frlrp seg 2 sar plan attachment 1-3.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1

CREDENTIALS OF TRLIA BOARD OF SENIOR CONSULTANTS

C:\Documents and Settings\rfulham\Desktop\FMakdisi_1Page_DWR_05.doc (02/05)

FAIZ I. MAKDISI, PH.D., P.E. PRINCIPAL ENGINEER

EDUCATION Ph.D., Geotechnical

Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1976

M.Sc., Geotechnical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1971

B. Eng., Civil, American University of Beirut: Lebanon, 1970

REGISTRATION Professional Civil Engineer,

CA No. C29432, 1978 Civil Engineer, Institute of

Civil Engineers, Lebanon, 1970

AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil

Engineers Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute Seismological Society of

America Association of California

Water Agencies Association of State Dam

Safety Officials Institute of Civil Engineers

(UK) International Society of Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Engineering

U.S. Society on Dams, Member, Committee on Earthquakes

HONORS Norman Medal Award,

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1977

Design and Environmental Honor Award for 2002, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE Dr. Makdisi’s 28-year career has combined applied research and professional practice in geotechnical and foundation/earthquake engineering for commercial, residential, industrial, and critical structures. Recently he has focused on geotechnical studies and safety evaluations of earth and rockfill dams, embankments, and landfills. His work includes feasibility evaluations and preliminary design studies; field investigation design and planning; borrow area material studies; in situ and laboratory testing; and evaluation and interpretation of static and dynamic material properties of dams and their foundations. Studies also included stability evaluations of embankment slopes, seepage analyses, and static and dynamic stress analyses to evaluate stability during earthquakes. He has performed studies to determine earthquake-induced permanent deformations in slopes and embankments, and developed and published widely used simplified procedures for estimating dynamic response and permanent deformations in earth and rockfill dams and embankments. He is a lead participant in earthquake ground motion studies and development of seismic design criteria for key facilities such as dams and nuclear power plants. He was principal investigator of the “Stability of Slopes, Embankments and Rockfalls” chapter of the Seismic Retrofit Manual for the Federal Highway Project being prepared for the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. He was co-principal investigator of a research study to evaluate the effects of style of faulting on earthquake ground motions, performed for the United Sates Geological Survey, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. He is a member of a technical team of experts providing review for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Seven Oaks and Terminus dams, and serves as independent peer reviewer for Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s and East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Safety of Dams programs. During the past several years, Dr. Makdisi has been involved in studies for more than 40 dams; 25 of these projects were under the jurisdiction of the Division of Safety of Dams or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Representative project experience includes: Seven Oaks Dam, California – Static and dynamic finite-element analyses and evaluation of seismic stability of a 600-foot-high earth and rockfill embankment. Bull Run Dams, Oregon – Seismic hazard evaluation and site-specific response spectra for two earthfill and concrete gravity dams. North and Danville Reservoir Embankments, California – Evaluation of seismic stability. Lexington Dam, California – Analyses of the recorded response during the Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake. Arastradero Lake Dam, California – Evaluation of seismic stability.

FAIZ I. MAKDISI, PH.D., P.E. PAGE 2


Buckhorn Dam, California – Geotechnical investigations of alternative dam sites and spillway locations for proposed earthfill, rockfill, or roller-compacted concrete dam. Portugues Dam, Puerto Rico – Earthquake ground motion studies for concrete arch dam. Cougar and Blue River Dams, Oregon – Review and evaluation of seismic stability of 300- to 400-foot-high earth and rockfill dams. Cannon Mine Dam, Washington – Evaluation and specification of core material requirements and review of borrow area material properties. Colosseum Dam, California – Review of the liquefaction potential of foundation alluvium. San Fernando Dams, California – Investigation into the slides that occurred during the February 9, 1971, earthquake. Old and New Upper San Leandro Dams, California – Static and dynamic analyses of the dams including evaluations of the seismic stability and feasibility of remedial schemes. Chabot Dam, California – Static and seismic stability evaluation of the embankment including evaluations of alternative remedial schemes; survey and analysis of the performance of 32 dams in California that were severely shaken during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. During the past several years Dr. Makdisi has also performed studies on the following dams and levee projects: Lake Almanor and Butt Valley Dams: Evaluation of seismic stability and design of remedial measures, for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Thompson Creek and Eaton Wash Dams: Evaluation of seismic stability and design of remedial measures, for the Los Angeles County Department of Public works. Painted Rock Dam, Arizona: Evaluation of the potential for seepage, and finite element analysis of the potential for hydraulic fracturing, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Hansen, Whittier Narrows, and Prado Dams: Estimates of earthquake ground motions and evaluation of seismic stability, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Leland and Piedmont Reservoir Embankments: Estimates of earthquake design ground motions and evaluation of seismic stability, for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Rollins and Dutch Flat Afterbay Dams: Evaluation of the potential for liquefaction and earthquake-induced deformation, for Nevada Irrigation District. Lopez Dam: Evaluation of the potential for foundation liquefaction and design of remedial measures including stone column densification, for San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works. Halsey Forebay Dam, Blue Lake, Pit No. 4, and McCloud Dams: Evaluation of seismic stability and review of alternatives for remedial

