HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/25/2009 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.K. ;O ?PLM sp4
iy
u u+
�41FO City Council Staff Report
Date: March 25, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR
Subject: APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO
EAGLE CANYON DAM
From: David H. Ready, City Manager
Initiated by: Public Works and Engineering Department
SUMMARY
The Eagle Canyon Dam project is a top priority project for the Riverside County Flood
Control & Water Conservation District ("RCFC") and the City of Cathedral City, and is
Identified on the Master Plan of Drainage for the Palm Springs Area administered by
RCFC. RCFC has been unable to move forward with the Eagle Canyon Dam project
due to the fact that the site of the flood control facilities is located in an area historically
used for illegal dumping. Cathedral City has prepared a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") between Cathedral City, Palm Springs, the Agua Caliente Band
of Cahuilla Indians ("ACBCI"), and RCFC regarding the Eagle Canyon Dam project.
The purpose of the MOU is to demonstrate to the state and federal government that this
project is a top priority for the agencies involved, and will be useful in pursuit of
available grants for clean-up of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve the Memorandum of Understanding relating to Eagle Canyon Dam; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Eagle Canyon Dam project is one of three primary flood control facilities located in
the southeastern portion of the City, which are identified as:
• Line 41
Eagle Canyon Dam
• Line 43
ITEM NO. Z' K .
City Council Staff Report
March 25, 2009 - Page 2
Eagle Canyon Dam MOU
There is a significant portion of the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City located in
a 100-year flood plain, downstream of the foothills located south of E- Palm Canyon
Drive and east of the Palm Canyon Wash. Construction of Line 41, the Eagle Canyon
Dam, and Line 43 in Cathedral City would protect these properties from flooding and
remove the floodplain designation from those areas. However, the cost of these flood
control facilities is in excess of$25 Million.
The Eagle Canyon Dam project primarily only benefits the city of Cathedral City, as
Eagle Canyon outlets into Cathedral City behind the shopping center and commercial
area on Canyon Plaza Drive (see Attachment 1). However, the actual site of the Eagle
Canyon Dam project is located within the City of Palm Springs, on Tribal allotted land.
The project as currently planned would include construction of an earthen dam
spanning the width of Eagle Canyon, up to a height of 25 feet which would retain the
stormwater runoff behind the dam as a retention basin capable of accommodating 40
acre feet (1.7 million cubic feet) of debris storage and 115 acre feet (5 million cubic feet)
of flood storage on approximately 8.4 acres.
RCFC ultimately is the agency responsible for administering the Master Plan of
Drainage on which these flood control facilities are identified, and the cities of Palm
Springs and Cathedral City have continued to coordinate with RCFC on the planning
and design of these flood control facilities. RCFC actually completed the planning and
design of the Eagle Canyon Dam project in the 1980's, but the project has been
indefinitely postponed due to the fact that the project site is located on lands that were
historically used as a shooting range and illegal dumping ground, creating a hazardous
waste site.
Cathedral City has had an evaluation of environmental cleanup costs prepared by Earth
Systems Southwest (see Attachment 2, Exhibit "B"). The evaluation provides a detailed
analysis of the existing site conditions, and estimated the costs for cleanup at
$1,250,000 to $1,500,000. It is the intention of all parties involved to seek state and
federal grants to cover the cleanup costs; ACBCI has recently submitted a Fiscal Year
2010 funding request to Congresswoman Bono-Mack's office for $1,500,000 to cover
the cleanup costs.
Cathedral City initiated preparation of the MOU to demonstrate to state and federal
agencies the cooperative nature in which the cities, RCFC and ACBCI are working with
regard to the Eagle Canyon Dam project. The project truly is a cooperative venture,
with the physical site located in Palm Springs, on Tribal allotted lands, benefiting
Cathedral City properties, and being administered by RCFC. The MOU outlines
obligations of each agency, with RCFC being the lead agency for the Eagle Canyon
Dam project, acquiring the property (after completion of cleanup), completing design
and administering construction of the project; the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral
City will be obligated to lobbying for grant funding and to pursue other revenue sources
for the project, and to equally share 50% of the cleanup costs not covered by grants or
other revenue sources; and the ACBCI will provide in-kind project management
City Council Staff Report
March 25, 2009 - Page 3
Eagle Canyon Dam MOU
services, lobby for grant funding, and facilitate BIA coordination for the project. The
ACBCI has not committed to sharing in the cleanup costs as the property involved is
held in trust for an individual allottee, and is not Tribal Trust property- The Tribal
Council providing funding for cleanup of the allottee's property would be equivalent to
the City providing public funds to cleanup a privately owned property, although the City
has the authority to lien properties its costs for nuisance abatement, the Tribe does not
have a similar authority.
