, 2013
46 CG12GR015Rev 2
Day, R. (1999), Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, Design and Construction,

McGraw Hill, New York, NY 10121-2298.
Ellen, S.D., Mark, R.K., Wieszorek, G.F., Wentworth, C.M., Ramsey, D.W., May, T.E.,
Graham, S.E., Beukelman, G.S., Barron, A.D., and Graymer, R.W. (1997), Map
Showing Principal Debris-Flow Source Areas in the San Francisco Bay Region, U.S.
Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-97-745E, scale 1:250,000.
EZ-FRISK (2012), Software for Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation, version 7.62,
produced by Risk Engineering, Inc./Fugro Consultants, Inc.
Fields, E.H., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Frankel, A.D., Gupta, V., Jordan, T.H., Parsons,
T., Peterson, M.D., Stein, R.S., Weldon, R.J. II, and Wills, C.J. (2008), The Uniform
California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), by 2007 Working
Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 2007-1437, 104 p.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. (1997), Fault-Rupture Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, with supplements 1 and 2
added in 1999, 38 p.
Hartley, J.D., and Duncan, J.M. (1987), E and Its Variation With Depth, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 5, September, pp. 538-553.
Hinds, N.E. (1952), Evolution of the California Landscape, California Division of Mines and
Geology Bulletin 158, pp 145-152.
Howard, A. (1996), Pipeline Installation, Relativity Publishing, Lakewood, Colorado 80228.
Jennings, C.W. (1994), Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Area, with Locations
and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology,
Geologic Data Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Marin Municipal Water District (2012), Topographic maps prepared for Worn Spring Tank
Site (Site 10B).
Marston, A. (1930), The Theory of Loads on Closed Circuits in Light of the Latest
Experiments, Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin No. 153.
NACE (1984), Corrosion Basics An Introduction, National Association of Corrosion

Engineers (NACE), Houston, TX.
March 4, 2013
47 CG12GR015Rev 2
Nadim, F., and Whitman, R.V. (1992), Coupled Sliding and Tilting of Gravity Retaining
Walls During Earthquakes, in Proceedings of 8th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco.
Rice, S.J., Smith, T.C., and Strand, R.G. (1976), Geology for Planning: Central and
Southeastern Marin County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology
Open-File Report 76-2, 114 p., with plates.
Rocscience (2012a), SLIDE 6.0 (Version 6.019 Build date September 26, 2012), 2D Limit-
Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis, Users Guide, 112 p.
Rocscience Inc. (2012b), SETTLE3D (Version 2.015, Build date May 11, 2012), Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Seed, H. B., 1979, Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth and Rockfill
Dams, Geotechnique, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 215-263.
Seed, H.B., and Whitman, R. (1970), Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic
Loads, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of
Earth Retaining Structures, p. 103-147.
Spangler, M.G., and Handy, R.L. (1982), Loads on Underground Conduit, Soil Engineering,
Harper and Rowe, 4th edition, pp. 727-761.
Toppozada and Branum (2002), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; October 2002; v.
92; no. 7; p. 2555-2601.
Toppozada, T. R. and D. Branum (2002), California M >= 5.5 earthquakes, history and areas
damaged, in Lee, W. H., Kanamori, H. and Jennings, P., International Handbook of
Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, International Association of Seismology
and Physics of the Earth's Interior.
U.S. Geological Survey (2012), 2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta) website accessed on
November 13, at: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/.
Wentworth, C.M., and Frezzell, V.A. (1975), Reconnaissance Landslide Map of parts of
Marin and Sonoma Counties, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report
OF-75-281, scale 1:24,000.
Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., and Barron,
A.D. (1997), Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in Marin County, U.S.
Geological Survey, Open File Report OF-97-745C, scale 1:250,000.
March 4, 2013
48 CG12GR015Rev 2
Appendix A
Subsurface Exploration
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The subsurface exploration program for this study consisted of the advancement of six drill
holes and two backhoe test pits. The locations of the explorations advanced for this study
are shown on Plate 3. The drill holes were advanced on September 11, 12, 25, and 26, 2012.
Drill holes were advanced using bucket-auger and solid-stem auger methods. Bucket auger
drilling was performed using a Calweld 150H drill rig utilizing a 2-foot diameter bucket
provided by Tri-Valley Drilling of Ventura, California. Solid-stem auger drilling was
performed using a CME-75 drill rig provided by Britton Exploration of Los Gatos,
California.
Select samples of soils were collected from selected depth increments in each drill hole using
California modified split-spoon or Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers. With the
bucket-auger, samplers were driven using the Kelley bars having the following weight per
depth increment:
0-24 3,160 pounds

24-46 2,040 pounds
46-72 1,120 pounds
Below 72 400 pounds
With the solid-stem drill rig, samplers were driven by 140-pound auto-trip hammers situated
on each drill rig, in accordance with standard test method ASTM D1586-11 Bulk samples
were also obtained at selected depth intervals from each drill hole. Sample types and depths
are presented on Plates A-2.1 through A-2.6. All samples were returned to CGIs Redding,
California laboratory for testing. The results of the testing procedures are attached within
Appendix C.
Backhoe test pits were advanced at the site using a Bobcat 331 miniexcavator equipped with
a two-foot wide bucket. The test pits were excavated and logged on September 11, 2012.
The backhoe was provided by Greener Excavation of Fairfax, California. Bulk samples were
obtained from selected test pit locations. Upon completion of logging, each test pit was
backfilled using the excavated cuttings.
The exploration logs describe the earth materials encountered. The logs also show the
location, exploration number, date of exploration, and the names of the logger and
equipment used. A CGI geologist, using ASTM 2488 for visual soil classification, logged the
explorations. The boundaries between soil and rock types shown on the logs are
approximate because the transition between different soil and rock layers may be gradual and
may change with time. The drill holes were backfilled using cuttings. Settlement of the drill
hole backfill could occur over time and it is recommended that MMWD periodically check
A- 1 March 4, 2013
CG12GR015Rev2
those excavations and backfill settled areas where appropriate.
A legend to the exploration logs is presented as Plate A-1.1. The drill hole logs are presented
as Plates A-2.1 through A-2.6. The test pits logs are presented as Plates A-3.1 and A-3.2.
A- 2 March 4, 2013
CG12GR015Rev2
LOG OF EXPLORATION: Expl. No.
PROJECT: CGI's Project Name EXPL. VENDOR: Expl. Subcontractor SURFACE ELEVATION: Expl. Elevation
PROJECT NO.: CGI's Project No. EXPL. METHOD: Method of Expl. TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE:Total Depth of Expl.
LOCATION: General Location LOGGED BY: CGI's Logger DEPTH TO WATER: Depth to Water
START DATE: Date Started CHECKED BY: CGI's Reviewer BACKFILLED WITH: Backfill Materials
END DATE: Date Finished
Blow Count (blows/ft) HAMMER TYPE: Type of Sample Hammer
Unit Dry Weight, pcf
% Passing No. 200

Water Content, %
Material Symbol
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Material Description
Laboratory
0
1 SAMPLES/BLOW COUNT SYMBOLS KEY
Bulk Soils Sample
CMSS: 2-3/8"
California modified split spoon sampler (CMSS) ID, 3" OD,
2 (24) Brackets on blow counts indicates CMSS sample Driven
Standard penetration test (SPT) sample and blow count SPT: 1-3/8" ID,
3 50:5"
5 2" OD, Driven
No sample recovery Blow counts are

recorded as the
LITHOLOGIC GRAPHICS DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOILS number of blows
MATERIALS (per ASTM D2487 & D2488) required for one
foot of sampler
well graded GRAVEL penetration using
10 GW a 140-lb hammer
falling 30 inches.
GP poorly graded GRAVEL Typically, sampler
is driven 18" and
GM silty GRAVEL the initial 6"
discarded.
GC clayey GRAVEL
15 well graded SAND

SW
Initial water level
poorly graded SAND measurement
SP
Water level after
SM silty SAND initial
measurement
SC clayey SAND (may not
represent
20 ML low plasticity SILT stabilized water
levels)
MH high plasticity SILT
CL lean CLAY Lab

Abbreviations
CH fat CLAY DS-direct shear;
C-consolidation;
25 GS-sieve; EI-
PT organic soils or peat
Expansion Index;
PI-Plasticity;
OL organic SILTS or CLAYS with low plasticity UC-Unconfined;
SC-soil chem.;
OH organic SILTS or CLAYS with high plasticity SE-sand equiv.;
R-R value; P-
RX ROCK curve; PP-pocket
30 penetrometer.
The log and data presented are a simplification of actual conditions

encountered at the given location and time of exploration. Subsurface
conditions may differ at other locations and with the passage of time.
PLATE NO.: A-1.1
LOG OF EXPLORATION: BA-1
PROJECT: MMWD Site 10B EXPL. VENDOR: Tri Valley Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 537' MSL
PROJECT NO.: 12-1793.02 EXPL. METHOD: 2' Bucket Auger TOTAL HOLE DEPTH: 60 feet
LOCATION: Marin County, CA LOGGED BY: J.A.Bianchin DEPTH TO WATER: 17.6 feet
START DATE: Sept 11, 2012 CHECKED BY: J.A. Bianchin BACKFILLED WITH: Cuttings
END DATE: Sept 11, 2012
Blow Count (blows/ft) HAMMER TYPE: Kelly Bars
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
0
OLDER LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS (Qlso)
B1 ML Clayey SILT, moderate brown, dry in upper 2 feet then damp below, Proctor
slighly plastic when damp, with minor fine sand and trace subangular
fine to medium gravel.
5 At 5 feet: with interbedded Silty CLAY, moderate yellowish brown

B2 Soil Chemistry
mottled moderate brown, damp, slightly plastic, trace angular coarse
gravel.
At 7 feet: 2" thick interbed of Clayey, Gravelly, SAND oriented N37W

CL 30S.
Gravelly CLAY, dark brown, wet, plastic, with abundant angular to

10 subangular fine to medium grained gravel.
1 [5] 108.1 17.4
At 10 feet: stiff, with moderate to abundant angular to subangular fine
to medium gravel.
Silty CLAY, moderate brown, damp to wet, medium stiff, slightly

plastic, with fine sand and moderate angular to subangulat fine to coarse
gravel.
15
At 14 feet: 4" thick interbed of fine to coarse gravel seeping water.
GC At 16 feet: increase in gravel.

RX/ Sandstone likley
Clayey GRAVEL, dark brown, damp, plastic matrix, angular fine to
GC displaced rock
medium gravel.
within landslide
20 matrix.
2 [20] GREYWACKE SANDSTONE, grayish brown to gray, wet, weak to 136.9 6.0 Heavy caving of
slightly hard, highly fractured, moderately to highly weathered, heavy drill hole.
caving, interbedded with Clayey GRAVEL, moderate brown to
moderate reddish brown, wet, dense, plastic matrix, with angular fine to Water flowing
medium gravel. from interstitial
space within
gravel.
25
Easy drilling.
30
3 [13] CH DS
Silty CLAY to CLAY, moderate brown mottled moderate yellowish
brown, damp, stiff, plastic, with trace angular fine to medium gravel.

PLATE NO.: A-2.1
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
GC Difficult drilling.
Clayey GRAVEL, dark brown, damp, plastic matrix, angular fine to
35 medium gravel.
B3
Using drill rig
crowds.
40
4 [18] CL/ 138.8 8.3
Silty CLAY with Gravel to Clayey SILT with Gravel, dark gray, damp,
ML
stiff to dense, slightly plastic, with angular fine gravel.
45
50
5 [23] 136.1 6.6
55
Switch to core
GREENSTONE (RX), dark gray, slightly weathered, moderately hard
bucket.
to hard, massive.
Greenstone likely
displaced block
within landslide
Silty CLAY with Gravel to Clayey SILT with Gravel, dark gray, damp, matrix.
stiff to dense, slightly plastic, with angular fine gravel.
60
Bottom of Drill Hole at a Depth of 60 Feet.
Drill Hole Partially Downhole Logged.
Kelly weights: 0'-24' - 3,160 lbs; 24'-46' - 2,040 lbs; 46'-72' - 1,120 lbs.

PLATE NO.: A-2.1
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
0
ML Clayey SILT with Gravel, moderate yellowish brown, damp, slightly
plastic, with angular fine to medium gravel.
CL Silty CLAY with Gravel, moderate reddish brown, damp to wet, plastic,
with abundant angular fine to medium gravel.
CH
B1 Silty CLAY to CLAY, grayish green, damp, plastic.
CL
10 At 10 feet: stiff.
1 [7] 127.1 9.7
15
RX GREYWACKE SANDSTONE, moderate brown to grayish brown,
wet, weak to slightly hard, highly to intensely fractured, moderately to
highly weathered, heavy caving, with Silty CLAY to CLAY matrix,
moderate brown, wet, plastic, with fine to medium sand.
CH
At 18 feet: 1" thick landslide plane composed of greenish gray clay seam
RX oriented N20E 50S.
20
2 [7] GREYWACKE SANDSTONE, moderate brown to grayish brown, 121.5 15.8 Heavy caving
wet, weak to slightly hard, highly to intensely fractured, moderately to from 20.2' to 30'.
25
30
3 [8] 122.6 14.8
At 30 feet: mottled moderate yellowsh brown and pale green.