FAIZ I. MAKDISI, PH.D., P.E. PAGE 3


measures, for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. New Exchequer Dam: Assessment of seismicity and design ground motions, and evaluation of seismic stability and earthquake-induced deformations, for Merced Irrigation District. Don Pedro Dam: Estimates of earthquake ground motions and review of seismic stability, for Turlock Irrigation District. Wishon and Lake Fordyce Dams: Evaluation of seepage concerns, stability of spillway gravity wall, and evaluations of seismic stability and deformation of embankment slopes, for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Calaveras Dam: Evaluation of potential for liquefaction and earthquake-induced deformations, for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Success Dam: Seismic deformation analyses to support design of remediation measures, for the Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. San Pablo Dam: Estimates of earthquake ground motions and evaluation of seismic stability, for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Feather River Levee Failure: Seepage analyses and expert witness and litigation support, for the State of California Attorney General’s Office. Dr. Makdisi has published more than 30 papers and major research reports. His paper (co-authored with Seed, Lee, and Idriss) on the analyses of the slides in the San Fernando Dams during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake was awarded the 1977 Norman Medal award of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Dr. Makdisi is currently involved (with Dr. Z.L Wang of Geomatrix Consultants) in incorporating non linear constitutive models in analytical procedures (such as the program FLAC) to simulate earthquake-induced liquefaction and deformation of embankment slopes and earth structures. He has presented lectures at ASCE seminars and workshops in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland, California, and Seattle, Washington, as well as lectures at the University of California campuses at Berkeley and Davis and at Stanford University. He was invited to present a keynote lecture on the seismic stability of embankments and slopes at the session on slope stability at the Geo-Denver 2000 conference of ASCE’s Geo-Institute. He also presented a lecture on seismic design criteria for dams at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Dam Safety Workshop, held in Portland, Oregon, in March of 2001. As a member of a team of Technical Advisors to the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, on the design and construction of Seven Oaks Dam in California, Dr. Makdisi was a co-recipient of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chief of Engineers “Design and Environmental Honor Award for 2002.”

C:\Documents and Settings\rfulham\Desktop\FMakdisi_Pubs.doc Page 4

FAIZ I. MAKDISI PUBLICATIONS “Practical Applications of a Nonlinear Approach to Analysis of Earthquake-induced Liquefaction and Deformation of Earth Structures.” Zhi-Liang Wang, Faiz I. Makdisi, and John Egan.” Paper accepted for publication at the 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and the Third International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Berkeley, California, January 2004. “Reanalysis and Seismic Strengthening of Thompson Creek Dam, CA.” Tim Keuscher, Faiz I. Makdisi, and Zhi-Liang Wang. 2003 Dam Safety Conference, Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 2003. “Development and Applications of a Nonlinear Approach to the Analysis of Earthquake Performance of Dams.” Z.L. Wang, F.I. Makdisi, and J.A. Egan. 3rd U.S.-Japan Workshop on Advanced Research on Earthquake Engineering for Dams, San Diego, California, June 22 and 23, 2002. “Simulation of Earthquake Performance of a Waterfront Slope Using Fully Coupled Effective Stress Approach.” Z.-L. Wang, J. Egan, L. Scheibel, and F. I. Makdisi. Proceedings of conference on FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, Lyon, France, Billaux et al. (eds.), October 2001. “Style of Faulting and Footwall/Hanging Wall Effects on Strong Ground Motions.” S.-J. Chiou, F.I. Makdisi, and R.R. Youngs. Report to USGS/NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program), Award Number 1434-95-G-2614, December 2000. “Seismic Stability of New Exchequer Dam and Gated Spillway Structure.” F.I. Makdisi, Z.–L Wang, and W. D. Edwards. Twentieth Annual USCOLD Lecture Series, Seattle, Washington, July 10-14, 2000. “Implementing a Bounding Surface Hypoplasticity Model for Sand into the FLAC Program.” Z.-L. Wang and F.I. Makdisi. Proceedings of the FLAC Symposium on Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 1-3, 1999. “Style of Faulting Effects on Peak Ground Acceleration.” S.-J. Chiou, F.I. Makdisi, and R.R. Youngs. Proceedings of Strong Motion Symposium in Taiwan, 1999. “Liquefaction Assessment Using a Bounding Surface Hypoplasticity Model for Sand.” Z.-L. Wang and F.I. Makdisi. Proceedings of the Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Conference, Seattle, Washington, August 1998. “Seismic Stability of Lake Almanor and Butt Valley Dams.” F.I. Makdisi, Z.-L. Wang, M.L. Traubenik, and C.S. Ahlgren. Waterpower ’97: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, v. 2, Atlanta, Georgia, August 5-8, 1997. “Decision Analysis, Lake Almanor and Butt Valley Dams.” P.K. Regan, N.A. Abrahamson, and F.I. Makdisi. Waterpower ’97: Proceedings of the International Conference on Hydropower, v. 2, Atlanta, Georgia, August 5-8, 1997. “Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data.” K. Sadigh, C.-Y. Chang, J.A. Egan, F. Makdisi, and R.R. Youngs. Seismological Research Letters: Eastern Section of the Seismological Society of America, v. 68, no. 1, January/February 1997.