Given that the City does not currently have funds budgeted for cleanup of the Eagle
Canyon Dam site, staff required that the following statement be included in the recital
obligating the City to share in the cleanup costs:
The obligation listed herein to pay up to one half the cost of the Cleanup shall only
occur upon completion of all efforts to obtain State and Federal grants to offset Cleanup
costs, and only after required funds for up to one-half the cost of the Cleanup (less any
State and Federal grants) are budgeted and available for use in accordance with this
MOU-
It is recommended that the City Council approve the MOU, to demonstrate to state and
federal agencies the City's cooperation with Cathedral City, RCFC and ACBCI on the
Eagle Canyon Dam project as a way to seek grants and other revenue sources to cover
cleanup costs of the site.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The MOU does not obligate the City to any costs, sharing the costs of clean-up with
Cathedral City will require a separate agreement-
a
David J. Barakian Thomas J. Wit on
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Assistant City Manager
David H. Ready, Ci -Mtr`nager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Eagle Canyon Dam Site
2. MOU
ATTACHMENT
EAGLE CANYON DAM SITE
�! fi
a e�.: .,� ;_ :• ,.mil +' •.*
y} �
• j.,1, ,.�-` .M.�.. -S S �',(/ rFJ, . •:`3r
_S,. I ,SSA!' �' • "� - ,+;
y
H• I'
M} -
VIN
�f,CWInb IRati.TMeWI,a{/dt1*
Qa Rt`"sp* 484 ft
a CRYGIS
.�..
copyright 02005 All Rights Reserved The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the
oontribulor supplled under liceree and may not he approved e} ept as licensed by Oigdal Map Products.
ATTACHMENT
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
PS/123992
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
EAGLE CANYON DAM
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into by the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("RCFCWCD"), the City of Cathedral City
("Cathedral City"), the City of Palm Springs ("Palm Springs"), and the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians ("ACBCI"), on , 2009.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that the topography and natural water flow in or
near their respective jurisdictions could result in the loss of life and/or property from flooding (the
"Condition"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties have identified a System of flood control (the "System")
which would greatly alleviate the Condition, thereby reducing the risk of loss of property and lives
opening up opportunities for economic development; and
WHEREAS, the System is made up of improvements in RCFCWCD Zone 6 Eagle
Canyon area, including construction of a dam, (the "Dam"), Lines 41 and 43, and improvements
around Lune 41, generally shown on Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to work together to implement the System Cor their
mutual benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, in recognition of the benefits to each, agree to the
following:
TERMS
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.
The above recitals are incorporated herein by reference_
Section 2. Effect of MOU.
This MOU specifies the Parties' respective roles in implementing the System. The
Parties recognize that the cost of the System will be substantial and that all sources of
funding are not presently known. This MOU is an expression of the Parties' intent to
pursue locating and securing funding and in implementing the System. It is not a
binding contract to perform the various tasks assigned to each. Parties understand and
agree that subsequent detailed agreements will be needed to formally obligate Parties.
Section 3. RCFCWCD Obligations
RCFCWCD will be responsible for the following:
a. It will assume responsibility for and act as lead agency in all environmental
- l -
S7
Psnz,992
assessments for the Dam under both the National Environmental Policy Act and
the California Environmental Quality Act.
b. It will undertake any tests or studies required for design and construction of the
Dam.
c. It will acquire the necessary land for the Dam.
d. It will be responsible for designing the Dam and obtaining all necessary permits
and approvals from affected jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, the State
Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams.
e. It will conduct the public bidding process for all improvements, which are a part
of the Dam, and oversee construction and necessary testing.
f It will pay for the Dam's design, construction,testing and inspection.
g. Upon completion, it will operate and maintain the Dam and Lines 41 and 43.
h. It will use District lobbying services cooperatively to seek funding and will
pursue other sources to help pay for the System.
Section 4. Cathedral City Obligations.
Cathedral City will be responsible for the following:
a. It will pay up to one-half the cost of surface and underground cleanup of debris
and hazardous materials in the vicinity of Eagle Canyon Dam (the "Cleanup"),
shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The obligation
listed herein to pay up to one half the cost of the Cleanup shall only occur upon
completion of all efforts to obtain State and Federal grants to offset Cleanup
costs, and only after required funds for up to one-half the cost of the Cleanup
(less any State and Federal grants) are budgeted and available for use in
accordance with this MOU.
b. It will advance funds to RCFCWCD Zone 6 for the design of Line 43 and its
related improvements, as shown on Exhibit"A".
C. It will use Cathedral City lobbying services cooperatively to seek funding and
will pursue other sources to help pay for the System.
Section S. Palm Springs Obligations.
Palm Springs will be.responsible for the following:
a. It will pay up to one-half the cost of surface and underground cleanup of debris
and hazardous materials in the vicinity of Eagle Canyon Dam (the "Cleanup"),
shown on Exhibit"E". The obligation listed herein to pay up to one-half the cost
- 2 -
P81123992
of the Cleanup shall only occur upon completion of all efforts to obtain State and
Federal grants to offset Cleanup costs, and only after required funds for up to
one-half the cost of the Cleanup (less any State and Federal grants) are budgeted
and available for use in accordance with this MOU.
b. It has pledged $1 million to RCFCWCD Zone 6 to help pay for the extension of
Line 41 and its related improvements, as shown on Exhibit"A".
C. It will use Palm Springs City lobbying services cooperatively to seek funding
and will pursue other sources to help pay for the System_
Section 6. ACBCI Obligations.