PLATE NO.: A-2.2
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
At 34.6 feet: 4" thick landslide plane composed of greenish gray clay
seam oriented N10W 18S.
35 CH DS
RX GREYWACKE SANDSTONE, moderate brown to grayish brown,
CH wet, weak to slightly hard, highly to intensely fractured, moderately to
RX/ highly weathered, heavy caving, with Silty CLAY to CLAY matrix,
CL moderate brown, wet, plastic, with fine to medium sand.
At 35.8 feet: 4" thick landslide plane composed of moderate brown clay
seam oriented N75W 30S.
40
4 [19] GREYWACKE SANDSTONE, moderate brown to grayish brown, 130.1 5.9
wet, weak to slightly hard, highly to intensely fractured, moderately to
Difficult drilling
From 43 to 45 feet: sandstone slightly fractured.
45
50
5 [50] 138.8 4.0
Using drill rig

At 51.7 feet: landslide plane oriented N10W 30S.
crowds. Heavy
caving of drill
hole.
55
60
6 [30] 135.0 7.8
No crowds
needed.

PLATE NO.: A-2.2
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
65
B3 RX/
Clayey GRAVEL to Gravelly CLAY, moderate reddish brown, wet,
GC
70 friable, with angular fine to coarse gravel fragments of chert.
Begin using
stems.
75
At 79 feet: with interbedded greywacke sandstone.

80
Bottom of Drill Hole at a Depth of 60 Feet.
Drill Hole Partially Downhole Logged.
Kelly weights: 0'-24' - 3,160 lbs; 24'-46' - 2,040 lbs; 46'-72' - 1,120 lbs.
Drill Rig Stem Weight: 400 lbs.

PLATE NO.: A-2.2
LOG OF EXPLORATION: DH-10B-1
PROJECT: MMWD Site 10B EXPL. VENDOR: Britton Exploration SURFACE ELEVATION: 538' MSL
PROJECT NO.: 12-1793.02 EXPL. METHOD: 4.75" Solid Stem Auger TOTAL HOLE DEPTH: 50.50 feet
LOCATION: Marin County, CA LOGGED BY: W.J. Pollard DEPTH TO WATER: 39 feet
Blow Count (blows/ft) HAMMER TYPE: 140-Lb.
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
0
CL Silty CLAY with Gravel, moderate yellowish brown mottled reddish
brown, damp, with trace to moderate angular fine gravel.
10
1B (30) 90.1 30.6 Consol
1A At 10 feet: stiff to very stfiff.
15
20
2B (31) CL 80.4 35.4 Swell
2A Gravelly CLAY, moderate yellowish brown mottled reddish brown,
damp, stiff to very stiff, with angular fine to medium gravel.
25
30
3 46 CL Consol
Silty CLAY, moderate yellowish brown mottled dark brown, damp to
wet, stiff to very stiff, plastic.

PLATE NO.: A-2.3
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
35
40
4B (59) GC 112.8 22.6
4A Clayey GRAVEL, medium brown, wet, dense to very dense, with
medium sand and angular fine to coarse gravel.
45
50 At 50 feet: dark gray to dark greenish gray.

5 (50:1.5") 130.5 12.4
Bottom of Drill Hole at a Depth of 50.5 Feet.

PLATE NO.: A-2.3
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
0
CL Sandy CLAY with Gravel, moderate orangish brown mottled dark
reddish brown, damp, with coarse sand and trace to moderate angular
fine gravel.
10
1B (50) PI
1A At 10 feet: very stiff to hard, appeared sheared.
15
20
2B (41) SC Consol
2A Clayey SAND, medium to dark brown, damp, dense, with moderate to
abundant angular fine to medium gravel.
25
30
3B (35) GC 115.9 19.9
3A Clayey GRAVEL, reddish brown, wet, medium dense to dense, with
coarse sand, and abundant angular fine to coarse gravel.

PLATE NO.: A-2.4
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
35
40
4B (46) SC 120.8 19.5 Consol
4A Clayey SAND with Gravel, moderate yellowish brown to medium
brown, damp to wet, medium to coarse grained, with angular fine
gravel.
45
Difficult drilling
Clayey GRAVEL, grayish brown, wet, very dense, with fine sand and
50 angular fine to coarse gravel.
5 (50:3") GC 14.0

PLATE NO.: A-2.4
LOCATION: Marin County, CA LOGGED BY: W.J. Pollard DEPTH TO WATER: 20' MSL
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
0
CL Gravelly CLAY, slightly reddish brown, damp, with trace coarse sand
and abundant angular fine to coarse gravel.
5
(34) 107.3 20.1
1B At 5 feet: stiff to very stiff.
1A
10
(38) CL/ 97.3 25.2
2B Sandy CLAY to Clayey SAND, reddish brown, damp, stiff/dense, with
SC
2A fine to medium sand and minor angular fine to coarse gravel.
15
(38) SC 106.4 24.7
3B Clayey SAND, greenish gray mottled grayish brown, damp, dense, fine
3A to coarse grained, with trace angular fine to coarse gravel.
20
(68) GC 124.9 18.5
4B Clayey GRAVEL, moderate brown, wet, dense to very dense, with
4A coarse sand and angular fine to coarse gravel.
25
(42) SC 135.1 12.8
5 Gravelly SAND, moderate yellowish brown, wet, dense, with fine to
coarse sand and angular fine gravel.
30
50:5" GC 17.9
6 Sandy GRAVEL, grayish brown, wet, dense, medium sand, with angular
fine to coarse gravel.

PLATE NO.: A-2.5
LOCATION: Marin County, CA LOGGED BY: W.J. Pollard DEPTH TO WATER: 20' MSL
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
35
55
7
Silty GRAVEL, moderate brown mottled dark brown, damp, dense,

40 with angular coarse gravel.
39 GM 11.6
8 CL 12.5
CLAY, greenish gray to reddish brown, wet, very stiff to hard, plastic.
Difficult drilling
45
50 Silty CLAY, dark reddish brown, damp, very stiff.

9 50:3" CL 15.8

PLATE NO.: A-2.5
LOCATION: Marin County, CA LOGGED BY: J.A. Bianchin DEPTH TO WATER: 26' MSL
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
0
CL/ Silty CLAY to CLAY, moderate brown, dry with trace fine sand and
CH moderate to abundant subangular to angular fine to medium gravel.
ML
Clayey SILT, moderate yellowish brown, dry, with trace fine sand and
moderate to abundant angular fine to medium gravel.
10
1 (29) ML/ Swell
Silty CLAY to Clayey SILT with Gravel, moderate yellowish brown to
CL
moderate brown, damp, stiff with abundant decomposed rock
fragments within soil matrix.
15
At 15 feet: increased soil moisture.
20
2 (30) CH/ DS
CLAY to Gravelly CLAY, moderate yellowish brown mottled pale
CL
green, damp, plastic, with trace to moderate angular fine to medium
gravel. Free water on gravel faces.
25
30
3 (48) CL/ Saprolitic rock
Silty CLAY to Clayey SILT, moderate brown, damp to wet, slightly
ML with relict rock
plastic, fissile, with angular fine to medium gravel.
texture.

PLATE NO.: A-2.6
LOCATION: Marin County, CA LOGGED BY: J.A. Bianchin DEPTH TO WATER: 26' MSL
% Passing No. 200

Material Symbol
Water Content, %
Plasticity Index
USCS Symbol
Liquid Limit
Water Table
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
Notes &
Sample
Assigned
Laboratory
35
Hard drilling.
40
4 60 SC/ 9.7
Clayey SAND with Gravel to Sandy Clay with Gravel, reddish purple to
CL
light olive green, wet, very dense/hard, slightly plastic, with fine sand
and angular fine gravel.
45
50
5 50:3.5" 10.7

PLATE NO.: A-2.6
LOG OF TEST PIT
0 0
Sample #B1
1
4 4
6 6
8 8
10 10
12 12
Soil Descriptions
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)/LANSLIDE DEPOSITS (Qls)

1 Silty to Sandy CLAY (CL), brown, slightly damp, soft to slightly stiff, low to medium plasticity
with trace of subangular fine to medium gravel. Increased moisture and stiffness below a
depth of 4 feet.
Date Logged: September 11, 2012 Excavated With: Bobcat 331

Logged by: Azeddine Bahloul Backfilled With: Excavated Cuttings
Excavator: Greener Excavation Depth to Water (ft): Not Encountered
TEST PIT TP-1 Plate No.

FAIRFAX TRANSMISSION LINE WATER STORAGE PROJECT
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT A-3.1
Project No.: 12-1793.02 MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
LOG OF TEST PIT
0 0
4 4
2
6 6
Practical refusal at a depth of 5 feet
8 8
10 10
12 12
Soil Descriptions
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)/LANSLIDE DEPOSITS (Qls)

1 Silty to Sandy CLAY (CL), brown, slightly damp, soft to slightly stiff, low to medium plasticity
with trace of subangular fine to medium gravel. Increased moisture and stiffness below a
depth of 4 feet.
CLAYSTONE/META-SHALE, brown, dry, slightly to moderately hard, poorly indurated

2
moderately to highly weathered, moderately fractured.
Date Logged: September 11, 2012 Excavated With: Bobcat 331

Logged by: Azeddine Bahloul Backfilled With: Excavated Cuttings
Excavator: Greener Excavation Depth to Water (ft): Not Encountered
TEST PIT TP-2 Plate No.

FAIRFAX TRANSMISSION LINE WATER STORAGE PROJECT
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT A-3.2
Appendix B
Geophysical Survey Results
APPENDIX B
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Geophysical refraction surveys were performed along two survey lines at the project site.
The surveys were performed on September 5, 2012 by Redpath Geophysics of Murphys,
California. A CGI geologist and technician assisted Redpath Geophysics during the surveys.
The results of geophysical surveys and a discussion on methodology are included within this
appendix.
B -1 March 4, 2013
CG12GR015Rev2
Mr. Jim Bianchin 17 September 2012
CGI Technical Services, Inc.
1612 Wedding Way
Redding, CA 96003
via email: jbianchin@currygroup.com
Dear Mr. Bianchin,
This letter presents the results of seismic refraction surveys that were conducted to assist with an
evaluation of the competence and excavatability of the subsurface materials at two locations
()LYH&RUQHUVSite 7 and :RUQ6SULQJ6LWH10B) being considered for water-storage tanks for the
Marin Municipal Water District.
Five refraction surveys were carried out: four 210-ft lines and one 200-ft line for a total of 1040
ft. The 210-ft lines consisted of 22 geophones spaced at 10-ft intervals, and the 200-ft line
consisted of 21 geophones similarly spaced; the length of the latter was limited by dense
vegetation at one end. The energy source was a 16-lb sledgehammer striking an aluminum plate
on the ground surface. Signals from 6 to 8 hammer points were recorded for each line. The
surveys were conducted on 4 and 5 September, 2012, with the assistance of yourself and David
Ashbey.
All data were recorded on a 24-channel Geometrics model R24 Strataview digital seismograph
configured to record 22 or 21 channels as required, each of which acquired 1024 samples at
intervals of 125 microseconds for a total recording time of 128 milliseconds. We recorded fewer
channels than the full complement of 24 because of a damaged cable. The seismograph has the
capability of adding or stacking the signals from repeated hammer blows in order to improve
the signal-to-noise ratio, and as many as 5 blows were stacked at a given hammer point.
The seismic records can be viewed on the R24s LCD screen as they are acquired and paper
copies can be printed on its internal printer for inspection in the field. The data are stored on the
internal hard-disk drive of the R24 and ultimately copied to a 3 -inch diskette in a binary (SEG-
2) format. The data are subsequently transferred from the diskettes to the analysis software.
First arrivals and travel times are picked using the Pickwin component of Geometrics
SeisImager program which compiles a time-vs.-distance file for subsequent analysis. The
time-vs.-distance plots are then analyzed using the Plotrefa portion of SeisImager in which a
2
two- or three-layer solution is developed first. If appropriate, the layered model is then used as a
starting point for a tomographic inversion of the travel-time data.
The locations of each seismic line are shown on the attached views from Google Earth. The
absolute elevation of each line was obtained from Google Earth and may be in error by as much
as 10 ft or so. The relative elevations along each line were acquired with a total station and
prism and are correct to within 0.2 ft. The locations of the lines are tabulated below:
Seismic Coordinates (WGS84)