“Seismic Hazard and Ground Motions Estimates for a Building Site in Kobe, Japan.” F.I. Makdisi, M.S. Power, J. R. Wesling, K.L. Hansen, Z.-L. Wang, D. Rosidi, and S.J. Chiou. Proceedings, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (11WCEE), Acapulco, Mexico, June 1996. “Evaluation of Seismic Stability of Seven Oaks Dam.” F.I. Makdisi, A.T. Roodsari, M. Madianos, and Z.L. Wang. Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, September 15-20, 1995. “The Case for Magnitude Dependent Dispersion in Peak Ground Acceleration.” R.R. Youngs, F.I. Makdisi, N.A. Abrahamson, and K. Sadigh. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 85, no. 4, p. 1161-1176, August 1995. “Near-field Vertical Ground Motions from the 17 January 1994 Northridge Earthquakes: Were They Unusual?” J.A. Egan, F.I. Makdisi, and D. Rosidi. Seismological Research Letters, v. 65, no. 1, 1994. “Analysis of the Recorded Response of Lexington Dam During Various Levels of Ground Shaking.” F.I. Makdisi, C.Y. Chang, Z.L. Wang, and C.M. Mok. Proceedings of the Seminar on Seismological and Engineering Applications of Recent Strong-Motion Data, Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California, May 1991. “Development of Site-Specific Response Spectra for a Large Nearby Earthquake for Seismic Evaluation of a Nuclear Power Plant.” F.I. Makdisi, K. Sadigh, and Y.B. Tsai. Seismological Research Letters, v. 60, no. 1, Eastern Section, Seismological Society of America, 1989. “Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration and Response Spectral Acceleration For Rock Sites.” K. Sadigh, C.-Y. Chang, F.I. Makdisi, and J. Egan. Seismological Research Letters, v. 60, no. 1, Eastern Section, Seismological Society of America, January - March 1989. “Seismic Hazard of Western Saudi Arabia and Seismic Design and Retrofitting Considerations for Highway Bridges.” I.M. Idriss, F.I. Makdisi, and H. Sultan. Proceedings of Second Symposium on Geotechnical Problems, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, November 1988. “Seismic Response of Earth Dams in Triangular Canyons.” F.I. Makdisi, T. Kagawa, and H.B. Seed. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 108, no. GT10, October 1982. “Performance of Earth Dams During Earthquakes.” H.B. Seed and F.I. Makdisi. Journal of Water Power and Dam Construction, v. 32, no. 8, August 1980. “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Embankment Response.” F.I. Makdisi and H.B. Seed. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 105, no. GT12, December 1979. “Geologic Seismologic and Geotechnical Considerations Related to Performance of Dams During Earthquakes.” I.M. Idriss, L.S. Cluff, D. Tocher, F.S. Makdisi, and P.L. Knuepfer. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress on Large Dams, New Delhi, 1979. “Undrained Static and Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of Sand.” I.M. Idriss, Y. Moriwaki, F.I. Makdisi, and S. Rahman. Report prepared for Shell Development Company, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California, March 1979. “A Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced Deformations in Dams and Embankments.” F.I. Makdisi and H.B. Seed. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 104, no. GT7, July 1978.


“The Performance of Earth Dams During Earthquakes.” H.B. Seed, F.I. Makdisi, and P. De Alba. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 104, no. GT7, July 1978. “Analysis of Chabot Dam During the 1906 Earthquake.” F.I. Makdisi, H.B. Seed, and I.M. Idriss. Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Division Specialty Conference, Pasadena, California, June 1978. “Pore Pressure Response of Saturated Soil Masses Subjected to Earthquake or Ocean Wave Loading.” K. Sadigh, F.I. Makdisi, and S. Rahman. Report on research sponsored by Woodward-Clyde Consultants Professional Development Program, San Francisco, California, January 1978. “Seismic Stability Evaluation of Embankment Dams with Chutes.” I.M. Idriss, F.I. Makdisi, and B.B. Gordon. Proceedings of the Winter Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, December 1976. “Performance and Analysis of Earth Dams During Strong Earthquakes.” F.I. Makdisi. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley, November 1976. “Earthquake Induced Deformations of Earth Dams.” N. Serff, H.B. Seed, F.I. Makdisi, and C.-Y. Chang. Report No. EERC 76-4, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, September 1976. “Representation of Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analyses.” H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, F.I. Makdisi, and N. Banerjee. Report No. EERC 75-29, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, October 1975. “Dynamic Analysis of the Lower San Fernando Dam During the Earthquake of February 9, 1971.” H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, K.L. Lee, and F.I. Makdisi. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 101, no. GT9, September 1975. “Properties of Soils in the San Fernando Hydraulic Fill Dams.” K.L. Lee, H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, and F.I. Makdisi. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 101, no. GT8, August 1975. “Slides in the San Fernando Dams During the Earthquake of February 9, 1971.” H.B. Seed, K.L. Lee, I.M. Idriss, and F.I. Makdisi. Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, v. 101, no. GT7, July 1975. “Analysis of the Slides in the San Fernando Dams During the Earthquake of February 9, 1971.” H.B. Seed, K.L. Lee, I.M. Idriss, and F.I. Makdisi. Report EERC 73-2, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, July 1973. “Mobility in Richmond - Recommendations for the Decade Ahead.” F.I. Makdisi. Report on a study organized and conducted by a Multidisciplinary Graduate Student Team at the University of California, Berkeley, in the academic year 1970-1971.

Donald H. Babbitt 3860 West Land Park Drive Consulting Civil/Geotechnical Engineer Sacramento, California 95822 (916) 442-0990 [email protected]

RESUME

EDUCATION B.S., Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1957

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Civil Engineer, California (No. 13028) Registered Geotechnical Engineer, California (No. 104)

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY Don Babbitt has 40+ years experience in dam design and construction, geotechnical, earthquake and water resources engineering. He currently serves on five consulting boards. He was with the California Department of Water Resources for 40 years. He was one of the lead designers of the dams of the California State Water Project. He was later assigned to the Division of Safety of Dams, where he subsequently served as the chief of its two major branches. He was a part time principal engineer for GENTERRA Consultants for 5 years. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

Individual Consultant (2002-present) Mr. Babbitt is a member of the California Department of Water Resource’s consulting boards for construction of Tehachapi East Afterbay, Dyer Reservoir, and Sites Reservoir and modification of Patterson Reservoir.

He serves on East Bay Municipal Utility District’s San Pablo Dam Technical Review Board.

Principal Engineer, GENTERRA Consultants, Inc. (1999-2004 part time) Mr. Babbitt developed reconnaissance level designs for dams, reviewed plans and specifications to enlarge and rehabilitate dams, evaluated the safety of existing dams, recommended methods of repair, and acted as an expert witness.