ACBCI will be responsible for the following:
a. It will pay, facilitate funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or provide
in-kind project management services for the surface and underground cleanup of
debris and hazardous materials in the vicinity of Eagle Canyon Dam (the
"Cleanup") shown on Exhibit "B,"
b. It will assist the Parties in processing of grants of easements, rights of way or
land acquisitions, including costs for appraisals, for Trust lands affected by the
System.
c. It will use ACBCI lobbying services cooperatively to seek funding and will
pursue other sources to help pay for the System,
Section 7. Financial Obligations and Grants.
a. Unless otherwise indicated, it is the intent of the Parties that each will be
responsible for the cost of its obligations as set forth above.
b. Each Party will actively seek grants individually and cooperatively from all
available sources to partially or wholly offset the costs of its obligations.
C. Each Party will actively engage with its State and Federal legislators individually
and cooperatively to gain support of the System,
Section 8. General Provisions.
a. The captions used in this MOU are solely for convenience and are not deemed a
part of the text.
b. The Parties agree to cooperate with each other so as to facilitate the perfonnance
of any Parry's obligations under this MOU.
c. In performing its obligations, a Party shall utilize such procedures and practices
as it deems appropriate, subject only to the general obligation to act reasonably,
- 3 -
F81123992
and may engage such consultants or experts as it deems necessary to meet the
obligations.
d- All attached exhibits are incorporated by reference-
e. This MOU shall have a five-year term and be automatically renewed each year
thereafter unless one of the Parties gives notice of its intent, not less than thirty
(30) days in advance of an anniversary date, not to renew at said anniversary
date, in which case this MOU shall thereafter have no force or effect, unless the
surviving Parties agree in writing to continue the MOU without the withdrawing
Party.
f. Each Party agrees to maintain its standard liability and casualty insurance during
the performance of its obligations under this MOU. Each Party hereby
indemnifies the other Parties from any loss or damage of any kind, which arises
from the first Party's negligence or ornission to carry out any obligations or
actions in connection with this MOU or the System.
g. This MOU may be executed in counterparts which taken together constitute a
complete agreement. The Parties agree that signatures received by facsimile
'umsmintiun shall-be'deemed to-be original-signatures for all purposes: -
h. The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and
enforcement of this MOU-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, an authorized representative of each Party has duly
executed this MOU on the date appearing by his or her name.
RIVERSIDE COU T'Y FLOOD CONTRO CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
AND WATER CO S AT ON AIST
By: �'r'^-^ - By:
Print Name: Warren D. Williams Print Name: Kathleen J. DeRosa
Title: General manaae hief Engineer Title: Mayor
Date: Date:
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AQUA CALIENTE BAND OF
CAIRALLA INDIANS
By: By:
Print Name: Print Name: Richard M. Milanovich
Title: Title: Chairman Tribal Council
Date: Date:
-4 -
V
EXHIBIT "A"
:y ,- - . :' . - ' .:" _ . . ., - •r, , t .f�. .., i Diu•.
.rv-,.rr wZ -. . fit:..••,:. � it f� V r. -
Sri. - +r _-- _. �_ -' - �.F' i,`'j�,; •- ♦r-uf�, L•
__ .r._ _ fir.' -,"; _ - \ r'�r$`,u/ � - �-•
pIII
il }}}}�jjr
Ir
LU cc
ta
� .-.'�`,- ��4+,�d'kClQ.r,_7.xx37�f`' '� I=L• � U ��S - ��
U
k
EXHIBIT "B"
Continued on Next Page
12
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
68-700 AVENIDA LALO GUERERO
CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 92234
EVALUATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP COSTS
PROPOSED EAGLE CANYON DAM
CATHEDRAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
February 8,2008
0 2008 Earth Systems Southwest
unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited
without the express written consent of Earth Systems Southwest,
File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
Earth Systems
Southwest 79-811B Country Club Drive
13urnnida Dunes,CA 92203
(760)345-1588
(800)924-7015
FAX(760)345-7315
February 8,2008 File No.: 08340-02
Doc.No.: 07-12-785
City of Cathedral City
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, California 92234
Attention: Mr.William C. Bayne, P.E., City Engineer
Subject: Evaluation of Environmental Cleanup Costs
Project: Proposed Eagle Canyon Dam
Cathedral City,California
Earth Systems Southwest [ESSW] is pleased to submit this report concerning our evaluation of
environmental cleanup costs currently present at the proposed Eagle Canyon Dam site located at the base
of the Santa Rosa Mountains generally between Canyon Plaza Drive and the former Via Almalfi along the
boundary between Cathedral City and Palm Springs, California. This evaluation was conducted to
provide a preliminary estimate of the costs involved in cleaning up the site prior to construction of the
dam, and is based on prior investigations performed by others and estimates extrapolated from that data.
Assumptions were used to develop the estimate, and therefore this estimate should not be considered to be
a"firm-fixed fee"or maximum value.
Earth Systems Southwest appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project. If we can be of
further assistance, or if you have any questions, feel free to contact the undersigned at(760)345-1588.