Station
Line N. Latitude W. Longitude
0+00 37 58.066 122 35.710
SL-1 2+10 37 58.033 122 35.726
0+00 37 58.048 122 35.697
SL-2 2+00 37 58.056 122 35.736
0+00 37 58.097 122 35.721
SL-3 2+10 37 58.069 122 35.746
0+00 37 57.638 122 34.610
SL-4 2+10 37 57.635 122 34.651
0+00 37 57.620 122 34.624
SL-5 2+10 37 57.651 122 34.640
The travel time vs. distance plot for each seismic line suggested that both a three-layer, time-
term solution and a tomographic inversion were warranted to better depict the subsurface
velocity structure and, therefore, both the three-layer solution and the tomographic inversion are
presented. By its very nature, a tomographic inversion tends to show velocity interfaces as
gradients, but it also presents a more complete picture of the subsurface. A representative
comparison of observed travel times with those computed from the tomographic cross-section for
SL-1 is shown following the respective profiles. The root-mean-square error is about 1.25
milliseconds, which is comparable to the accuracy with which travel times can be picked.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have questions about any aspect of these surveys or the
results.
Sincerely,
Bruce B. Redpath
California Registered Geophysicist GP347
580
570
1154
560
550
Elevation (ft)
540 5090
530
520
510
500 5968
490
480
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST
580
570
560
1000
550 1900
Elevation (ft)
540 2800
530 3700
4600
520
5500
510
6400
500 7300
490 8200
480
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 (ft/s)
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
Marin Municipal Water District

Seismic Line No. 1
Five Corners (Site No. 7)
September 2012
70
60
Traveltime (ms)
50
40
30
20 : Observed
10 : Calculated
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
Comparison of Observed Travel Times

with those
Calculated from the Cross-section based on the Tomographic Inversion
Seismic Line No. 1
September 2012
580
570
1077
560
550
Elevation (ft)
5082
540
530
520
7162
510
500
490
480
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
EAST WEST
580
570
560
1000
550 1900
Elevation (ft)
540 2800
530 3700
4600
520
5500
510
6400
500 7300
490 8200
480
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 (ft/s)
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500

Seismic Line No. 2
September 2012
550
540
1186
530
520
Elevation (ft)
510 5745
500
490
8420
480
470
460
450
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST
550
540
530
1000
520 1900
Elevation (ft)
510 2800
500 3700
4600
490
5500
480
6400
470 7300
460 8200
450
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 (ft/s)
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500

Seismic Line No. 3
September 2012
590
580
570
560
Elevation (ft)
550
543
540
530 2934
520
5539
510
500
490
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
EAST WEST
590
580
570
500
560 1100
Elevation (ft)
550 1700
540 2300
2900
530
3500
520 4100
510 4700
500 5300
5899
490
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 (ft/s)
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500

Seismic Line No. 4
Worn Spring (Site 10B)
September 2012
560
550 713
540
530 2920
Elevation (ft)
520
510
5330
500
490
480
470
460
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500
SOUTH NORTH
570
560
550
500
540 1100
Elevation (ft)
530 1700
520 2300
2900
510
3500
500 4100
490 4700
480 5300
5899
470
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 (ft/s)
Distance (ft)
Scale = 1 / 1500

Seismic Line No. 5
Worn Spring (Site 10B)
September 2012
Appendix C
Laboratory Testing
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Analyses
Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk soil samples to estimate engineering
characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was performed under
procedures described in one of the following references:
ASTM Standards for Soil Testing, latest revision;

Lambe, T. William, Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York, 1951;
Laboratory Soils Testing, U.S. Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1906, November 30, 1970.
Plasticity Index Tests

Atterberg Limits (plastic limit, liquid limit, and plasticity index) tests were performed on
selected samples in accordance with standard test method ASTM D4318. Results of the
Atterberg Limits tests are presented on the drill hole logs and on attached plates labeled
Atterberg Limits Tests.
In Situ Moisture Density Relations

Dry density estimates and/or moisture content evaluations were performed on selected soil
samples collected during this study. Tests were performed using standard test methods
ASTM D2216 for moisture content or ASTM D2937 for dry unit weights. The results are
presented on the respective Log of Drill holes.
Torsional Ring Shear Tests

Torsional ring shear tests were performed on one selected soil sample in accordance with
standard test method ASTM D6467. The test was performed under drained conditions to
estimate the residual strength of the samples. The results of the tests are presented on the
attached plate labeled Drained, Residual Torsional Ring Shear Test.
Direct Shear
Three direct shear tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed samples using
standard test method ASTM D3080. The results of the tests are presented on attached
plates labeled Direct Shear.
Moisture Density Relations

The compaction characteristics of two selected bulk soil samples were estimated in
accordance with standard test method ASTM D1557. The results of the compaction test are
shown on the attached plate labeled Moisture Density Relationship.
March 4, 2013
C- 1 2GR015Rev2
Consolidation
Three consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed samples of
artificial fill materials using standard test method ASTM D2435. The results of the test are
presented on the attached plate labeled Laboratory Consolidation.
Limited Soil-Chemistry
One test was performed on a selected soil sample to evaluate pH, resistivity, chloride and
sulfate contents, along with other cations and anions. The results of the tests are presented
on the attached Soil Chemistry sheet.
March 4, 2013
C- 2 2GR015Rev2
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
50
H
o rO
CH
PLASTICITY INDEX
40
30
20
OL
or
CL
10
7 CL-ML
4 ML or OL MH or OH
10 30 50 70 90 110
LIQUID LIMIT
54
48
WATER CONTENT
42
36
30
24
5 10 20 25 30 40
NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Yellowish Brown Lean Clayey SAND/ Sandy Lean CLAY 30.8 14.6 16.2
Yellowish Brown Lean Clayey SAND w/ Claystone
31.2 18.0 13.2
fragments
Olive Sandy Lean CLAY (Weathered Claystone) 29.4 21.8 7.6
Light Greenish Gray Lean CLAY w/ Sand 48.2 23.3 24.9
Project No. 591-039 Client: CGI Technical Services Inc. Remarks:

Project: Fairfax Transmission Line Water Storage Project - 12-1793.02
Source: 7-6 (Site 7) Sample No.: 3 Elev./Depth: 30'

Source: R-1 (Ross Res.) Sample No.: 4 Elev./Depth: 20'
Source: R-2 (Ross Res.) Sample No.: 2 Elev./Depth: 10'
Source: BA-2 (Site 10B) Sample No.: 3bis Elev./Depth: 34.6'
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Figure

Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435
Job No.: 591-039 Boring: 10B-2 Run By: MD

Client: CGI Technical Services Inc. Sample: 2B Reduced: PJ
Project: 12-1793.02 Depth, ft.: 20 Checked: PJ/DC
Soil Type: Yellowish Brown Clayey SAND, trace Gravel (Soil nodules) Date: 10/31/2012
Strain-Log-P Curve
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Strain, %
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Effective Stress, psf
Ass. Gs = 2.75 Initial Final Remarks: Some patching required during sample trimming due to
Moisture %: 29.8 27.5 soil nodules.
Dry Density, pcf: 90.2 97.9
Void Ratio: 0.903 0.754
% Saturation: 90.8 100
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435

Soil Type: Reddish Brown Sandy SILT (slightly plastic) Date: 11/2/2012
Strain-Log-P Curve
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Strain, %
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Ass. Gs = 2.75 Initial Final Remarks:

Moisture %: 35.8 33.7
Void Ratio: 1.092 0.925
Consolidation Test
ASTM D2435

Soil Type: Yellowish Brown Sandy CLAY/ Clayey SAND Date: 11/5/2012
Strain-Log-P Curve
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Strain, %
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Ass. Gs = 2.75 Initial Final Remarks: Patching required due to coarse sand and soil nodules.
Moisture %: 30.9 29.9
Void Ratio: 0.915 0.821
Drained, Residual Torsional Ring Shear
Test ASTM D 6467
Job No.: 591-039 Boring: BA-2 Date: 10/24/2012 Undisturbed:

Client: CGI Technical Services Sample: 3bis By: PJ Peak:
Fairfax Transmission Line
Water Storage Proj. -
Project: Depth: 34.6' 12-1793.02 Checked: DC Residual:
Soil Type: Light Greenish Gray CLAY w/ Sand Clay, %: Fully Softened: X
Remarks: A small friction correction was applied to all points. LL: Peak:
Normal Stress, psf 1000 2000 4000 PL: Residual: X
Secant Phi, deg. 7 6 6
Secant Residual Friction Angles Strength Envelope
4000
4000
3000
3000
Shear Stress, psf

Shear Stress, psf
2000
2000
1000
1000
418
221
119
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Normal Stress, psf
Normal Stress, psf
Deformation Curves Vertical Deformation
450 -0.001
0
400
0.001
350 1000 psf
0.002
Change in Height, inches
2000 psf
300 4000 psf 0.003
Shear Stress, psf
0.004
250
0.005
200
0.006 1000 psf
2000 psf
150 0.007 4000 psf
100 0.008
0.009
50 To convert degrees to inches of
deformation multiply by .02921 0.01
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Deformation, inches
Degrees
Direct Shear
ASTM D3080
(ASTM D 3080)
6000
Shear Stress, psf
3000
Peak
Shear Stress
Ult. Stress
Ult Pts
0 3000 6000 9000 12000

Normal Load, psf
P. Phi (degrees) 41.0 Ult. phi (degrees)

P. Cohesion (psf) 250 Ult.Cohesion (psf)
Sample 1
Sample Data: Initial
Change in Height Sample 2 Initial 1 2 3 4
0.02 Sample 3 Moisture, % 30.9% 27.9% 30.2%
Sample 4
0.015 Dry Density, pcf 90.7 94.7 91.8
Void Ratio 0.89 0.81 0.87
0.01 Saturation, % 95.3% 94.3% 95.4%
2.43 2.43 2.43
Delta h
Diameter, in.
0.005
Height, in. 1.01 1.02 1.02
0 Sample Data: At Test
Moisture, % 30.5% 30.1% 29.6%
-0.005
Dry Density, pcf 92.7 92.5 94.6
-0.01 Void Ratio 0.85 0.86 0.82
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Saturation, % 98.3% 96.4% 99.6%
Deformation Diameter, in. 2.43 2.43 2.43
Height, in. 0.99 1.04 0.99
4000 Sample 1
Normal Stress, psf 1000 2000 4000
Sample 2 Peak Stress, psf 1058 2147 3640
3500
Sample 3
Stress Used, psf 1058 2147 3640
Sample 4
@ Deformation Peak Peak Peak
3000
Ultimate Stress, psf
Rate in/min. 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
CTL # 591-039 Date: 10/25/2012
Shear Stress, psf
2500
Client: CGI Technical Services Inc.
2000 Project Name: Fairfax Transmission Line Water Storage Project
Project Number: 12-1793.02 Reduced by: MD
1500
Sample # Boring Sample Depth, ft.
1 BA-1 3 30
1000
2 BA-1 3 30
3 BA-1 3 30
500
4
Visual Soil Classification
0
1 Yellowish Red Clayey SAND w/Gr/ Sa CLAY w/Gr
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Deformation
4
Remarks:
Direct Shear
ASTM D3080
(ASTM D 3080)
6000
Shear Stress, psf
3000
Peak
Shear Stress
Ult. Stress
Ult Pts
0 3000 6000 9000 12000

Normal Load, psf
P. Phi (degrees) Ult. phi (degrees)

P. Cohesion (psf) Ult.Cohesion (psf)
Change in Height Initial 1 2 3 4
-0.0040
Moisture, % 32.1% 30.4% 24.7%
-0.0020 Dry Density, pcf 88.2 90.2 99.2
Void Ratio 0.95 0.90 0.73
0.0000 Saturation, % 93.4% 92.5% 92.9%
2.43 2.43 2.43
Delta h
Diameter, in.
0.0020
Height, in. 1.01 1.01 1.01
Sample 1
0.0040 Sample 2 Sample Data: At Test
Sample 3 Moisture, % 33.1% 32.3% 24.4%
0.0060 Sample 4
Dry Density, pcf 89.8 90.7 102.8
0.0080 Void Ratio 0.91 0.89 0.67
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Saturation, % 99.8% 99.5% 100.0%
Height, in. 0.99 1.00 0.98
4000
Peak Stress, psf 997 2076 3732
3500
@ Deformation 5% 5% 5%
3000
Rate in/min. 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
CTL # 591-039 Date: 10/31/2012
Shear Stress, psf
2500
Client: CGI Technical Services Inc.
2000
Project Name: Fairfax Transmission Line Water Storage Project
Project Number: 12-1793.02 Reduced by: RU
1500
1 DH10-B 4 20
1000 2 DH10-B 4 20
3 DH10-B 4 20
500
Sample 1 4
Sample 2
Sample 3
0 Sample 4
1 Reddish Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Deformation
4
Remarks: Gravel on the shear plane affected the results.
Direct Shear
ASTM D3080
(ASTM D 3080)
8000
Shear Stress, psf
4000
Peak
Shear Stress
Ult. Stress
Ult Pts
0 4000 8000 12000 16000

Normal Load, psf
P. Phi (degrees) Ult. phi (degrees)

P. Cohesion (psf) Ult.Cohesion (psf)
Change in Height Initial 1 2 3 4
0.04
Moisture, % 21.5% 16.5% 20.1%
0.035
Dry Density, pcf 106.5 109.0 108.7
0.03 Void Ratio 0.64 0.60 0.61
0.025 Saturation, % 93.8% 76.5% 92.6%
2.43 2.43 2.43
Delta h
0.02 Diameter, in.