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

1

mailto:[email protected]

2

Chief, Field Engineering Branch, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (1985-92) Mr. Babbitt was responsible for maintenance inspections and safety evaluations of more than 1200 existing dams, as large as 770-foot high Oroville Dam, and for inspections to confirm safe construction and modification of dams. Major construction projects included New Spicer Meadow and McKay’s Point Diversion Dams, and modification of Gibraltar Dam.

Section Chief in Design Engineering Branch, California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (1976-85) Mr. Babbitt supervised the review of plans, specifications and reports for construction and modification of dams; reevaluation of existing dams for seismic stability, spillway adequacy and other safety concerns. He also reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation’s investigation and repair of the San Luis Dam landslide in 1981-82. He was a member of the review panel for the Lower Quail Canal break in 1984. California Department of Water Resources, Chief, Dams and Canals Design Unit, Division of Design and Construction (1960-76) Mr. Babbitt was responsible for completing the design of the embankments of Pyramid and Perris Dams; design of the embankments of Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay, Parish Camp and Bidwell Bar Saddle Dams (Oroville Reservoir) and Bethany Dams 1, 2, 3 and 4 and design of cross drainage, a pipeline and remedial construction for the California Aqueduct, and design of the proposed Peripheral Canal for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. His last position in that division was Chief of the Dams and Canals Design Unit.

Military Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi - Civil Engineering Assistant (1958-60) Mr. Babbitt performed research and testing of pavement subgrades and strength of culverts.

California Department of Water Resources, Division of Design and Construction, Sacramento, CA - Junior Civil Engineer (1957-58) Mr. Babbitt provided canal, pipeline, drainage and small structure design and reservoir operation studies for the State Water Project.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

• International Commission on Large Dams - Invited speaker on seismic rehabilitation of dams at 21st Congress on Large

Dams, Montreal, June 2003

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

3

• American Society of Civil Engineers - Chairman, Session on Slopes and Embankments, Earthquake Engineering and

Soil Dynamics Specialty Conference, 1978 - President, Sacramento Section, 1980 - Invited Lecturer, Geotechnical Practice in Dam Engineering, 1993 - Peer Reviewer, Guidelines for Instrumentation and Measurements for

Monitoring Dam Performance, 2000 - Technical Paper Reviewer, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 2003 – present

• National Research Council- Committee on Safety Criteria for Dams, 1984

• Federal Emergency Management Agency - Workshop on Dam Safety Research, 1985 - Workshop on Current Developments in Dam Safety Management, 1985

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

AUTHOR "Dams, Embankments and Reservoirs", Abatement of Seismic Hazards to Lifelines, FEMA, 1987 “Improving Seismic Safety of Dams in California”, Geotechnical Practice in Dam Rehabilitation, ASCE, 1993 “Improvement of Seismic Stability of Dams in California”, ICOLD 2003 CO-AUTHOR "Foundation Treatment for Embankment Dams on Rock", Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 1972 "California's Seismic Reevaluations of Embankment Dams", Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns, ASCE, 1983 Safety of Dams - Flood and Earthquake Criteria, National Research Council, 1985 United States General Papers for the International Congress on Large Dams, 1982 and 1985 Observed Performance of Dams During Earthquakes, USSD, 1992 and 2000 Guidelines for Earthquake Design and Evaluation of Structures Appurtenant to Dams, USCOLD, 1995

4

“General Approach to Seismic Stability Analysis of Embankment Dam”, California Department of Water Resources for the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 1996 Updated Guidelines for Selecting Seismic Parameters for Dam Projects, USCOLD, April 1999 “Emergency Drawdown Capability”, USCOLD Nineteenth Annual Meeting and Lecture, May 1999 Guidelines for Inspection of Dams Following Earthquakes, USSD, 2003 Guidelines on Design Features of Dams to Effectively Resist Seismic Ground Motion, USSD, 2003 Dam Modifications to Improve Performance During Strong Earthquakes, USSD, 2003 REFERENCES

Dr. Leslie Harder, Chief California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 653-3927

Mr. David Gutierrez, Acting Chief California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams 2200 X Street, Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Telephone: (916) 227-4660

Mr. Mike Inamine, Tehachapi East Afterbay Project Manager California Department of Water Resources, Division of Engineering

901 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 653-7235

ATTACHMENT 2

INVITATION TO TRLIA BOARD OF SENIOR CONSULTANTS

MEETING NO. 1 AND

BOARD OF SENIOR CONSULTANTS RESPONSE

LETTER

(;";"lu:hnK.II

[ n\ lr. ,nnll,'nl.11 .I.nJ

\\ .I.tH 1{..,,,,>Un.: ••,,

l,n.l:lI1<,:0;'1II;';

BOOkman-REdmonston ~A DI... ISlon of GEl Consultanu

July 31,2007Project No.: 050115

Dr. Faiz MakdisiGeomatrix Consultants, Inc.2101 Webster Street, #1200Oakland, CA 94612

Mr. Donald H. Babbitt3860 West Land Park DriveSacramento, CA 95822

Re: TRLlA Phase 4 Feather River Levee Repair Project, Setback LeveeAugust 10,2007 Board of Senior Consultants Meeting

Gentlemen,

Selected documents were transmitted to you under separate cover for the initial design submittalfor Segment 2, Feather River Setback Levee, of the TRLlA Phase 4 Feather River Levee RepairProject. Specifically, the following documents were transmitted for your review:

• Technical Specifications - Issued for Reclamation Board Permit• Drawings - Issued for Reclamation Board Permit• Draft Design Report, including preliminary hydraulic/hydrologic, seepage, stability and

settlement evaluations• Draft Geotechnical Data Report• Preliminary Geomorphic Assessment

A Board of Senior Consultants (Board) meeting is scheduled for August 10,2007. The purposeof the Board meeting is to review project progress, the site investigations and testing, and thedesign concepts for the setback levee. The Board will meet with the project team in the morning,beginning at 9:00, to listen to briefings, review progress, pose questions, and discuss issues ofinterest to the Board. A site visit to the setback levee alignment is planned for the afternoon.