Sincerely,
El ARTH SYSTEMS SOUTI3WEST
Scot A. Stormo, PG 4826 Craig S. Hill,CE 38234
Senior Vice President President
Letter/sas/ajf
Distribution: 20/City of Cathedral City
1/RC Pile
2/BD File
Attachments: Table 1 —Cost Estimate--Sorting In Place
Table 2—Cost Estimate—Staging Yard
Figure 1 —Site Location
Figure 2--Site Layout
Figure 3—Site Features
Figure 1 from GenlelTa ReMi Survey Report
Sheet 6 from Genten'a Construction Drawing
-e A
February 8, 2008 - 1 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-783
1.0 Introduction
This report presents the results of an evaluation conducted by Earth Systems Southwest [ESSWI
to estimate the cost to conduct an environmental cleanup of debris and hazardous materials
currently present at the proposed Eagle Canyon Dam site located at the base of the Santa Rosa
Mountains generally between Canyon Plaza Drive and the .Former Via Alrnalfi along the
boundary between Cathedral City and Palm Springs, California. We understand a flood control
dam will be constructed across the mouth of the canyon but that the site was formerly used as a
gravel pit, dump site, construction storage yard, and shooting range. These prior uses have
resulted in the accumulation of fill and debris within the construction footprint. We understand
that the City of Cathedral City and other local entities have agreed to be responsible for the cost
of conducting the environmental cleanup of the site while the costs to construct the dam will be
borne by others. The primary purpose of this report Is to identify the incremental increase in
costs associated with the environmental cleanup of the site.
For the purposes of this estimate the following definitions were used:
I. Fill consists of earth and other materials placed through the actions of man in either an
uncontrolled or controlled manner. If controlled and compacted, it is referred to as
"engineered fill." Uncontrolled fill is sometimes referred to as "undocumented till." Fill
can contain debris.
2. Debris consists of non-natural waste materials such as broken concrete and asphalt, glass,
lumber, tires, cables, hoses,trash, and other similar materials.
3. Unsuitable materials consist of debris that would not suitable for use in an engineered fill
for any purpose (such as lumber, tires, trash, etc, but not including concrete or asphalt,
which can be processed and converted into a usable fill material),
4. Processable material is debris that can be converted into a usable fill material by
crushing, sorting, or otherwise processing the material. The suitability of the material for
use in constructing a dam is not implied.
5. Bazardous materials and hazardous wastes consist of petroleum, metallic, asbestos, or
other materials and wastes that exceed cleanup standards.
6. Fsnvironmemal Cleanup includes segregation and off-site removal of unsuitable materials,
and hazardous materials and wastes.
7. Debris Basin is the area to be constructed immediately upstream of the proposed darn
intended to hold debris washed into the reservoir during flood events. It is not associated
with the debris currently present at the site.
Prior investigations of the site have estimated that the volume of fill ranges from 65,000 to
90,000 cubic yards. Prior subsurface investigations found that approximately 5 to 10 percent of
the till is material that would be unsuitable for use as engineered fill for any purpose (such as
hoses, wood, roofing paper, scrap metal, etc.) while the remainder appeared to be soil, rock,
concrete, and asphalt which could be used as an engineered fill with proper processing. We
understand that the unsuitable material will need to be disposed of off-site as part of the
construction process. The purpose of our scope of services was to estimate the cost to dispose of
unsuitable and/or hazardous materials c=-ently located at the site,
11'nt2rl l SYSTEMS SOU H W HS I, w
February 8, 2008 - 2 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
The scope of work for this project included the following:
• The development plans were reviewed to identify the footprint of the proposed darn and
associated features, and how that footprint relates to the known areas of fill.
• The design engineering firm (Genterra Consultants, Inc, [Genterra]) was contacted
regarding their requirements for disposal of the debris materials, and the lateral extent of
the development area(from which the debris needs to be removed).
• Technical documents regarding prior investigations were reviewed to estimate the
volume of fill within the proposed development area_
• The percent of fill that is comprised of unsuitable materials was estimated from the prior
investigation reports.
• Two cost estimates to segregate and dispose of the unsuitable and hazardous materials
were prepared, one for each likely removal procedure, based on discussions with
contractors familiar with these types of activities.
• This report was prepared to present the findings of this evaluation, including:
o A discussion of the variables
o The basis for the volumes
o Percentages of unsuitable materials
o Unit costs.
2.0 Site Description
The site consists of an irregular-shaped parcel located along the boundary between the base of
the Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest and the Coachella Valley to the northeast (the site
location and layout are depicted in Figures 1, 2, and ') attached). A stream channel within a
steep-sided canyon cuts through the middle of the property from southwest to northeast, and a
tributary canyon joins the main canyon from the south in approximately the center of the site. A
flood-control darn is proposed to be built where the main canyon debouches into the valley. For
the purposes of this report, the western part of the site is defined to be where the canyon is
relatively straight,the central part of the site includes the intersection of the tributary canyon and
the location of the proposed darn aligmment, and the eastern part of the site includes the area east
of the proposed dam alignment. Alluvium underlies the canyon to a depth of at least 100 feet
under the central part of the site, and is expected to be deeper to the east and shallower to the
west. The alluvium "pinches out" as the depth to bedrock decreases in the canyon west of the
site.