0.015 Height, in. 1.01 1.01 1.01
0.01 Sample 1 Sample Data: At Test
Sample 2
0.005 Sample 3
Moisture, % 22.3% 20.6% 20.4%
0 Sample 4 Dry Density, pcf 107.2 110.7 111.3
-0.005 Void Ratio 0.63 0.58 0.57
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Saturation, % 98.9% 99.3% 99.8%
Height, in. 1.00 0.99 0.99
7000 Sample 1
Sample 2 Peak Stress, psf 5991 3863 5265
Sample 3
6000 Sample 4
@ Deformation Peak Peak Peak
5000 Rate in/min. 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002
CTL # 591-040 Date: 10/29/2012
Shear Stress, psf
4000 Client: CGI Technical Services Inc.

Project Name: Fairfax Transmission Line Water Storage Project
3000
Project Number: 12-1793.02 Reduced by: MD
1 10B-2 4a 40.5
2000
2 10B-2 4a 40.5
3 10B-2 4a 40.5
1000 4
0
1 Yellowish Brown Clayey SAND w/ Gravel
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Deformation
4
Remarks: Gravel can adversely effect the Direct Shear test.
Shrink-Swell / Expansion Pressure
ASTM D 3877m
Job No.: 591-040 LL Date: 11/7/2012
Client: CGI Technical Services Inc. PL By: MD
Project: 12-1793.02 PI Checked By: DC Assumed Determined
Boring: DH10B Sample: 2A Depth,ft: 20.5 Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Desc. ReddishYellow Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel and Claystone fragments
Load, psf: 243 150 40
Exp., % 0.00 0.02 0.28
Field Saturated Air-Dry Oven-Dry Remarks:
Moisture %: 24.8 27.0 5.3 0.0
Dry Density, pcf 97.1 96.9 100.4 101.6
Saturation, % 90.8 98.5 21.1 0.0
Void Ratio 0.737 0.742 0.681 0.661
Volume Change, % 0.0 0.3 -3.2 -4.4
Expansion Pressure
0.30
0.25
Change in Height, %
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Applied Load, psf
Volume Change
1.0
The oven dried shrinkage measurements may be approximate due to cracking and deformation of sample.
0.0
Volume Change, %
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Moisture Content, %
Shrink-Swell / Expansion Pressure
ASTM D 3877m
Job No.: 591-040 LL Date: 11/7/2012
Client: CGI Technical Services Inc. PL By: MD
Project: 12-1793.02 PI Checked By: DC Assumed Determined
Boring: DH10B-4 Sample: 1 Depth,ft: 10 Specific Gravity: 2.7
Soil Desc. Brown Clayey GRAVEL w/ Sand
Load, psf: 265 150 40
Exp., % 0.00 0.02 0.20
Field Saturated Air-Dry Oven-Dry Remarks:
Moisture %: 21.0 23.5 5.7 0.0
Dry Density, pcf 103.1 102.9 107.2 107.5
Saturation, % 89.3 99.3 26.7 0.0
Void Ratio 0.636 0.639 0.574 0.569
Volume Change, % 0.0 0.2 -3.8 -4.1
Expansion Pressure
0.25
Change in Height, %
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Applied Load, psf
Volume Change
1.0
The oven dried shrinkage measurements may be approximate due to cracking and deformation of sample.
0.0
Volume Change, %
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Moisture Content, %
1612 Wedding Way
Redding, California 96003
530-244-6277
530-244-6276 FAX
www.CurryGroup.com
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

Client: HDR Engineering, Inc. Job No.: 12-1793.02
Project: MMWD Site 10B Lab No.: 6205
Location: Marin County, CA
Material Type: Native CURVE NO.: 1
Sample Location: BA-1 B-1
Material Description: Reddish Brown Silty Clay
Material Supplier: N/A
Sampled By: JAB Date Sampled: 9/11/12
Received By: JS Date Received: 9/12/12
Tested By: JB Date Tested: 10/15/12
Reviewed By: JAB Date Reviewed: 10/15/12
Test Procedure: ASTM Method: 1557
Oversized Material (%), +3/4": 10% Correction Required: YES X NO
125
Maximum Density
120
Zero Air Voids
DRY DENSITY, lbs./cu. ft.
115
Moisture Density
Curve
110
Moisture Density
Points
105
Optimum Water
Marker
100
10% Rock
Correction
95
20% Rock
90 Correction
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
30% Rock
MOISTURE, % Correction
SPECIMEN A B C
DRY DENSITY 106.2 111.1 108.1
MOISTURE AT TEST, % 15.3 17.9 20.2
Maximum Dry Density, PCF 111.1 @ Optimum Moisture, % 18.0

5%
With 5% Rock Correction 113.1 Corrected Moisture Content 17.1
CGi: Copyright 2012 CG12GS011

Site 7 Site 10B
Appendix D
Slope Stability Analyses
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Computer-aided slope stability analyses were performed using the computer program
SLIDE 6.0. SLIDE 6.0 was developed by Rocscience, Inc. (2012) and offers a wide variety
of limit-equilibrium procedures. Those include the Modified Bishop, the Simplified and
Corrected Janbu, Corps of Engineers #1 and #2, GLE/Morgenstern-Price, Lowe-Karafiath,
and the Spencer methods. Those limit-equilibrium procedures are all method of slices,
but they differ from the Ordinary Method of Slices (Fellenius method also included within
SLIDE 6.0) in:
1. The simplifying assumptions that have been made achieve static determinacy;
and
2. The particular conditions of equilibrium that are satisfied.
SLIDE 6.0 allows the use of any or all of the methods listed above because they better
satisfy limit equilibrium conditions. A summary of the equilibrium conditions satisfied by
each of these procedures and the type of failure surface for which each is useful is presented
in the following table.
EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS SATISFIED BY PROCEDURES

Overall Individual Slices
Procedure of
Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Slip
Analysis Moment Moment
Force Force Force Force Surface
Ordinary Method of Circular
Yes No No No No No
Slices (Fellenius) Arc
General
Modified Bishop Yes (Yes)1 No No Yes No
Shape2
General
Simplified Janbu No (Yes)1 (Yes)1 No Yes Yes
Shape
General
Spencer Yes (Yes)1 (Yes)1 Yes Yes Yes
Shape
Per Wright (1969); (Yes) - Parentheses indicate that this condition of equilibrium is implicitly satisfied as a result of the direct consideration of other
1
equilibrium conditions; 2 The original presentation of this procedure was for circular surfaces only.
Ordinary Method of Slices. From the above table, it is apparent that for circular failures,
the Ordinary Method of Slices (Fellenius method) satisfies overall moment equilibrium, but
does not satisfy individual slice moment equilibrium, or horizontal or vertical force
equilibrium. Sherard et al. (1963), have suggested that the Fellenius method of slices might
also be applied to non-circular surfaces; however, for noncircular surfaces that method
would not, in general, satisfy any of the equilibrium conditions (Wright, 1969).
The Ordinary Method of Slices has been widely used by practicing engineers for many years
March 4, 2013
D-1 CGR015Rev2
because of its simplicity, but it has long been known to grossly underestimate (and in some
cases overestimate) the factor of safety. Lambe and Whitman (1969) report that in some
cases the Ordinary Method of Slices may underestimate the factor of safety by about 10 to
15 percent, but in other problems (particularly for noncircular slip surfaces) the error may be
as much as 60 percent. With the development of high-speed computers, this approximate
method has largely been replaced by more accurate methods that better satisfy equilibrium
conditions. The Ordinary Method of Slices remains an acceptable method for performing
hand-calculated estimates of slope stability for conditions where accurate solutions are not
required.
Modified Bishop Method. The Modified Bishop Method assumes that the normal and
weight forces act through a point on the center of the base of each slice and that there are
no interslice shear forces. The resulting equation can be demonstrated to satisfy vertical
force equilibrium as well as overall moment equilibrium for circular shear surfaces. The
Modified Bishop Method is relatively simple to perform on a calculator, although the
necessary iterations make it more suitable for use on a computer system. In spite of the
necessary iterations, the Modified Bishop Method typically converges rapidly, therefore, it
requires little computer time to perform.
Fredlund and Krahn (1977) have shown that the Modified Bishop Method typically
estimates factors of safety that are typically within a few percent of those obtained from
more rigorous methods that satisfy complete moment and force equilibrium.
Simplified Janbu Method. Although the simplifying assumption made in the Simplified
Janbu Method is the same as that made for the Modified Bishop Method, the conditions of
equilibrium that are satisfied are not the same. The Simplified Janbu Method satisfies
vertical and horizontal force equilibrium for individual slices and for the overall shear surface
while assuming that there are no interslice shear forces. An advantage of the Simplified
Janbu Method is its suitability for the analysis of noncircular failure surfaces. While retaining
a rapid computational speed, the Simplified Janbu Method yields factors of safety that are
closer to those obtained by more rigorous methods (such as the Spencer Method) than those
obtained from the Ordinary Method of Slices.
Spencer Method. The Spencer Method assumes that the normal forces are located at the
center of the base of each slice and that all side forces are parallel. The result is an equation
that satisfies complete moment and force equilibrium. Although the Spencer Method was
directly applicable to a circular shear surface, the procedure may be readily extended to slip
surfaces of a general shape (Wright, 1969).
Because of the complexity of the procedure, the Spencer Method is suitable only for
computer-aided slope stability analyses. Although the Spencer Method typically yields a
March 4, 2013
D-2 CGR015Rev2
relatively accurate estimate of the factor of safety for a slope, its solution requires several
iterations. Consequently, considerable time is needed to perform the analyses on a personal
computer. Therefore, the Spencer Method is commonly used to refine the factor of safety
for a critical failure plane that has been located by a search, which has used a more time-
efficient method of analysis such as the Modified Bishop Method or Simplified Janbu
procedure.
ANALYSES PERFORMED
Introduction. Analyses were performed on cross sections shown on Plate 3. To calculate
the stability of the earth materials exposed in the slope, it is necessary to know the: 1) surface
and subsurface landslide geometry, 2) soil properties (unit weight and shear strength of the
soil materials present), and 3) phreatic water level (groundwater) conditions.
Surface and Subsurface Geometry. Data for the surface geometry of the project area was
obtained from drawings prepared by MMWD (2012) and HDR based on measured surface
topography. Subsurface stratigraphic information was obtained from observations of
materials within drill holes and test pits advanced during this study.
Engineering Properties. Laboratory direct shear tests were used to help estimate the shear
strength characteristics of the earth materials at the site. Different engineering properties
apply for varying earth materials exposed in the slope. A summary of the input parameters
for the soil units used in the analyses is presented in the text of the report.
Piezometric Water Level. The elevations of groundwater beneath the site are discussed in
the text of the report. Variations of groundwater elevations were included in our analyses to
parametrically estimate the sensitivity of slope stability to groundwater depths.
The following table provides results of stability analyses performed for this study.
March 4, 2013
D-3 CGR015Rev2
RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSES

Tank
Condition Groundwater Failure Mode
Shape
Pseudostatic
As Observed
Noncircular
Elevated
File FOS Comment
Circular
Round
Static
Oval
10NSR1 1.616 NA NA Natural, preconstruction slope
10BNSR1-NC 1.180 NA NA Natural, preconstruction slope
10BNSR1-NCps 0.914 NA NA Natural, preconstruction slope
10BCTR1 1.561
10BCTR1ps 1.126
10CTR1-EW 1.095
10CTR1-EWps 0.858
10BCTR1-NC 1.261
10BCTR1-NCps 1.082
10BCTR1-NC-
1.023
EW
10BCTR1-NC-
0.974
EWps
10BOTR1 1.614
10BOTR1ps 1.136
10B0TR1-EW 1.016
10BOTR1-
0.856
EWps
10BOTR1-NC 1.276
10B0TR1-NCps 1.025
10B0TR1-NC-
0.997
EW
10BOTR1-NC-
1.003
EWps
10BBC-
1.410 Stability increased using ground anchors
Anchor1
10BBC-
1.152 Stability increased using ground anchors
Anchor1ps
10BC-
Stability increased using buttress and
ButtressC3a- 1.612
groundwater control
LGW
10BC-
Stability increased using buttress and
ButtressC3a- 1.261
groundwater control
LGWps
Figures showing the models and results of stability analyses are included in this appendix. In
addition, we have included a typical output report for a stability analysis performed.
March 4, 2013
D-4 CGR015Rev2
REFERENCES
Fellenius, W. (1936), Calculation of the Stability of Earth Dams, Transactions of the Second
Congress on Large Dams, vol. 4, pp. 445-463.
Frelund, D.G., and Krahn, J. (1977), Comparison of Slope Stability Methods of Analysis,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 14, pp. 429-439.
Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L., and Kjaernsli, B. (1956), Veiledning ved losning av fundamenterings-
oppgaver-2. Stabilitetsberegning for fyllinger, skjaeringer og naturlige skraninger.
(Soil Mechanics Applies to Some Engineering Problems Chapter 2. Stability
Calculations for Embankments, Cuts, and Natural Slopes), Publication 16,
Normwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, pp. 17-26.
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V., (1969), Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
553 pp.
Rocscience Inc. (2012), SLIDE (Version 6.019, Build Date: September 26, 2012) Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Sherard, J.L., Woodward, R.J., Gizienski, S.F., and Clevenger, W.A. (1963), Stability
Analyses, Earth and Earth-Rock Dams, 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
345 pp.
Spencer, E. (1967), A Method of Analyses of the Stability of Embankments Assuming