The meeting will take place at GEl Consultants' office at 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 350,Rancho Cordova, CA 95670, phone (916) 631-4500. A tentative agenda is as follows:

• 9:00 am-I :00 pm - Review and discussion of design, including lunch (office)• 1:00 pm-2:00 pm - Travel to Feather River levee site• 2:00 pm-4:00 pm - Visit setback levee alignment and conclude discussions

The project team is requesting feedback from the Board to the following questions:

(I) Does the Board concur with the selection of the setback levee alignment in terms of bothgeotechnical conditions and hydraulic benefits?

(2) Is the Board satisfied with the extent of explorations performed for the levee and for thefoundation? What additional explorations would the Board suggest be undertaken?

\\ \\\\ .gcicollsllltants.colll (;1':1 Consultants, Inc.IWWI (;old Cl,;lltcr Drin:. Suite :~51l. Rancho CordOl'a, C\liforni,\ CJS(,70

CJlfl.6.,\1.4S(lO fax: CJI(,.BS2J•.'\HS

Donald Babbit Faiz I. Makdisi Consultant Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 3860 West Land Park Drive 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95822 Oakland, CA 94612 August 14, 2007 Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 350 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Dear Mr. Hart: Subject: Phase 4 Feather River Levee Repair Project, Setback Levee August 10, 2007 Meeting of Board of Senior Consultants At your request, we attended a meeting of the Board of Senior Consultants for the Phase 4 Feather River Levee Repair Project on August 10, 2006. The purpose of the meeting was to review the initial design submittal for the setback levee, which comprises Levee Segment 2. The meeting was held at Bookman-Edmonston offices in Rancho Cordova and an inspection was made of the southern half of the proposed levee alignment. Prior to the meeting we had received the following documents that apply to the setback levee:

• Technical Specifications – Issued for Reclamation Board Permit • Drawings - Issued for Reclamation Board Permit • Draft Design Report, including preliminary hydraulic/hydrologic, seepage,

stability and settlement evaluations • Draft Geotechnical Data Report • Preliminary Geomorphic Assessment • A “white paper” on the Segment 2 Setback Levee alignment (dated July 12, 2007)

At the meeting, we were provided tables listing proposed Stage III exploration borings and plan and profiles showing those borings and previously completed borings. The meeting was attended by members of the project team and representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Water Resources, The Reclamation Board, TRLIA, and Handen Company. A list of attendees is attached to this letter. The agenda is included in Alberto Pujol’s July 31, 2007 letter to us. More than half of the office portion of the meeting consisted of a thorough discussion of levee alignment. The discussions following it were on: the exploration and testing, completed and planned; the seepage and stability analyses; the design elements, including the cutoff walls, stability berms and relief wells; the levee crown elevation; the tie-ins to the existing levee; and blending of some of the soil that will be used in the levee and berms. Individuals from all the organizations at the meeting joined in the discussions.

Mr. Raymond Hart Bookman-Edmonston August 14, 2007 Page 2 of 5

I:\Project\10000s\10528.000\Board Meeting_8-10-07\BoardMeeting_8-10-07_Letter.doc

In the field, we viewed the proposed levee alignment at the Star Bend Boat Ramp access road and from its crossings of Rich Road, Country Club Avenue, Anderson Avenue and Broadway. The July 31, 2007 letter posed seven questions that, as noted above, were discussed and addressed during the meeting. The following is a summary of our responses and comments that we provided orally during the meeting. Other minor comments were provided orally to the project team, but are not included in this letter. Question 1. Does the Board concur with the selection of the setback levee alignment in terms of both geotechnical and hydraulic benefits? We concur with the selection of the proposed setback alignment. Section 6 of the draft Design Report and the “white paper” summarize the basis for selection of the proposed alignment and point out that the key benefits to the alignment are geotechnical and hydraulic. The hydraulic basis for the selection was achieve a substantial reductions in river stage while maintaining a Feather River floodway width that is consistent with the upstream and downstream reaches of the river. The geotechnical basis for the selection was to minimize levee placement over areas of recent alluvial deposits and locations of what was described as previous “water bodies” and older, coarse river channel deposits. These areas were correlated with locations of observed historical underseepage and sand boils at the existing levee. These areas were identified based on geomorphic studies and review of boring logs from recent and current field investigations. Where such areas could not be avoided (such as the Plumas Lake Canal) defensive measures were included in the design. The alignment also was selected (as much as practical within the constraints of adjacent properties) to found the levee on the more competent Modesto formation. Topographic and drainage benefits were also cited as additional factors in the selection process. We note that a full understanding and appreciation of the basis for the selected alignment cannot be gained without studying the construction drawings, the results of the field investigations, and the geotechnical and hydraulic/hydrologic analyses that provided the basis for the design. Question 2. Is the Board satisfied with the extent of explorations performed for the levee and for the foundation? What additional explorations would the Board suggest be undertaken? The extent of the field investigations performed to date appear to be appropriate and are within current guidelines for levee investigations. It is our understanding that