The site was historically used as a borrow source, with mining of alluvium occurring in both the
canyon and along the edge of the mountains in the eastern part of the site. The borrow area in
the carryon was subsequently used to dispose of fill consisting primarily of soil, rock, concrete
and asphalt, with a small percentage of other debris such as rubber hoses, fencing, roofing tar-
paper, wood, tires, and metallic junk. A local contractor indicated the majority of the disposed
material was derived from the construction of a road leading into the Santa Rosa Mountains in
EARTH$Y ITWS SOUTHWEST
February 8, 2008 -3 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
the site vicinity (Marantz, 2007). Prior investigations of the fill estimate that approximately 5 to
10 percent of the fill is comprised of debris that would not be suitable for use as engineered fill
for any purpose. Genterra indicated that the soil from the fill would not be suitable for use in the
structural part of the dam, but may be. usable in non-critical areas such as under the approach
roadways if properly processed. Genterra estimated a total of 8,500 cubic yards of material
could be used in the non-critical areas.
The topography of the site has been modified from natural conditions by the prior borrow and
filling activities. The stream channel currently traverses the site along the southern edge of the
canyon. Fill and debris piles are located along the northern '/ of the canyon in the western part
of the site. The fill and debris piles become an elevated plateau with a relatively uniform ground
surface as you move eastward toward the central portion of the site, due in part to "grading"
activities that have flattened-cut this area. The "plateau" area ends abruptly in the eastern
portion of the site where borrow activities appear to have removed its' downhill edge. The
plateau area appears to be the former level of the canyon bottom, but is partially underlain by fill.
The boundary between the fill and natural alluvial surface is not obvious, but was reportedly
investigated by Genterra as part of their geotechnical investigations. Genterra's ReMi Survey
Site Plan shows the fill area as a long lenticular-shaped mass occupying most of the canyon
except along the southern edge (where the current stream channel is located). The northern edge
of the fill boundary coincides with the contact between the mountainside and flatter areas in the
western portion of the site, but extends across the plateau area in an east-west direction in the
central portion of this side (we note that this boundary is approximately coincident with the
parcel boundary, and may reflect the historical northern extent of the borrow area on the southern
parcel)_ In the eastern part of the site, the fill is interpreted to comprise most, but not all, of the
elevated plateau jutting northeastward from the canyon mouth. The remaining northern and
eastern edge of the plateau is believed to be alluvium that was not mined and is a remnant of the
original ground surface. During a recent site visit, we noted undisturbed alluvium along the
southeast edge of the plateau in an area marked on the Genterra map as fill. Therefore, the
eastern extent of the fill may be less than depicted on the Genterra map_
In addition to the use of the site as a borrow pit and disposal site, the site has also been used as a
storage yard for a construction contractor and as a shooting range, Surficial debris consisting of
decrepit machinery, automobiles, concrete, wood, tires, and other construction-related materials
has occupied the ground surface throughout much of the eastern part of the site (though the
surficial debris was recently removed). The shooting range used the central and western part of
the site, and included 5 to 10 stations located along the southern edge of the plateau area from
which the participants could shoot at clay targets launched over the stream channel to the south
and west. Consequently, abundant fragments of clay targets are located on the hillside south of
the stream channel, in the canyon that enters the site from the south, and on the debris piles
located in the western portion of the canyon, fragments of clay targets are not located in the
main stream channel, apparently because water-flow in that channel has reworked the channel
bottom and removed or buried the fragments. Prior testing found that lead is present at elevated
concentrations in some portions of the area. Dining preliminary visual inspections of the site on
November 26 and December 21, 7007, lead shot was not observed on the ground surface in areas
containing abundant clay-pigeon fragments.
EARTH SYSJWS SOUTHWEST
17
February 8, 2008 - 4 - Tile No.: 08340-02
Doe. No.: 07-12-785
3.0 Volume and Composition of Fill
The volume of fill material and its composition was evaluated from the five prior investigations
conducted at the site- These include a 1986 geotechnical investigation by Whaler Associates
[Whaler] conducted as part of the initial dam design (Whaler, 1986); a 1992 report by Leighton
and Associates [Leighton] regarding the western portion of the fill (Leighton, 1992); a 1998
report by Gradient Engineers [Gradient] regarding the eastern part of the fill (Gradient, 1998); a
2002 report by 1 SSW that overlapped the entire Leighton investigation area and the western half
of the Gradient investigation area and included additional subsurface investigations ();SSW,
2002); and a technical memorandum by Gentetra regarding a ReMi°i Seismic Survey conducted
to evaluate the depth of the fill (Genterra, 2007). It should be noted that the Whaler investigation
focused on the geotechnicaI issues at the site; the Leighton, Gradient, and 1;SSW investigations
were concerned primarily with identifying the presence of hazardous materials (but not
specifically debris), and the Genteraa survey focused on evaluating the thickness of the fill, but
not its content. Commentary on the scope, findings and limitations of each of these prior
investigations is presented below, by report. Note that information concerting the 1986, 1992
and 1998 reports was obtained from excerpts of those reports provided by the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District [District] in 2001 as part of a pre-bid package for
the ESSW 2002 investigation, and that the Genterra information provided to ESSW consisted of
portions of their documents that summarized their findings.
Whaler, 1986 — The Whaler investigation included drilling 4 borings, excavating approximately
10 test pits, and running three seismic survey lines, The summary indicated that fill was
identified around the southern and eastern margins of the original unmined alluvial deposit, but
that the extent of the fill was not explored. One boring and two test pits purported to encounter
alluvium at the ground surface provided a basis for Whaler to project the contact between
alluvium and fill to extend along the length of the canyon just south of the midpoint of the flat
plateau area. Cross-sections suggest that Whaler interpreted the fill to have been dumped over
the edge of the plateau along the active stream channel area, with a maximum projected depth of
about 10 to 15 feet- Only one lest pit was excavated into the fill. Given the minimal degree of
investigation regarding the lateral and vertical extent of fill conducted by Whaler, the limits of
the fill depicted by Whaler are considered the least reliable of the five investigations conducted.