Parallel Inter-Slice Forces, Geotechnique, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 11-26.
Wright, S. (1969), A Study of Slope Stability and the Undrained Shear Strength of Clay
Shales, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkley.
March 4, 2013
D-5 CGR015Rev2
SLIDEINTERPRET 6.019
Page 1 of 6
SlideAnalysisInformation
MMWDSite10B
ProjectSummary
FileName:10BCTR1
SlideModelerVersion:6.019
ProjectTitle:MMWDSite10B
Analysis:Static,circulartankconfiguration
Author:J.A.Bianchin
Company:CGITechnicalServices,Inc.
DateCreated:11/13/2012,9:19:12AM
Comments:
Groundwatermodeledatmeasureddepths
GeneralSettings
UnitsofMeasurement:ImperialUnits
TimeUnits:days
PermeabilityUnits:feet/second
FailureDirection:RighttoLeft
DataOutput:Standard
MaximumMaterialProperties:20
MaximumSupportProperties:20
AnalysisOptions
AnalysisMethodsUsed
Spencer
Numberofslices:25
Tolerance:0.005
Maximumnumberofiterations:50
Checkmalpha< 0.2:Yes
InitialtrialvalueofFS:1
SteffensenIteration:Yes
GroundwaterAnalysis
GroundwaterMethod:WaterSurfaces
PoreFluidUnitWeight:62.4lbs/ft3
AdvancedGroundwaterMethod:None
RandomNumbers
10BCTR1.slim CGI Technical Services, Inc. 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Page 2 of 6
PseudorandomSeed:10116
RandomNumberGenerationMethod:ParkandMillerv.3
SurfaceOptions
SurfaceType:Circular
SearchMethod:SlopeSearch
NumberofSurfaces:5000
UpperAngle:NotDefined
LowerAngle:NotDefined
CompositeSurfaces:Disabled
ReverseCurvature:CreateTensionCrack
MinimumElevation:NotDefined
MinimumDepth:NotDefined
Loading
1DistributedLoadpresent
DistributedLoad1
Distribution:Constant
Magnitude[psf]:3000
Orientation:Vertical
MaterialProperties
Property Landslide/Colluvium Landslidegranular FailurePlane

Color ___ ___ ___
StrengthType MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb
UnitWeight[lbs/ft3] 120 130 120
Cohesion[psf] 200 250 0
FrictionAngle[deg] 30 41 6
WaterSurface WaterTable WaterTable WaterTable
HuValue 1 1 1
GlobalMinimums
Method:spencer
FS:1.560610
Center:363.109,209.700
Radius:46.482
LeftSlipSurfaceEndpoint:340.657,169.000
RightSlipSurfaceEndpoint:408.568,200.000
ResistingMoment=3.82262e+006lbft

Page 3 of 6
DrivingMoment=2.44943e+006lbft
ResistingHorizontalForce=65850.6lb
DrivingHorizontalForce=42195.3lb
TotalSliceArea=1147.29ft2
Valid/InvalidSurfaces
Method:spencer
NumberofValidSurfaces:4444
NumberofInvalidSurfaces:556
ErrorCodes:
ErrorCode105reportedfor7surfaces
ErrorCode123reportedfor1surface
ErrorCodes
Thefollowingerrorswereencounteredduringthecomputation:
105=Morethantwosurface/slopeintersectionswithnovalidslipsurface.
106=Averageslicewidthislessthan0.0001*(maximumhorizontalextentofsoilregion).Thislimitationisimposedto
avoidnumericalerrorswhichmayresultfromtoomanyslices,ortoosmallaslipregion.
107=Totaldrivingmomentortotaldrivingforceisnegative.Thiswilloccurifthewrongfailuredirectionisspecified,orif
highexternaloranchorloadsareappliedagainstthefailuredirection.
108=Totaldrivingmomentortotaldrivingforce< 0.1.Thisistolimitthecalculationofextremelyhighsafetyfactorsifthe
drivingforceisverysmall(0.1isanarbitrarynumber).
111=safetyfactorequationdidnotconverge
112=ThecoefficientMAlpha=cos(alpha)(1+tan(alpha)tan(phi)/F)< 0.2forthefinaliterationofthesafetyfactor
calculation.Thisscreensoutsomeslipsurfaceswhichmaynotbevalidinthecontextoftheanalysis,inparticular,deep
seatedslipsurfaceswithmanyhighnegativebaseangleslicesinthepassivezone.
123=Surfaceradiusequalorlessthantheinternalcutoffof0.01.
SliceData
GlobalMinimumQuery(spencer)SafetyFactor:1.56061
Base Base Effective
Base Shear Shear Pore
Slice Width Weight Base Friction Normal Normal
Cohesion Stress Strength Pressure
Number [ft] [lbs] Material Angle Stress Stress
[psf] [psf] [psf] [psf]
[degrees] [psf] [psf]
1 2.95398 287.038 Landslidegranular 250 41 419.064 653.996 464.744 0 464.744
3 2.95398 1246 Landslidegranular 250 41 644.716 1006.15 869.85 0 869.85
5 2.59733 2691.72 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 74.6054 116.43 1125.92 18.1644 1107.76

Page 4 of 6
6 2.59733 3570.51 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 91.8122 143.283 1462.59 99.3444 1363.25

7 2.59733 4402.49 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 107.633 167.973 1769.31 171.154 1598.16
8 2.59733 5188.6 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 122.185 190.683 2048.01 233.779 1814.23
9 2.59733 5929.32 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 135.555 211.549 2300.07 287.315 2012.76
10 2.59733 6624.67 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 147.809 230.672 2526.47 331.77 2194.7
11 2.59733 7274.27 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 158.99 248.121 2727.78 367.066 2360.72
12 2.59733 7861.19 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 168.728 263.318 2898.33 393.034 2505.3
13 2.59733 8365.48 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 176.6 275.604 3031.61 409.408 2622.2
14 2.59733 8818.77 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 183.456 286.303 3139.8 415.807 2723.99
15 2.64588 9383.71 Landslidegranular 250 41 1621.49 2530.51 3035 411.577 2623.42
16 2.64588 9607.36 Landslidegranular 250 41 1590 2481.37 2962.71 395.811 2566.9
17 2.64588 9400.01 Landslidegranular 250 41 1491.17 2327.13 2756.96 367.496 2389.46
18 2.64588 9087.17 Landslidegranular 250 41 1385 2161.45 2524.24 325.37 2198.87
19 2.64588 8688.82 Landslidegranular 250 41 1276.05 1991.41 2271 267.731 2003.27
25 3.66272 2338.12 Landslide/Colluvium 200 30 170.422 265.962 114.25 0 114.25
IntersliceData
X Y Interslice Interslice Interslice
Slice
coordinate coordinateBottom NormalForce ShearForce ForceAngle
Number
[ft] [ft] [lbs] [lbs] [degrees]
1 340.657 169 0 0 0
2 343.611 167.505 1931.59 469.606 13.6646
3 346.565 166.262 4474.33 1087.79 13.6645
4 349.519 165.249 7258.17 1764.6 13.6646
5 352.473 164.451 10493.1 2551.08 13.6646
6 355.07 163.918 11286.7 2744.01 13.6646
7 357.668 163.537 12081.9 2937.35 13.6646
8 360.265 163.305 12772.6 3105.27 13.6646
9 362.862 163.218 13266.8 3225.4 13.6645
10 365.46 163.277 13483.3 3278.04 13.6646
11 368.057 163.482 13349.9 3245.61 13.6646
12 370.654 163.834 12801.3 3112.23 13.6645
13 373.252 164.338 11779.6 2863.85 13.6646
14 375.849 164.998 10237.4 2488.9 13.6646
15 378.446 165.821 8128.6 1976.22 13.6646
16 381.092 166.837 9330.46 2268.41 13.6646
17 383.738 168.046 9952.48 2419.64 13.6646
18 386.384 169.465 9983.61 2427.2 13.6646
19 389.03 171.116 9476.33 2303.88 13.6646

Page 5 of 6
20 391.676 173.032 8498.91 2066.25 13.6646

21 394.321 175.256 7140.55 1736 13.6646
22 396.967 177.853 5524.72 1343.16 13.6645
23 399.613 180.924 3794.82 922.593 13.6646
24 402.259 184.643 2024.25 492.134 13.6646
25 404.905 189.361 555.435 135.037 13.6646
26 408.568 200 0 0 0
ListOfCoordinates
WaterTable
X Y
0 71
226 125
244 125
260 134
420 186
550.249 200
578 200
587.232 206.252
780 235.196
LineLoad
X Y
412.012 200
550.249 200
567.341 200
ExternalBoundary
X Y
780 71
780 185
780 187
780 226
780 284
642 242
587.232 206.252
578 200
550.249 200
398 200
382 196
371.208 186.894
350 169

Page 6 of 6
333 169
324 167
312 167
306 162
304 160
260 134
244 125
226 125
0 71
MaterialBoundary
X Y
371.208 186.894
550.249 200
MaterialBoundary
X Y
587.232 206.252
780 226
MaterialBoundary
X Y
306 162
780 187
MaterialBoundary
X Y
304 160
780 185

500
0.16
Project Settings
Project Title: MMWD Site 10B
Analysis: Pseudostatic analysis, preconstruction conditions
Author: J.A.Bianchin
400
Company: CGI Technical Services, Inc.

Date Created: 11/13/2012, 7:44:38 AM
Comment 1: Groundwater at measured elevations
Material Properties
Material: Landslide/Colluvium
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
300
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb

Cohesion: 200 psf
Friction Angle: 30 degrees
Material: Landslide - Granular
W
200
Cohesion: 250 psf

Material: Failure Plane
Cohesion: 0 psf
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project
MMWD Site 10B
Analysis Description
Pseudostatic analysis, preconstruction conditions
Drawn By Scale Company
J.A.Bianchin 1:1381 CGI Technical Services, Inc.
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 7:44:38 AM 10BNSR1-NCps.slim
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
700
0.750
1.000
1.250 0.914
1.500
1.750
600
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
3.000
3.250
500
3.500 Project Summary

3.750 MMWD Site 10B
4.000 Pseudostatic analysis, preconstruction conditions
4.250 J.A.Bianchin
4.500 CGI Technical Services, Inc.
11/13/2012, 7:44:38 AM
400
4.750
5.000 Groundwater at measured elevations
5.250 spencer
5.500 0.914
5.750
6.000+
300
W
200
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Safety Factor
0.000
700
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750 0.914
1.000
1.250
600
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
500
3.000
Project Summary
3.250
MMWD Site 10B
3.500 Pseudostatic analysis, preconstruction conditions
3.750 J.A.Bianchin
4.250 11/13/2012, 7:44:38 AM
400
4.500 Groundwater at measured elevations

4.750 spencer
5.000 0.914
5.250
5.500
300
5.750
6.000+
W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project Settings
400
Analysis: Static, circular tank configuration

Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Comment 1: Groundwater modeled at measured depths
Material Properties
Cohesion: 200 psf 3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
Material: Landslide granular
200

Cohesion: 250 psf
Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project
MMWD Site 10B
Static, circular tank configuration
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BCTR1.slim
600
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
500
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
400
3.000
3.500 MMWD Site 10B
3.750 Static, circular tank configuration
4.000 J.A.Bianchin
4.500 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Groundwater modeled at measured depths
300
4.750
5.000 Results
5.250 spencer
5.500
5.750 3000.00 lbs/ft2 W
6.000+
1.561
200
100
W
0
-100
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80

Safety Factor
700
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
600
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
500
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
4.250
400
4.500
5.000 MMWD Site 10B
5.250 Static, circular tank configuration
5.500 J.A.Bianchin
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
300
6.000+
Groundwater modeled at measured depths
Results
spencer
3000.00 lbs/ft2 W
1.561
200
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.16
600
Project Settings
Analysis: Pseudostatic, circular tank configuration
Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Material Properties
400

Cohesion: 200 psf
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb 3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
Cohesion: 250 psf
200

Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Pseudostatic, circular tank configuration
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BCTR1-NCps.slim
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750 1.082
1.000
600
1.250
1.500
2.000 MMWD Site 10B
2.250 Pseudostatic, circular tank configuration
2.500 J.A.Bianchin
3.000 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
3.250 Groundwater modeled at measured depths
Results
3.500
spencer
3.750
400
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+ 3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
200
W
0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750
1.000 1.082
600
1.250
1.500
2.000 MMWD Site 10B
2.250 Pseudostatic, circular tank configuration
2.500 J.A.Bianchin
3.000 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
3.250 Groundwater modeled at measured depths
3.500 Results
3.750 spencer
400
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+ 3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
200
W
0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Project Settings
Analysis: Static, circular tank configuration
400
Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Comment 1: Elevated groundwater
Material Properties
Cohesion: 200 psf
W
Material: Landslide granular 3000.00 lbs/ft2
200
Cohesion: 250 psf

Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BCTR1-NC-EW.slim
Safety Factor
700
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
600
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.500 MMWD Site 10B
Static, circular tank configuration 1.023
500
2.750
3.000 J.A.Bianchin
3.500 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
3.750 Elevated groundwater
4.000 Results
spencer
400
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
300
5.750
6.000+
3000.00 lbs/ft2 W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
700
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
600
2.000
2.250
2.500
3.000 MMWD Site 10B
3.250 Static, circular tank configuration 1.023
500
3.500 J.A.Bianchin
4.000 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
4.500 Results
spencer
400
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+
300
3000.00 lbs/ft2 W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.16

400

Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Comment 1: Elevated groundwater
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb W
Cohesion: 200 psf 3000.00 lbs/ft2

200

Cohesion: 250 psf
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 6 degrees W
0
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BCTR1-NC-EWps.slim
Safety Factor
700
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750
1.000 0.974
1.250
600
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.500 MMWD Site 10B
500
2.750
3.000 J.A.Bianchin
3.500 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
4.000 Results
spencer
400
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
300
5.750
6.000+ 3000.00 lbs/ft2 W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Safety Factor
0.000
700
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250 0.974
1.500
600
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.750 MMWD Site 10B
500
3.000
3.250 J.A.Bianchin
3.500
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
3.750
Elevated groundwater
4.000
Results
4.250 spencer
400
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
300
6.000+
3000.00 lbs/ft2 W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project Settings
Analysis: Static, oval tank configuration
400
Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Comment 1: Groundwater elevations as measured
Material Properties
Cohesion: 200 psf W
200

Cohesion: 250 psf
Cohesion: 0 psf
Friction Angle: 6 degrees W
0
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Static, oval tank configuration
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BOTR1.slim
Safety Factor
800
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
600
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
4.500 MMWD Site 10B
4.750 Static, oval tank configuration
5.000 J.A.Bianchin
400
5.500 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

5.750 Groundwater elevations as measured
6.000+ Results
spencer
W
200
1.614
W
0
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project Settings
400
Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Material Properties
Cohesion: 200 psf
Material: Landslide granular W
200
Cohesion: 250 psf

Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BOTR1-NC.slim
Safety Factor
0.000
700
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
600

2.000 MMWD Site 10B
2.500 J.A.Bianchin
3.000 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 1.276
500

3.500 Results
3.750 spencer
4.000
4.250
400
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
300
6.000+
W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Safety Factor
700
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
600

1.500 MMWD Site 10B
2.000 J.A.Bianchin
2.500 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 1.276
500

3.000 Results
3.250 spencer
3.500
3.750
4.000
400
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
300
5.500
5.750
6.000+
W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0.16
Project Settings
Analysis: Pseudostatic, oval tank configuration
400

Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Material Properties
Cohesion: 200 psf
Material: Landslide granular W

200
Cohesion: 250 psf

Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Pseudostatic, oval tank configuration
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BOTR1-NCps.slim
Safety Factor
700
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
1.000 MMWD Site 10B 1.025
1.250 Pseudostatic, oval tank configuration
600
1.500 J.A.Bianchin
2.000 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.500 Results
spencer
500
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
400
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
300
5.500
5.750
6.000+
W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Safety Factor
0.000
700
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750
1.250 MMWD Site 10B 1.025
600
1.500
J.A.Bianchin
1.750
2.000
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.500 Results
2.750 spencer
500
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
4.000
4.250
400
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
300
5.750
6.000+
W
200
100
W
0
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project Settings
400

Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Comment 1: Elevated groundwater elevations
Material Properties
Cohesion: 200 psf W
200

Cohesion: 250 psf
Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project
MMWD Site 10B
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BOTR1-NC-EW.slim
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
600
0.750 MMWD Site 10B

1.250 J.A.Bianchin
1.750 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.000 Elevated groundwater elevations
Results 0.997
500
2.250
spencer
2.500
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
400
3.750
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
300
5.250
5.500
5.750
W
6.000+
200
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500
Project Summary
600
0.750
1.000 MMWD Site 10B
1.250
J.A.Bianchin
1.500
1.750
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.250 Results 0.997
500
2.500 spencer
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
3.750
400
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
300
5.500
5.750
6.000+ W
200
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.16
Project Settings
Analysis: Pseudostatic, oval tank configuration
400
Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Comment 1: Elevated groundwater elevations
Material Properties
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb W
Cohesion: 200 psf
200

Cohesion: 250 psf
Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Project
MMWD Site 10B
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.019
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BOTR1-NC-EWps.slim
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.16
600
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250 1.003
1.750 MMWD Site 10B
500
2.000
J.A.Bianchin
2.250
2.500
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.750
Elevated groundwater elevations
3.000 Results
3.250 spencer
3.500
400
3.750
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
300
5.250
5.500
5.750 W
6.000+
200
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 80
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
600
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500 1.003
2.000 MMWD Site 10B
500
2.250
J.A.Bianchin
2.500
2.750
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
3.250 Results
3.500 spencer
3.750
400
4.000
4.250
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
300
5.500
5.750
6.000+ W
200
100
W
0
-100
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Page 1 of 7
MMWDSite10B
ProjectSummary
FileName:10BBCAnchors1
Author:J.A.Bianchin
Comments:
Elevatedgroundwater
GeneralSettings
TimeUnits:days
DataOutput:Standard
AnalysisOptions
AnalysisMethodsUsed
Spencer
Numberofslices:25
Tolerance:0.005
GroundwaterAnalysis
RandomNumbers
10BBC-Anchors1.slim CGI Technical Services, Inc. 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Page 2 of 7
SurfaceOptions
Loading
DistributedLoad1
Magnitude[psf]:3000
MaterialProperties

Color ___ ___ ___
HuValue 1 1 1
SupportProperties
Support1
SupportType:GroutedTieback
ForceApplication:Active
OutofPlaneSpacing:10ft
TensileCapacity:400000lb
PlateCapacity:400000lb
Bondlength:80percent

Page 3 of 7
BondStrength:75lb/ft
GlobalMinimums
Method:spencer
FS:1.410340
Center:366.152,233.609
Radius:69.844
ResistingHorizontalForce=111925lb
Method:spencer
ErrorCodes:
ErrorCodes
109=Soiltypeforslicebasenotlocated.Thiserrorshouldoccurveryrarely,ifatall.Itmayoccurifaverylownumberof
slicesiscombinedwithcertainsoilgeometries,suchthatthemidpointofaslicebaseisactuallyoutsidethesoilregion,even
thoughtheslipsurfaceiswhollywithinthesoilregion.

Page 4 of 7
113=Surfaceintersectsoutsideslopelimits.
SliceData
Base Base Effective
5 3.59742 4978.96 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 85.5099 120.598 1501.88 354.466 1147.42
6 3.59742 6552.65 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 110.31 155.574 1928.88 448.695 1480.19
7 3.59742 8045.49 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 132.791 187.28 2313.08 531.236 1781.85
8 3.59742 9458.13 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 153.164 216.014 2657.42 602.185 2055.24
9 3.59742 10772.9 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 171.234 241.498 2959.24 661.541 2297.7
10 3.59742 11932.9 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 195.08 275.129 3326.89 709.21 2617.68
11 3.59742 13002.6 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 199.014 280.678 3415.49 745.002 2670.49
12 3.59742 13824.8 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 207.32 292.391 3550.54 768.619 2781.92
IntersliceData
Slice
Number
1 339.621 169 0 0 0
2 343.556 167.521 2942.54 1118.75 20.8167
3 347.491 166.304 6192.64 2354.44 20.8168
4 351.427 165.335 9596.2 3648.47 20.8168

Page 5 of 7
5 355.362 164.603 14633.5 5563.66 20.8168

6 358.959 164.136 15643.4 5947.63 20.8168
7 362.557 163.858 16578.8 6303.27 20.8168
8 366.154 163.765 17271.8 6566.74 20.8168
9 369.751 163.858 17577.4 6682.93 20.8168
10 373.349 164.137 17369.3 6603.79 20.8168
11 376.946 164.604 16805.6 6389.5 20.8168
12 380.544 165.264 15270.1 5805.7 20.8168
13 384.141 166.121 12972.8 4932.25 20.8168
14 387.505 167.109 16288.2 6192.78 20.8168
15 390.869 168.285 18352.8 6977.72 20.8168
16 394.233 169.659 19619.5 7459.32 20.8168
17 397.596 171.244 20550.5 7813.3 20.8168
18 400.96 173.057 20621.2 7840.17 20.8168
19 404.324 175.119 20490.8 7790.6 20.8168
20 407.688 177.458 19780.8 7520.66 20.8168
21 411.052 180.11 19154.4 7282.51 20.8168
22 414.416 183.123 17372.1 6604.85 20.8167
23 417.78 186.569 14331.1 5448.67 20.8168
24 421.143 190.549 10776.2 4097.12 20.8168
25 424.261 194.859 5378.26 2044.81 20.8168
26 427.378 200 0 0 0
ListOfCoordinates
WaterTable
X Y
0 71
226 125
244 125
304 160
312 167
324 167
353.853 169.005
392.728 181.293
577.169 194.551
780 242.675
LineLoad
X Y
412.012 200
550.249 200
567.341 200

Page 6 of 7
ExternalBoundary
X Y
780 71
780 185
780 187
780 226
780 284
642 242
587.232 206.252
578 200
550.249 200
398 200
382 196
371.208 186.894
350 169
333 169
324 167
312 167
306 162
304 160
260 134
244 125
226 125
0 71
MaterialBoundary
X Y
371.208 186.894
550.249 200
MaterialBoundary
X Y
587.232 206.252
780 226
MaterialBoundary
X Y
306 162
780 187
MaterialBoundary

Page 7 of 7
X Y
304 160
780 185

600
Project Settings
Date Created: 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
Material Properties
400

Cohesion: 200 psf
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb 3000.00 lbs/ft2
Cohesion: 250 psf W

200

Cohesion: 0 psf
W
0
-200
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Project
MMWD Site 10B
Date File Name
SLIDE 6.020
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM 10BBC-Anchors1.slim
Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
600
1.500
1.750 Document
2.000 10BBC-Anchors1
2.250 Results
2.500 spencer
2.750 Surface Type: Circular
3.000 Search Method: Slope Search
3.250 Number of Surfaces: 5000
3.500 Upper Angle: Not Defined
3.750 Lower Angle: Not Defined
400
4.000 Composite Surfaces: Disabled

4.250 Reverse Curvature: Create Tension Crack
4.500 Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
4.750 Minimum Depth: Not Defined
5.000
5.250
5.500 3000.00 lbs/ft2
5.750 W
6.000+ 1.410
200
W
0
-200
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
800
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
600
2.750
3.000
Document
3.250
10BBC-Anchors1
3.500
Results
3.750 spencer
5.000 Lower Angle: Not Defined
400

6.000+ Minimum Depth: Not Defined
3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
1.410
200
W
0
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Page 1 of 7
MMWDSite10B
ProjectSummary
FileName:10BBCAnchors1ps
Author:J.A.Bianchin
Comments:
Elevatedgroundwater
GeneralSettings
TimeUnits:days
DataOutput:Standard
AnalysisOptions
AnalysisMethodsUsed
Spencer
Numberofslices:25
Tolerance:0.005
GroundwaterAnalysis
RandomNumbers
10BBC-Anchors1ps.slim CGI Technical Services, Inc. 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Page 2 of 7
SurfaceOptions
Loading
SeismicLoadCoefficient(Horizontal):0.15
DistributedLoad1
Magnitude[psf]:3000
MaterialProperties

Color ___ ___ ___
HuValue 1 1 1
SupportProperties
Support1
SupportType:GroutedTieback
ForceApplication:Active
OutofPlaneSpacing:10ft
TensileCapacity:400000lb
PlateCapacity:400000lb

Page 3 of 7
Bondlength:80percent
BondStrength:75lb/ft
GlobalMinimums
Method:spencer
FS:1.152330
Center:366.152,233.609
Radius:69.844
DrivingHorizontalForce=99058lb
Method:spencer
ErrorCodes:
ErrorCodes

Page 4 of 7
SliceData
Base Base Effective
5 3.59742 4978.96 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 98.5629 113.577 1435.08 354.466 1080.61
6 3.59742 6552.65 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 125.868 145.042 1828.68 448.695 1379.99
7 3.59742 8045.49 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 150.104 172.969 2176.92 531.236 1645.69
8 3.59742 9458.13 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 171.624 197.768 2483.82 602.185 1881.63
9 3.59742 10772.9 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 190.294 219.281 2747.86 661.541 2086.32
10 3.59742 11932.9 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 216.962 250.012 3087.92 709.21 2378.71
11 3.59742 13002.6 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 217.761 250.932 3132.44 745.002 2387.44
12 3.59742 13824.8 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 225.137 259.432 3236.96 768.619 2468.34
IntersliceData
Slice
Number
1 339.621 169 0 0 0
2 343.556 167.521 7540.85 3711.49 26.2057
3 347.491 166.304 14068.4 6924.26 26.2057
4 351.427 165.335 19840.9 9765.38 26.2057