approximately 39 borings were used from previous investigations, and 149 new exploration points were performed during the current studies (71 borings and 78 cone penetration tests (CPT)). We understand that additional investigations will be performed to supplement the investigations performed to date. These will include borings with piston samplers to obtain undisturbed samples from the soft recent alluvial deposits, and additional cone penetration tests, for a total of about 32 exploration points (15 borings and 17 CPTs). Additional geophysical surveys are also underway to help better define the stratigraphy of the foundation soils. Given that a cutoff will be incorporated within a significant length of the setback levee the extent of the available and proposed additional field investigations are judged to be adequate. The proposed inspection trench will also help identify any potential adverse foundation conditions between borings that could be addressed prior to embankment construction. Question 3. Does the Board concur with the approach, method, and findings of the underseepage and stability analyses? We generally concur with the approach, methods, and findings of the underseepage analysis. The use the Corps semi-empirical closed-form procedure as the primary seepage analysis tool and supplementing it with finite element (flow net) analyses using the SEEP/W computer code is considered appropriate. The semi-impervious blanket layer modeled on the protected side was not included on the river in the underseepage analysis. This is considered a reasonably conservative assumption. The results of the comparative SEEP/W analyses were not presented in the draft design report. These should be compared with the corresponding closed-form solution analyses, and included in the final design report. The specification for excavation of borrow areas indicate that excavations should be limited to a distance of at least 400 feet from the toes of the existing and new setback levees. It is recommended that such criteria be supported by seepage analyses that would assess the impact of excavations in these borrow areas particularly in areas underlain by pervious, coarse-grained deposits. The division of the levee into 15 primary design sections and subdividing the segments into appropriate treatment reaches is considered reasonable. Permeability coefficients were selected based on field data, past experience by the Corps of Engineers in the general area, and correlations with grain size distribution. The values reported appear to be reasonable. Section 5.5 of the draft design repot indicates that sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effects of variations in assumed parameters on the computed results; however, the results of these analyses have not been reported.



The draft design report contains the results of stability analyses on five typical sections. We were told that more analyses have been completed and more are planned, to optimize the sizes of the proposed stability berms. We were also informed that, to date, levee soil strengths have been based on test results from investigations for Segments 1 and 3, and that material from the setback levee borrow areas is being tested and the results will be incorporated into the analyses. We concur with the work accomplished to date and the plans for additional analyses. As discussed during the field inspection, certain sections being analyzed for both seepage and stability need to reflect the drop in elevation on the waterside in the vicinity of the toe of the setback levee. Question 4. Does the board concur with the following design elements?

• Depth and lateral extent of cutoff walls and proposed relief wells • Width and Lateral extent of stability berms

We generally concur with the proposed design elements presented in the draft report. We expect some refinements in the depth and lateral extent of the cutoff walls and placement of relief wells, as Phase III exploration results are obtained. We concur with the placement of stability berms along the levee and methods of analysis being used, but as mentioned above, the draft design report contains only a limited number of stability analyses so we are unable to comment on the width, height and lateral extent of the berms until such analyses are completed and reviewed. While this may not be as critical an issue as encountered at the Bear River setback levee foundation, the interface between the relatively soft recent alluvium and the stiff Modesto Formation, and its impact on the potential for differential settlement along the levee embankment at such locations needs to be investigated. Question 5. Does the Board concur with the approach for selection of the design levee crown elevation? We concur with setting the design levee crown three feet above the one-in-200 annual exceedance probability flood level, but no lower than the existing levee. Additional levee height (camber) would be provided to compensate for long term settlement of the foundation. Question 6 Does the Board concur with the approach and arrangement proposed for the tie-in with the Feather River levee? The design team proposed to tie the setback levee to the existing levee by constructing buttresses on the latter and overlapping, but not connecting, the foundation cutoff wall for the setback levee to those being constructed in Segments 1 and 3 of the Feather River



Levee Repair. At the southern tie-in, the walls would be about 100 feet apart and overlap would be about 180 feet. At the northern tie-in, the walls would be about 50 feet apart and the overlap about 700 feet. Relief wells are also proposed at the southern tie-in. We understand that this overlap approach is proposed instead of temporarily breaching the existing levee to connect the cutoff walls. During the meeting a Corps of Engineer’s representative stated that cutoff walls for the existing and the setback levees should be connected. We concur with the general approach to the tie-ins, but recommend that they be reconfigured to be more consistent in the overlap they would provide; i.e. lengthen the overlap at the southern tie-in. However, directly connecting the cutoffs, as recommended by the Corps representative, would be a preferred alternative to the combined overlap and relief well option. Question 7. Does the Board concur with the proposed procedure for blending some of the soils in the potential Northwest Borrow Area to maximize the use of soils from the borrow area? Comment in terms of both the proposed mixing process and its practicality. The Board appreciates the compelling reasons to obtain the soils for the levee from the proposed borrow in the setback area. They appear to justify the unusual step of blending some of the soils to meet Corps and Reclamation Board requirements. We consider the specification requirements for spreading the soils (that need to be blended) in thin lifts and mixing them, using a heavy-duty soil stabilization machine, a reasonable and practical approach that will produce blended soil properties that would meet the specifications. This approach, however, would require close field inspection and control. We appreciate the efforts of the project team in providing the technical information and conducting the meeting. The active participation of other meeting attendees was also very helpful. Respectfully submitted,

Donald H. Babbitt, P.E. Faiz I. Makdisi, P.E. Senior Board of Consultants Senior Board of Consultants Attachments: - List of Attendees - Meeting Agenda

ATTACHMENT 3

INVITATION TO TRLIA BOARD OF SENIOR CONSULTANTS

MEETING NO. 2 AND

BOARD OF SENIOR CONSULTANTS RESPONSE

LETTER

Donald H. Babbitt Faiz I. Makdisi Consultant Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 3860 West Land Park Drive 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95822 Oakland, CA 94612 February 25, 2008 Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston 10860 Gold Center Drive, Suite 350 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Dear Mr. Hart: Subject: Phase 4 Feather River Levee Repair Project, Setback Levee February 19, 2007 Meeting of Board of Senior Consultants At your request, we attended a meeting of the Board of Senior Consultants for the Phase 4 Feather River Levee Repair Project on February 19, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to review the design submittal for the setback levee, which comprises Levee Segment 2. The meeting was held at Bookman-Edmonston offices in Rancho Cordova. A preliminary agenda was included in Alberto Pujol’s February 13, 2008 letter to us. Prior to the meeting we had received the following documents that apply to the setback levee:

• Technical Specifications – Issued for Approval • Drawings - Issued for Approval • Design Report, including hydraulic/hydrologic, seepage, stability and settlement

evaluations • Geotechnical Data Report

At the meeting, we were provided a more detailed agenda, drawings showing areas where construction can be started before Corps permits are issued, and a plan, a profile and sections of a cutoff wall slurry trench cave-in during the repairs at Levee Segment 3. The meeting was attended by members of the project team and representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Water Resources, TRLIA, Reclamation District 784, and Handen Company. A list of attendees is attached to this letter, as is the agenda. The meeting began with briefings on the status of design, funding, permitting and construction. Completion of plans and specifications is scheduled for late March, and State funding is expected at that time. The Corps of Engineers has decided that an EIS must be prepared before 404 and 408 permits can be issued. Those permits are needed to work in wetlands and to construct the tie-ins to the existing levee. The EIS preparation will delay permit issuance until about August. The plan is to start work in mid-April in areas not affected by the permits. The alignment of the setback levee has undergone only one minor change since our August 2007 meeting. The next topic discussed was the

Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston February 25, 2008 Page 2 of 6 design of the setback levee and related features. The final item was the Segment 3 cutoff wall slurry trench cave-in in the vicinity of Station 627+00. The February 13, 2008 letter posed five questions that were discussed and addressed during the meeting. The following is a summary of our responses and comments that we provided orally during the meeting. Other minor comments were provided orally to the project team, but are not included in this letter. Question 1. Does the Board concur with the approach, method, and findings of the engineering analyses? The engineering analyses presented in the Design Report dated January 2008 include hydrology and hydraulic analyses, erosion potential and erosion protection assessments, freeboard estimates due to flood and wave action, underseepage analyses, embankment and foundation stability, and foundation settlement under the levee, berms, and Pump Station 3 assessments. Our review did not address the hydrology and hydraulic analyses. The analyses presented in the design report and its appendices are well documented and were performed using accepted state-of-practice methods and procedures that are in accordance with Corps of Engineers Guides and Manuals. We concur with the approaches and methods used in the analyses and in the general findings. Seepage Analyses Analyses were performed using closed form solutions as outlined in EM 110-2-1913, Case 6, for semi pervious landside top strata and no riverside top stratum. Computed uplift gradients at the toe of the levee of 0.5, and 0.5 to 0.8 in the landside drainage ditch were used as thresholds for including seepage mitigation measures in the form of cutoff walls and/or relief wells. Both the 1:200 – year flood and top of levee water surface elevations were evaluated. The hydraulic conductivity values were the same as those used for the design of Segments 1 and 3 repairs. Cut-off walls were included in the design where uplift or exit gradients exceeded the allowable 0.5 value. In one levee reach, where the computed values were still in excess of 0.5 in spite of the inclusion of the cutoff, relief wells were included in the design. Additional seepage evaluations included: “end around” conditions where cutoff walls end or step up, potential “seepage blocks” in the foundation, and the effects of borrow excavations on the existing levee. Two dimensional finite element seepage analyses were used to confirm the results of the closed form solution on a number of the setback levee design sections and to estimate exit gradients at the toes of the sections. It was recommended during the meeting that gradients at the toe-drainage ditch in the vicinity of the Plumas Canal be evaluated, because the invert of the ditch is well below

C:\Documents and Settings\dacus\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK10\BoardMeeting_2-19-08_Letter_nsig.doc

Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston February 25, 2008 Page 3 of 6 the toe of the levee. It was also recommended that gradients at borrow pit excavations within 400 feet of the existing levee be evaluated for the 1957 design water level as well as the 100-year flood level. At the North tie-in with the existing levee, a suggestion was made to evaluate the thickness of the seepage blanket between the existing levee and the setback levee to address the “seepage block” effect of the cutoff wall in the setback levee. We concur with these recommendations. The design calls for installing vibrating wire piezometers to measure seepage pressures (in the pervious strata at the landside toe of the setback levee) in reaches where the cutoff wall was not considered necessary. It is recommended that consideration be given to installing piezometers at specific reaches of the levee that will include cutoff walls, but that exhibited uncertainty in the depth and extent of deep pervious layers. The purpose of these piezometers is to assess the effectiveness of the cutoff walls in reducing the seepage gradients to acceptable levels. Stability Analyses Stability analyses were performed using guidelines of the US Army Corps of Engineers Manuals for slope stability and design and construction of levees. End of construction, steady-state seepage, and rapid draw-down conditions were evaluated. Type B berms were added where the analyses showed inadequate end of construction stability. The phreatic surface was assumed to be at the ground surface for the end of construction condition. Two dimensional finite element seepage analyses were used to determine the steady-state phreatic surfaces and pore pressures for the long term stability analysis. Pore pressures for the steady-state condition corresponded to the 1:200-year flood water surface. The rapid draw-down evaluations used two-staged analyses with two specified piezometric surfaces. The first piezometric surface represents the steady-state seepage water level at the 1-in-200 year flood. The second piezometric surface represents the post-drawdown water surface, and was assumed to be located at the base of the embankment. It is recommended that the second-stage water level for rapid drawdown analyses be assumed as shown below (Section 5.0 of the DWR Guidance Document).


Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston February 25, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Shear strengths and unit weights were selected by considering the results of the geotechnical investigations, including using empirical correlations with standard penetration test (SPT) values and plasticity indices. It is recommended that shear strength parameters for non-plastic fine-grained soils be estimated using correlations with SPT data. In all stability analyses performed, searches were made using circular slip surfaces to compute the minimum factors of safety. It is recommended that analyses be performed for selected critical sections using wedge-shaped slip surfaces (passing through soft low strength layers) to confirm that the circular surface would still provide the lowest factors of safety at these locations. Settlement Settlement analyses were performed for the various levee design sections to estimate the long term settlements of the foundation due to the embankment loads. These estimates were made to allow for overbuild of the levee crest (camber) to accommodate the long term settlements. The estimated post-construction settlement of the levee crown ranged from less than 1 inch to about 13 inches. The larger settlements were estimated to occur at the southern end of the levee alignment where the thickest and softest recent alluvial deposits were encountered. The levee was designed with camber generally consistent with the estimated post-construction settlement but not less than 0.3 ft. Variation in foundation conditions over relatively short distances are expected where the levee alignment crosses from soft recent alluvium deposits to the stiff deposits of the Modest Formation. It is stated that differential settlements, when concentrated over short horizontal distances, could cause transverse cracking in the relatively stiff and cohesive embankment soils. Such cracking could permit seepage and the potential for internal erosion during periods of flooding or high river flows. Post-construction differential settlements were estimated along the levee alignment to define reaches where mitigation of the potential for transverse embankment cracking would be considered. The variation of angular distortion (which is usually used as a criterion to limit cracking and damage in structure due to differential settlement) was computed along the levee alignment. A conservative angular distortion value of 1/1,000 (specified to prevent cracking in sensitive structures) was adopted as a threshold to determine the reaches that would require mitigation. Settlement mitigation measures were proposed for two reaches of the levee embankment (Stations 0+00 to 11+00, and 41+00 to 53+00). Mitigation for the potential of transverse cracking consisted of placement of a filtered drainage blanket and berm on the landside slope of the embankment. While we consider the adopted criterion above to be conservative, we consider the proposed mitigation measures a prudent approach for addressing the cracking potential.


Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston February 25, 2008 Page 5 of 6 It should be noted that during construction of the Bear River setback levee, at the location of the tie-in with the existing Feather River Levee, longitudinal cracks developed in the crest of the existing Feather River levee due to settlement of the foundation under the load of the new setback levee embankment. Similar conditions may exist at the tie-in locations of the Segment 2 setback levee. It is recommended that the crest of the existing levee at the tie-in locations be carefully monitored during construction of the new embankments. Question 2. Does the Board concur with the following design elements?

• Depths and lateral extent of the cutoff walls • Width and lateral extent of the stability berms • Locations and extent of berms proposed to mitigate potential effects of differential

settlement We concur with the designed depths and lateral extents of the cutoff walls, with the understanding that they and the depth of the inspection trench may be adjusted during construction and that the wall or the trench will be extended in one area if reconsideration of apparently conflicting geotechnical data indicates a need to do so. We concur with the width and lateral extent of the stability berms, noting that the recent alluvium is not strong enough to support the levee as it is being constructed and for some time afterward. We concur with the locations and extent of the berms proposed to mitigate the potential adverse effects of differential settlement. The design, while conservative, is considered prudent and necessary due to the varying depth and thickness of the soft recent alluvium near the Plumas Lake Canal and the proximity to the reach underlain by the very stiff Modesto formation. Question 3. Does the Board concur with the approach and arrangement proposed for the tie-ins with the Feather River levee? We concur with the approach and arrangement proposed for the tie-ins with the existing Feather River levee, including the interim fill at the north tie-in. The thickness of that fill is being reevaluated, per a discussion during the meeting. Question 4. Is the board satisfied with the way the design team has addressed comments on the 60% design? We are satisfied with the way that our comments on the 60% design (Issued for Reclamation Board Approval) have been addressed. The alignment of the setback levee remains essentially as described at our last meeting. The additional geotechnical exploration, laboratory testing and analyses have been completed and their results were


Mr. Raymond D. Hart Bookman-Edmonston February 25, 2008 Page 6 of 6


included in the documents that we received. Designs of the seepage control and stability elements have been revised to reflect the results of that work. Seepage analyses have been conducted to demonstrate that a 400-foot distance between the existing levee and the waterside borrow pits is adequate to protect the levee for a year or two before it is removed. The tie-ins to the Feather River levee have been reconfigured to address concerns raised during review of the 60% design. Question 5. Does the Board concur with the approach to repairing the Segment 3 cutoff wall cave-in area? The design team described the cave-in of what was described as loose soil layers into the bottom of the slurry trench. This resulted in settlement and tension cracks at the crest of the degraded levee. As a result the construction was halted, the trench was backfilled with a soil-cement-bentonite backfill, and a stability berm was constructed on the landside slope of the levee. The cause of the trench failure is not known. Two approaches were presented by the design team to complete the construction of the cutoff wall at the failed trench location. The first consisted of constructing a soil-cement-bentonite wall (3 feet wide) immediately landside of the failed trench to attempt to stabilize the caved-in zone. The slurry trench will then be excavated and backfilled using the same method specified for the original construction. It was noted that this approach would not prevent the potential for additional cave-in of loose soils on the river-side wall of the trench. The second approach involves the use of cement deep soil mixing (CDSM) methods to complete the construction of the cutoff wall. This latter approach while being more costly, allows for constructing the cutoff wall without the risk of further cave-ins. We appreciate the efforts of the project team in providing the technical information and conducting the meeting. The active participation of other meeting attendees was also very helpful. Respectfully submitted, Donald H. Babbitt, P.E. Faiz I. Makdisi, P.E. Senior Board of Consultants Senior Board of Consultants Attachments: - Meeting Agenda - List of Attendees