Leialrton 1992 — The Leighton investigation included a geophysical survey in the western
portion of the site (only) and five borings along the axis of the fill area in the western and central
portions of the site. The eastern portion of the site was not evaluated. The geophysical survey
found that metallic materials were present in the fill throughout much of the western portion of
the site, but was not significant in the stream channel that crosses the southern portion of the site.
The borings encountered fill to a maximum depth of 23 feet and an average depth of about 15
feel. Due to the east-west alignment of the borings, the north-south extent of the till was not
evaluated. Leighton depicted the fill as extending northward to the contact between the plateau
and the hillside. Chemical testing of samples collected from the borings found elevated
concentrations of four rnetals; aluminum, iron, manganese, and lead. Elevated Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon [TPH] concentrations were also found in some samples. It is our opinion that the
chemical testing results are of limited significance because: (1) aluminum, iron and manganese
are naturally present at high concentrations; (2) the concentration of lead was not elevated
relative to regulatory cleanup standards (a maximum of 29 mg/kg); and, (3) the method used to
r•,ARTH svSTI;MS Sou11 1wr-'sr
F0
February 8, 2008 - 5 - rile No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
test for TPH does not distinguish between different types of hydrocarbons and is capable of
detecting asphalt. It is likely that the elevated TPH values are related to the common presence of
asphalt in the fill (though other hydrocarbon compounds may also be present). The Leighton
report is useful for identifying that the fill extends to a depth of 13 to 23 feet in the central and
western portions of the site-
Gradient. 1998 — The Gradient report evaluated the presence of hazardous materials in the
eastern portion of the site, and did not overlap the area investigated by Leighton. The Gradient
investigation focused on evaluating the potential for the presence of hazardous materials both in
the fill and an the ground surface. Five borings were drilled to a depth of 20 feet and a total of
20 samples were tested, as well as 12 near-surface soil samples from 6 locations, and 8 samples
from barrels located on-site (the barrels were likely from the Leighton investigation). Gradient
stated that fill extended to the total depth of each boring (20 feet). Ii should be noted that boring
logs were not provided with the report, and the extent of fill reported by gradient is greater than
reported by Genterra. It is possible that Gradient identified undisturbed alluvium as fill material
in some samples.
The Gradient investigation tested the samples for 8 metals, TPH (using EPA Method 418.1,
which does not distinguish between hydrocarbon types), chlorinated solvents, gas and diesel.
Some of the surface samples were collected from obvious stained soil under parked machinery.
Consequently, some of the elevated values are merely localized spills firm parked machinery
and are not considered representative of the overall condition of the fill. Gradient estimated a
total of 65 cubic yards of surficial soil required removal due to the presence of elevated
hydrocarbon concentrations.
ESS W 2001 -- The purpose of the ESSW investigation was to evaluate the potential for the
presence of hazardous materials in the fill. The ESSW investigation consisted of a geophysical
survey using a terrain conductivity meter [TCM] (a type of meial detector), a geophysical survey
using ground-penetrating radar [GPR], the excavation of 12 trenches to evaluate the depth and
composition of the fill, and the collection of surface samples from the shooting range to test for
lead. The TCM and GPR surveys found a total of 5 large buried metallic anomalies in the
central and western portions of the site (the eastern portion could not be evaluated using this
technique because of the numerous metallic objects located on the ground surface). These
metallic anomalies were excavated and found to consist of sheet metal, a photocopier, a swamp
cooler, a bed frame, and a small underground storage tank [UST]. The UST appears to have
been abandoned in place. Trenches were also excavated in areas where metallic anomalies were
not detected by the TCM survey; metallic objects were not found in these trenches suggesting the
TCM survey is capable of accurately identifying buried metallic objects. The GPR survey did
not find voids or other reflective features suggestive of drums or other USTs. The GPR survey
was not capable of distinguishing the depth of the fill due to a lack of contrast between fill and
alluvium.
The trenching found that the fill is composed primarily of soil and rock, with a significant
portion of concrete and asphalt. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the fill was observed to
consist of trash (hoses, fence, wood, tires, etc.) that would not be suitable for incorporating into
an engineered fill for any purpose. Obvious stained soils were not observed in the fill. Chemical
testing of the fill did not identify hazardous materials within the fill. Elevated concentrations of
lead were found in 4 of the 12 surface soil samples collected from the shooting range area. The
EA1t M SYSTLMS SOU 1'1-1wE1,,r ,a
February 8, 2008 - 6 - Pile No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
surficial lead was found to extend over an area of about 25,000 square feet, but the sampling
density was low and the actual area of affected soil may be less.