Page 5 of 7
5 355.362 164.603 27369.2 13470.7 26.2057

6 358.959 164.136 27647.2 13607.5 26.2057
7 362.557 163.858 27626.6 13597.4 26.2057
8 366.154 163.765 27161 13368.2 26.2057
9 369.751 163.858 26128.8 12860.2 26.2057
10 373.349 164.137 24430.4 12024.3 26.2058
11 376.946 164.604 22265.2 10958.6 26.2057
12 380.544 165.264 19031.4 9366.97 26.2057
13 384.141 166.121 14991.2 7378.44 26.2057
14 387.505 167.109 17721.5 8722.28 26.2058
15 390.869 168.285 19007.6 9355.25 26.2057
16 394.233 169.659 19426.8 9561.59 26.2057
17 397.596 171.244 19556.1 9625.21 26.2057
18 400.96 173.057 18808 9257.03 26.2058
19 404.324 175.119 17973.7 8846.39 26.2057
20 407.688 177.458 16623.8 8181.97 26.2057
21 411.052 180.11 15517.7 7637.57 26.2057
22 414.416 183.123 14023.7 6902.24 26.2057
23 417.78 186.569 11602.7 5710.66 26.2057
24 421.143 190.549 8785.47 4324.08 26.2057
25 424.261 194.859 4187.05 2060.8 26.2057
26 427.378 200 0 0 0
ListOfCoordinates
WaterTable
X Y
0 71
226 125
244 125
304 160
312 167
324 167
353.853 169.005
392.728 181.293
577.169 194.551
780 242.675
LineLoad
X Y
412.012 200
550.249 200
567.341 200

Page 6 of 7
ExternalBoundary
X Y
780 71
780 185
780 187
780 226
780 284
642 242
587.232 206.252
578 200
550.249 200
398 200
382 196
371.208 186.894
350 169
333 169
324 167
312 167
306 162
304 160
260 134
244 125
226 125
0 71
MaterialBoundary
X Y
371.208 186.894
550.249 200
MaterialBoundary
X Y
587.232 206.252
780 226
MaterialBoundary
X Y
306 162
780 187
MaterialBoundary

Page 7 of 7
X Y
304 160
780 185

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.15
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
600
1.750
2.000 Document
2.250 10BBC-Anchors1ps
2.500 Results
2.750 spencer
Number of Surfaces: 5000
3.500
Upper Angle: Not Defined
3.750
Lower Angle: Not Defined
400

4.750 Minimum Depth: Not Defined
5.000
5.250
5.500
3000.00 lbs/ft2
5.750
W
6.000+ 1.152
200
W
0
-200
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.15
0.500
0.750
800
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
3.000
600
3.250
3.500 Document
3.750 10BBC-Anchors1ps
4.000 Results
4.250 spencer
Lower Angle: Not Defined
400
5.500
Composite Surfaces: Disabled
5.750
Reverse Curvature: Create Tension Crack
6.000+ Minimum Elevation: Not Defined
Minimum Depth: Not Defined
3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
1.152
200
W
0
-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Page 1 of 7
MMWDWornSpringTank(Site10B)
ProjectSummary
FileName:10BCButtressC3aLGW
ProjectTitle:MMWDWornSpringTank(Site10B)
Analysis:Staticanalysis
Author:J.A.Bianchin
GeneralSettings
TimeUnits:days
DataOutput:Standard
AnalysisOptions
AnalysisMethodsUsed
Spencer
Numberofslices:25
Tolerance:0.005
GroundwaterAnalysis
RandomNumbers
10BC-ButtressC3a-LGW.slim CGI Technical Services, Inc. 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Page 2 of 7
SurfaceOptions
Loading
DistributedLoad1
Magnitude[psf]:3000
MaterialProperties
Property Landslide/Colluvium Landslidegranular FailurePlane ButtressSoils

Color ___ ___ ___ ___
StrengthType MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb
UnitWeight[lbs/ft3] 120 130 120 125
Cohesion[psf] 200 250 0 250
FrictionAngle[deg] 30 41 6 35
WaterSurface WaterTable WaterTable WaterTable WaterTable
HuValue 1 1 1 1
GlobalMinimums
Method:spencer
FS:1.611830
Center:305.024,336.785
Radius:177.483

Page 3 of 7
Method:spencer
ErrorCodes:
ErrorCodes
SliceData
Base Base Effective
1 4.88384 1135.14 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 15.6195 25.1759 239.533 0 239.533
2 4.88384 3735.39 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 50.6341 81.6135 776.502 0 776.502
3 4.88384 4631.79 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 61.8614 99.7101 948.678 0 948.678
4 4.88384 4410.13 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 58.0428 93.5552 890.119 0 890.119
5 4.88384 4262.47 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 55.2889 89.1163 847.884 0 847.884
6 4.88384 4531.91 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 57.94 93.3894 888.542 0 888.542
7 4.88384 4523.73 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 57.0095 91.8897 874.273 0 874.273
8 4.88384 3989.34 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 49.5598 79.8819 760.025 0 760.025
Landslide
9 4.06675 2836.14 250 41 560.664 903.695 751.99 0 751.99
granular
Landslide
10 4.06675 2326.21 250 41 481.128 775.497 604.514 0 604.514
granular
Landslide

Page 4 of 7
granular
12 4.57169 4257.59 ButtressSoils 250 35 543.552 876.113 894.183 0 894.183
13 4.57169 5620.11 ButtressSoils 250 35 650.317 1048.2 1139.95 0 1139.95
14 4.57169 6903.83 ButtressSoils 250 35 744.859 1200.59 1357.58 0 1357.58
15 4.57169 8107.23 ButtressSoils 250 35 827.674 1334.07 1548.22 0 1548.22
16 4.57169 9252.66 ButtressSoils 250 35 901.162 1452.52 1717.37 0 1717.37
17 4.57169 10324.2 ButtressSoils 250 35 964.488 1554.59 1863.14 0 1863.14
18 4.57169 10666.8 ButtressSoils 250 35 968.105 1560.42 1871.48 0 1871.48
19 4.57169 9985.23 ButtressSoils 250 35 894.393 1441.61 1701.8 0 1701.8
20 4.57169 9197.8 ButtressSoils 250 35 815.855 1315.02 1521.01 0 1521.01
21 4.57169 8255.2 ButtressSoils 250 35 729.557 1175.92 1322.35 0 1322.35
22 4.57169 6720.77 ButtressSoils 250 35 606.405 977.421 1038.86 0 1038.86
23 4.57169 4953.97 ButtressSoils 250 35 1296.72 2090.09 2627.92 0 2627.92
24 4.57169 3064.72 ButtressSoils 250 35 1226.46 1976.84 2466.18 0 2466.18
25 4.57169 1044.23 ButtressSoils 250 35 1067.57 1720.74 2100.44 0 2100.44
IntersliceData
Slice
Number
1 302.842 159.316 0 0 0
2 307.726 159.323 74.5825 34.8624 25.053
3 312.61 159.465 211.949 99.0723 25.053
4 317.494 159.741 251.908 117.75 25.0529
5 322.378 160.153 168.862 78.9321 25.0531
6 327.261 160.701 25.8663 12.0908 25.053
7 332.145 161.387 352.236 164.647 25.053
8 337.029 162.212 795.124 371.668 25.053
9 341.913 163.178 1287.49 601.818 25.053
10 345.98 164.092 305.533 142.817 25.0531
11 350.046 165.108 1648.71 770.662 25.053
12 354.113 166.226 2985.6 1395.57 25.053
13 358.685 167.609 4234.61 1979.4 25.053
14 363.257 169.127 5476.96 2560.12 25.053
15 367.828 170.786 6631.37 3099.73 25.053
16 372.4 172.588 7625.4 3564.37 25.053
17 376.972 174.539 8395.05 3924.13 25.053
18 381.543 176.645 8882.51 4151.99 25.053
19 386.115 178.911 9068.83 4239.08 25.053
20 390.687 181.344 9017.69 4215.18 25.053
21 395.258 183.952 8780.56 4104.33 25.053
22 399.83 186.745 8423 3937.2 25.053
23 404.402 189.733 8091.5 3782.25 25.053
24 408.974 192.929 5623.63 2628.68 25.053

Page 5 of 7
25 413.545 196.345 2805.41 1311.34 25.0529

26 418.117 200 0 0 0
ListOfCoordinates
WaterTable
X Y
0 71
226 125
244 125
360.781 161.278
449.819 167.591
633.182 200.761
780 231.626
LineLoad
X Y
404.854 200
485.541 200
550.249 200
570.823 200
ExternalBoundary
X Y
780 71
780 185
780 187
780 226
780 284
642 242
587.232 206.252
578 200
550.249 200
485.541 200
398 200
382 196
371.513 187.046
350 169
333 169
324 167
312 167
304 160
301.031 158.245

Page 6 of 7
260 134
244 125
226 125
0 71
MaterialBoundary
X Y
587.232 206.252
780 226
MaterialBoundary
X Y
350 169
356.784 164.425
MaterialBoundary
X Y
301.031 158.245
358.932 162.776
356.784 164.425
304 160
MaterialBoundary
X Y
358.932 162.776
360.781 161.278
449.819 167.591
MaterialBoundary
X Y
451.699 169.753
780 187
MaterialBoundary
X Y
451.699 169.753
485.541 200
MaterialBoundary

Page 7 of 7
X Y
451.699 169.753
449.819 167.591
780 185

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500 Document
0.750 10BC-ButtressC3a-LGW
1.250 MMWD Worn Spring Tank (Site 10B)
1.500 Static analysis
1.750 J.A.Bianchin
400
2.000
2.250 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.500
2.750
3.000 1.612
3.250
3.500
3.750 3000.00 lbs/ft2
4.000
4.250 W
200
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+
W
0
-200
-400
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.500 Document
0.750 10BC-ButtressC3a-LGW
1.250 MMWD Worn Spring Tank (Site 10B)
1.500 Static analysis
1.750 J.A.Bianchin
400
2.000
2.250 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
2.500
2.750
3.000 1.612
3.250
3.500
3.750 3000.00 lbs/ft2
4.000
4.250 W
200
4.500
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+
W
0
-200
-400
-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Page 1 of 7
MMWDWarnSpringTank(Site10B)
ProjectSummary
FileName:10BCButtressC3aLGWps
ProjectTitle:MMWDWarnSpringTank(Site10B)
Analysis:Pseudostaticanalysis
Author:J.A.Bianchin
GeneralSettings
TimeUnits:days
DataOutput:Standard
AnalysisOptions
AnalysisMethodsUsed
Spencer
Numberofslices:25
Tolerance:0.005
GroundwaterAnalysis
RandomNumbers
10BC-ButtressC3a-LGWps.slim CGI Technical Services, Inc. 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM

Page 2 of 7
SurfaceOptions
Loading
SeismicLoadCoefficient(Horizontal):0.16
DistributedLoad1
Magnitude[psf]:3000
MaterialProperties
Property Landslide/Colluvium Landslidegranular FailurePlane ButtressSoils

Color ___ ___ ___ ___
StrengthType MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb MohrCoulomb
UnitWeight[lbs/ft3] 120 130 120 125
Cohesion[psf] 200 250 0 250
FrictionAngle[deg] 30 41 6 35
WaterSurface WaterTable WaterTable WaterTable WaterTable
HuValue 1 1 1 1
GlobalMinimums
Method:spencer
FS:1.261370
Center:328.155,273.139
Radius:111.983

Page 3 of 7
ResistingHorizontalForce=95390.9lb
Method:spencer
ErrorCodes:
ErrorCodes
SliceData
Base Base Effective
Landslide
1 4.4043 1313.79 250 41 752.209 948.814 803.893 0 803.893
granular
Landslide
2 4.4043 2827.63 250 41 1102.11 1390.17 1311.61 0 1311.61
granular
Landslide
3 4.4043 3096.2 250 41 1090.75 1375.84 1295.13 0 1295.13
granular
4 4.16971 3088.51 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 61.1126 77.0856 733.421 0 733.421
5 4.16971 3482.22 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 67.4435 85.0712 809.398 0 809.398
6 4.16971 3952.14 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 74.9591 94.5512 899.595 0 899.595
7 4.16971 4066.3 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 75.5544 95.3021 906.739 0 906.739

Page 4 of 7
8 4.16971 3878.68 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 70.6204 89.0784 847.525 0 847.525

9 4.16971 3612.08 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 64.4566 81.3036 773.551 0 773.551
10 4.16971 3265.44 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 57.1151 72.0433 685.447 0 685.447
11 4.16971 3683.69 FailurePlane 0 6.00001 63.1526 79.6588 757.903 0 757.903
Landslide
12 2.21732 2472.98 250 41 963.131 1214.87 1109.95 0 1109.95
granular
13 4.35796 5856.18 ButtressSoils 250 35 888.16 1120.3 1242.92 0 1242.92
14 4.35796 7126.85 ButtressSoils 250 35 994.078 1253.9 1433.72 0 1433.72
15 4.35796 8289.88 ButtressSoils 250 35 1078.49 1360.37 1585.78 0 1585.78
16 4.35796 9345.11 ButtressSoils 250 35 1143.23 1442.03 1702.39 0 1702.39
17 4.35796 10308.8 ButtressSoils 250 35 1191.45 1502.86 1789.27 0 1789.27
18 4.35796 11144 ButtressSoils 250 35 1220.97 1540.1 1842.45 0 1842.45
19 4.35796 10996.4 ButtressSoils 250 35 1157.9 1460.54 1728.83 0 1728.83
20 4.35796 10128.2 ButtressSoils 250 35 1036 1306.78 1509.24 0 1509.24
21 4.35796 9103.21 ButtressSoils 250 35 908.755 1146.28 1280.01 0 1280.01
22 4.35796 7850.21 ButtressSoils 250 35 772.247 974.089 1034.11 0 1034.11
23 4.35796 5961.75 ButtressSoils 250 35 599.629 756.354 723.149 0 723.149
24 4.35796 3757.77 ButtressSoils 250 35 1243.63 1568.68 1883.27 0 1883.27
25 4.35796 1298.55 ButtressSoils 250 35 1140.97 1439.19 1698.34 0 1698.34
IntersliceData
Slice
Number
1 307.514 163.074 0 0 0
2 311.918 162.339 3700.98 1699.84 24.6691
3 316.322 161.782 8842.81 4061.46 24.6691
4 320.727 161.402 13654.1 6271.26 24.6691
5 324.896 161.203 13561.4 6228.7 24.6691
6 329.066 161.159 13321.5 6118.5 24.6691
7 333.236 161.271 12902 5925.82 24.6691
8 337.405 161.538 12324.6 5660.64 24.6691
9 341.575 161.963 11639.5 5345.98 24.6691
10 345.745 162.546 10879.9 4997.1 24.6692
11 349.914 163.29 10085.9 4632.43 24.6692
12 354.084 164.199 9071.63 4166.55 24.6691
13 356.302 164.75 10203.7 4686.5 24.669
14 360.659 165.977 11621.4 5337.65 24.6691
15 365.017 167.396 12786.8 5872.89 24.669
16 369.375 169.018 13599.1 6246.01 24.6691
17 373.733 170.85 13976.8 6419.49 24.6691
18 378.091 172.906 13853.2 6362.71 24.6691
19 382.449 175.198 13179.4 6053.21 24.669
20 386.807 177.744 12075.3 5546.13 24.6691

Page 5 of 7
21 391.165 180.564 10722.2 4924.64 24.669

22 395.523 183.686 9238.94 4243.4 24.6691
23 399.881 187.141 7782.74 3574.57 24.6691
24 404.239 190.971 6677.59 3066.98 24.6691
25 408.597 195.232 3482.27 1599.39 24.6691
26 412.955 200 0 0 0
ListOfCoordinates
WaterTable
X Y
0 71
226 125
244 125
360.781 161.278
449.819 167.591
633.182 200.761
780 231.626
LineLoad
X Y
404.854 200
485.541 200
550.249 200
570.823 200
FocusSearchLine
X Y
355.723 173.801
379.355 133.25
ExternalBoundary
X Y
780 71
780 185
780 187
780 226
780 284
642 242
587.232 206.252
578 200
550.249 200

Page 6 of 7
485.541 200
398 200
382 196
371.513 187.046
350 169
333 169
324 167
312 167
304 160
301.031 158.245
260 134
244 125
226 125
0 71
MaterialBoundary
X Y
587.232 206.252
780 226
MaterialBoundary
X Y
350 169
356.784 164.425
MaterialBoundary
X Y
301.031 158.245
358.932 162.776
356.784 164.425
304 160
MaterialBoundary
X Y
358.932 162.776
360.781 161.278
449.819 167.591
MaterialBoundary
X Y
451.699 169.753

Page 7 of 7
780 187
MaterialBoundary
X Y
451.699 169.753
485.541 200
MaterialBoundary
X Y
451.699 169.753
449.819 167.591
780 185

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
800
0.16
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
1.750
2.000
2.250
Document
600
2.500
2.750 10BC-ButtressC3a-LGWps
3.250 MMWD Warn Spring Tank (Site 10B)
3.500 Pseudostatic analysis
3.750 J.A.Bianchin
4.250 11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
4.500
400
4.750
5.000
5.250
5.500
5.750
6.000+
1.261 3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
200
W
0
-200
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Safety Factor
0.000
0.250
0.16
0.500
0.750
1.000
1.250
1.500
800
1.750
2.000
2.250
2.500
2.750
3.000
3.250
3.500
Document
600
3.750
4.000 10BC-ButtressC3a-LGWps
4.500 MMWD Warn Spring Tank (Site 10B)
4.750 Pseudostatic analysis
J.A.Bianchin
5.000
5.250
11/13/2012, 9:19:12 AM
5.500
5.750
400
6.000+
1.261 3000.00 lbs/ft2
W
200
W
0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Appendix E
Settlement Projections
APPENDIX E
SETTLEMENT EVALUATIONS
Settlement evaluations were performed for the project suing laboratory data developed
during this study and projected development schemes that likely represent the worst-case
loading conditions for the tanks. Laboratory tests for consolidation of natural soils and
engineered fill are presented in Appendix C. The conditions evaluated include settlement
from:
1. Loading from the tank supported on shallow foundations with no backfill occurring
around the tank; and
2. Loading from the tank assuming backfill is placed around the tank.
Those conditions were evaluated using the computer program Settle3D developed by
Rocscience (2012). Results of the analyses are discussed within the report text, shown
graphically on Plate 17, and are attached to this appendix.
Reference
Rocscience Inc. (2012), SETTLE3D (Version 2.015, Build Date: May 11, 2012) Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
March 4, 2013
E1 CG12GR015Rev2
Total Settlement (in)
0.00
0.85
500
1.70
2.55
3.40
4.25
5.10
5.95
400
6.80
7.65
8.50
max (stage): 8.35 in
max (all): 8.35 in
300
8.35
4.76
200
100
0
-100
0 200 400
SETTLE3D 2.016
Page 1 of 1
Settle3D Analysis Information
Project Settings
Document Name: Site 10B Circular Tank (D_150') with no soil

Project Title: WATER STORAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Analysis: Storage Tank (Site 10B)
Author: AB/JB
Date Created: 11/13/2012
Stress Computation Method: Westergaard
Include buoyancy effect when material settles below water table
Use average properties to calculate layered stresses
Groundwater method: Water Table
Water Unit Weight: 0.0624 kips/ft3
Depth to water table: 1 [ft]
Stage Settings
Stage # Name
1 Stage 1
Results
Time taken to compute: 2.30951 seconds
Stage: Stage 1
Data Type Minimum Maximum
Total Settlement [in] 0 8.3526
Consolidation Settlement [in] 0 8.3526
SETTLE3D 2.016
Page 1 of 4
Immediate Settlement [in] 0 0
Loading Stress [ksf] 0 2
Effective Stress [ksf] -0 9.02205
Total Stress [ksf] 0 15.9484
Total Strain -1.79983e-005 0.0542679
Pore Water Pressure [ksf] 0 6.9264
Degree of Consolidation [%] 0 100
Pre-consolidation Stress [ksf] 7 9.01874
Over-consolidation Ratio 1 1250
Void Ratio 0.880955 1.09304
Hydroconsolidation Settlement [in] 0 0
Loads
1. Circular Load
Radius: 75 ft
Center: (200, 200)
Load Type: Flexible
Area of Load: 17663.4 ft2
Load: 2 ksf
Advanced Staging
Stage Load Factor Depth [ft]
Stage 1 1 0
Soil Layers
Layer # Type Thickness [ft] Depth [ft]

1 Top Layer (soil) 12 0
2 Greywacke Sandstone 100 12
SETTLE3D 2.016
Page 2 of 4
Soil Properties
Property Top Layer (soil) Greywacke Sandstone

Color ___ ___
Unit Weight [kips/ft3] 0.12 0.13
Saturated Unit Weight [kips/ft3] 0.125 0.135
Primary Consolidation Enabled Enabled
Material Type Non-Linear Non-Linear
Cc 0.277 0.235
Cr 0.045 0.043
e0 1.093 0.903
Pc [ksf] 7.5 7
Query Points
Point # (X,Y) Location Number of Divisions

1 200, 200 Auto: 43
2 200, 200 Auto: 43
3 200, 200 Auto: 43
4 200, 200 Auto: 43
5 200, 200 Auto: 43
SETTLE3D 2.016
Page 3 of 4
Query Lines
Line # Start Location End Location Horizontal Divisions Vertical Divisions

1 200, 200 275, 200 20 Auto: 43
Field Point Grid
Number of points: 506

Expansion Factor: 1.2
Grid Coordinates
X [ft] Y [ft]
442.05 452.302
442.05 -52.3018
-42.0503 -52.3018
-42.0503 452.302
SETTLE3D 2.016
Page 4 of 4
Appendix F
Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX F
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Historical aerial photographs were obtained and reviewed for this study. A listing of aerial
photographs obtained and reviewed is as follows:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED

Date Flight Line Frames Scale Type
11-20-1952 DRH 1952 DRH-1K-114, 115, 151 1:20,000 B/W Stereo
6-12-1965 CAS-65-130 MRN-40-73, 74, 75 1:12,000 B/W Stereo
6-12-1965 CAS-65-130 MRN-40-98, 99, 100 1:12,000 B/W Stereo
The aerial photographs were obtained as stereo pairs from the University of California at
Santa Barbara Map and Imagery Laboratory located within the Davidson Library. Flight
lines and individual frames were identified and Pacific Western Aerial Surveys of Goleta,
California duplicated and shipped those frames to our office. The aerial photographs were
reviewed using mirror and pocket stereoscopes. Attached as Plates F-1 through F-3 are
scanned copies individual frames representing portions of the flightlines obtained for this
study.
March 4, 2013
F1 CG12GR015Rev2
HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 1952 Plate
WORN SPRING TANK (SITE 10B)
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. F-1

Preliminary Geotech Report Worn Spring 3 4 13 201403061543332629 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Preliminary Geotech Report Worn Spring 3 4 13 201403061543332629 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

PROPOSED WORN SPRING TANK SITE (SITE 10B)

HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

Latitude: 37 57 37.7 (37.960461)

1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

Based on preliminary recommendations of the committee, MMWD developed two concept

1.3 STUDY PURPOSE

To characterize geologic hazards that pose an adverse effect on the performance

1.4 PREVIOUS WORK PERFORMED & REFERENCES REVIEWED

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC & GEOTECHNICAL REFERENCES

In addition to the aforementioned geotechnical and geological references reviewed, CGI

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED

1.5 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Reconnaissance of the site surface conditions, topography, and existing drainage

Controlling groundwater to reduce impacts to the project and

2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

Evaluate subsurface soil and rock conditions at selected locations;

Our field geotechnical investigation consisted of reconnaissance-level geologic mapping of

2.3 SITE CONDITIONS

2.3.1 Surface Conditions

2.3.2 Subsurface Conditions

2.4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

2.4.1 Regional Geology

The Coast Ranges province is composed predominately of Cenozoic- and Mesozoic-age

2.4.2 Local Geologic Setting

3.1.1 Seismic Setting

FAULT ACTIVITY RATINGS

3.1.2 Historical Seismicity

3.1.3 CBC Design Recommendations

CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

3.1.4 Probabilistic Estimates of Strong Ground Motion

to horizontal ground accelerations having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 100-

The results of these evaluations are presented in the following table:

PROBABILISTIC GROUND MOTION DATA

3.1.5 Site Specific Response Spectra

3.1.6 Site Specific Ground Motion Analyses

SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION VALUES

According to Rice et al. (1976):

3.3 LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING

3.4 EXPANSION POTENTIAL & SLOPE CREEP

3.5 SOIL CHEMISTRY

SOIL CHEMISTRY RESULTS

RESISTIVITY & CORROSION CORRELATION

4 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SELECTED ON-SITE SOILS

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED

4.2 CLASSIFICATION/INDEX TESTING

4.2.1 In-Situ Dry Density & Moisture Content

4.2.3 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content

4.3 STRENGTH & VOLUMETRIC TESTING

SHEAR STRENGTHS USED IN STABILITY ANALYSES

Surface slope geometry;

5.2 DISCUSSION REGARDING FACTORS OF SAFETY

5.3 SURFACE SLOPE GEOMETRY

5.4 SUBSURFACE PROFILE

5.5 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USED IN STABILITY ANALYSES

5.6 LOADING VALUES

5.7 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

5.8 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS

5.8.1 Limit-Equilibrium Analyses

Gross Stability of Proposed Tank Developments. Stability of proposed grading schemes