The general composition of the till was observed in the trenches but the geotechnical properties
of this material was not a focus of that evaluation, so testing for the suitability of this material as
fill was not performed. Undisturbed alluvium was encountered in some of the trenches, and the
fill was observed to be 10 to 15 feet thick in the western portion of the site, and I to 5 feet thick
in the central portion of the site (generally along the alignment of the edge of the fiilI marked in
the Genten•a report, see below). Two of the trenches (T-3 and T-7) did not penetrate the full
thickness of the .Gill, so the depths of those trenches indicate the minimum thickness of the fill at
those locations. The volume of fill was estimated by generalirang the apparent volume of fill as
a simple geometric shape, and calculating the volume of that shape. The volume of fill was
estimated in the 2001 report to be 90,000 cubic yards, with a margin of error of--/- 50 percent to
take into account the minimal number and wide spacing of the trenches.
Genterra, 2007 -- The Gentcrra report included a geotechnical evaluation of the site which
focused on identifying the thickness of the fill as well as the engineering properties of the
underlying alluvium. In subsequent discussions with Genterra, we understand that Genterra
subcontracted with another Finn to calculate the volume of the fill based on the size and shape
identified in their investigation. This method is more rigorous than the method used by ESSW
and is more likely to be accurate, but Genterra cautioned that it is still only an estimate. Gentcrra
estimated the total volume of fill to be 65,000 cubic yards. The lateral extent of fill is depicted
on Figure I of the Genterra RQMi survey report (attached). The Iateral extent of the fill in the
western pail of the site is in general agreement with the prior reports. In the central portion of
the site, the northern edge of the fill is depicted as crossing the plateau area where the prior
ESSW investigation found the fill to be 1 to 5 feet deep. In the eastern portion of the site, fill is
depicted as underlying most of the plateau area (but less than the area shown in the Gradient
report). Note that the fill area depicted by Gcntcrra overlaps a few places where alluvium was
observed by ESSW in a recent site visit. It is not clear what basis Genterra used for identifying
the extent of fill in the plateau area in the eastern portion of the site, and it is possible that fill is
less extensive than depicted in that area.
4.0 Removal Requirements and Processes
Gentcrra is the design engineer for the dam and it is their responsibility to provide specifications
for its construction. Genterra indicated that the fill could not be used in construction of the dam
due to the uncertain engineering properties of the material and the critical function of the dam,
though about 8,500 cubic yards of fill may be usable in non-critical areas such as the approach
ramp and as filter material under the rip-rap cover. An estimated 65,000 cubic yards of fill is
present on the site, which far exceeds the amount needed for these non-critical purposes.
Therefore, Genterra anticipates the majority of the fill will need to be removed as part of the
construction process. Note that removal of the fill due to its' uncertain engineering properties is
not considered to be part of the environmental cleanup, which focuses only on the debris that is
unsuitable for use in any engineered fill, and hazardous materials and wastes.
The Genterra report provided a summary of the construction process, which envisioned an initial
phase to prepare the dam foundation area followed by construction of the dam_ Materials used to
construct the dam are proposed to be derived primarily from the "debris basin" to be constructed
50:1,14 SYSTEMS SOUr11WES1,
20
February 8, 2008 - 7 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
immediately up-gradient of the dam. Genterra envisioned removal of the fill as part of the initial
site preparation process. As described in Genterra's report, the construction process will Consist
of the following Tasks:
I. Removal of the surface debris and contaminated surface soil;
2. Removal of lead-impacted soil from the shooting range area, with testing and subsequent
off-site disposal;
3. Removal of the Underground Storage Tank [UST];
4. Removal of the fill material and off-site disposal;
5. Segregation of hazardous materials encountered in the fill and off-site disposal;
b. l;xcavation of the dam footprint, with stockpiling of the soil in the western part of the
site; and,
7. Construction of the dam.
The process described by Genterra does not require an off-site staging yard if the fill is disposed
of en masse. However, the contractor nnay wish to separate the unsuitable materials from the fill
to minimize disposal costs, and process the processable materials to allow the sale and/or use of
that material. Two options are available in this regard:
1. Separating the unsuitable materials in-place, and processing the processable materials
later, or stockpiling the processed material in close proximity to its' current location;
2. Transporting the fill to a staging yard for sorting,processing, and storage until use/sale.
Option 1 entails either handling the processable materials twice (once to remove the unsuitable
material and once to process the material) and/or storing the processed material within the
general construction zone of the dam, both of which are undesirable. Option 2 requires that an
off-site staging yard be established to sort and store the material. We understand that the former
trailer-park property located immediately east of the site may be available for use as a staging-
yard, and we have assumed the fill would be transported to that location in Option 2. However,
the cost estimate for Option 2 does not include the rental cost of using that property for this
purpose.
5.0 Cost Estimate
We understand that the City of Cathedral City and other local entities are responsible only for the
environmental cleanup costs, which are limited to removing the unsuitable materials and
hazardous materials and wastes, and do not include disposal of material being rejected because it
lacks the engineering properties for use in a dam. The shooting range activities resulted in the
lead being deposited on the ground as a consequence of its intended use and therefore the lead-
containing soil is not defined as a waste. Materials which are not a waste are not subject to
hazardous waste regulations unless the soil is disposed of (at which time the soil has become
waste). The sediment in the stream channel appears to be suitable for use in an engineered fill,
and therefore costs to remove the lead-impacted soil were not included in the estimate.
Two cost estimates are presented herein, one for separating the unsuitable material in place, and
the second for the incremental increase in cost to separate and dispose of the unsuitable materials
at a nearby staging yard. The number and type of tasks are the same in both cost estimates; tlae
difference between the two estimates is whether the fill material is relocated as pant of the sorting
FARTtt SYSTRUS SOUTITWEST
G �
February 8, 2008 - 8 - File No.' 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
process. Table 1 presents the cost estimate assuming the unsuitable materials are sorted from the
fill in-place (Option 1) while Table 2 presents the cost estimate assuming flap fill will be moved
to a staging yard for sorting(Option 2).
Tasks
Descriptions of the Tasks involved in conducting an environmental cleanup of the site are
presented below. Tasks that vary depending on whether the fill is sorted in place or moved to a
staging yard are so indicated.
Mobilization These costs will vary depending on whether a staging yard is used. If the fill is
sorted in-place, the mobilization costs are for moving the equipment on and off
the site. If a staging yard is used, it includes setting up a yard to sort, process, and
store the material.
Task I This involves removing the hydrocarbon impacted soil identified by the Gradient
report from the surface of the storage areas. Gradient estimated a total of 65 cubic
yards of material warranted removal. The soil will be excavated with a backhoe
or loader, loaded onto trucks, and hauled as a regulated waste to a treatment
facility for recycling.
Task 2 The UST identified in the 2002 ESSw report will be removed in accordance with
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health protocols.
Task 3 This task is for removing the unsuitable materials from the fill, and the costs vary
depending on whether a staging yard is used.
Option 1, Sorting In Place .... An excavator will be used to excavate the fill and
sort through it. Materials that are unsuitable for use in an engineered fill will be
segregated from the fill, loaded onto trucks, and transported to a Class III landfill
for disposal- The remaining material will be placed back in the excavation. It is
anticipated that the excavation activities will start at the western end of the site
and work eastward, and that sorted material will be placed on the west side of the
active excavation area,resulting in a slightly westward shift in the fill material.
Option 2, Staging Yard — The ("ill material will be excavated and transported to
the staging yard. Debris that is unsuitable for use in an engineered fill will be
removed and transported to a landfill. 1t is assumed that the remaining soil, rock,
concrete and asphalt will be passed through a grizzly to remove oversized
materials; the oversized materials will be passed through a rock crusher to reduce
the size of the material to 6-inch minus; and the resulting material will be
stockpiled on-site pending use as "processed miscellaneous base" [PMB] either
on-site or at an off-site construction project. However, the costs to process these
materials in this manner are not included in the cost estimate because they are not
part of the environmental cleanup of the site.
EAR1'IC SYS7'1:MS SOL)r1-1wl;s'r
February 8, 2008 - 9 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
Task 4 Hazardous materials — during removal of the fill, the potential presence of
hazardous materials will be evaluated by on-site personnel, as specified in
Genterra's construction plan. Materials suspected of being hazardous will be
stockpiled separately pending the results of laboratory testing of this material.
The types of testing performed will be based on the types of hazardous materials
suspected to be present. Final disposition of these suspect soils will be based on
the results of the laboratory testing. Note that testing and disposal costs are not
provided in the cost estimate because hazardous materials were not reliably
detected in the soil during the prior investigations (as discussed in the 2002
; SSW report). Costs for an on-site observer to check for the presence of
hazardous materials are included, as specified by Genterra.
Project Management involves the coordination of the various contractors by a consultant.
Assurn tions and Limitations
The cast estimate was developed based on discussions with contractors who routinely perform
these types of activities. Important assumptions and Iimitations include the following:
1. The costs are based on a mixture of "lump-sum" and "time-and-materials" rates,
depending on the activity, as shown in the table. The volumes used in this cost estimate
are based on the prior investigations.
2. The former trailer park east of the site was assumed to be available for use as a staging
yard, including the long-term storage of sorted and crushed material. The cost for rentin;
this area as a staging yard was not included.
3. The cost estimate assumes 10% of the fill is unsuitable material requiring off-site
disposal, with a density of 1.5 tons per cubic yard.
4. The cost estimate assumes the volume of fill totals 65,000 cubic yards (based on Genterra
report), is easily distinguished from on-site soils, and can be easily handled with
conventional excavating equipment.
5. The cost estimate assumes no cost to the project to load, transport, or use the
crushed/processed material as processed miscellaneous base at an off-site location-
6. The cost estimate assumes water is readily available for use on-site,
7. Permitting costs are not included.
S. The cost estimate assumes Prevailing Wage will be paid to on-site personnel.
9. A contingency fee of 8.5 to 8.9% was added to the overall project cost to accommodate
uncertainty and round the final value to two significant figures-
RARTH SYS7[tM6 SOIJ'i'I-IWIiS'1' ra 't
l:i7
February 8, 2008 - 10 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
6.0 Summary of Findings
The total cost for the envirommental cleanup of the site is $1,250,00o for sorting in place and
$1,500,000 for using a staging yard, using the assumptions and limitations presented in this
report The cost for sorting in place is relatively complete for that scope of work, but leaves the
fill in its current location. The cost for using a staging yard moves the fill out of the footprint of
the dam construction area, but does not include the cost of renting the staging yard, processing
the non-debris material, or finding a use for the processed material. The costs associated with
using a staging yard are intended to be the incremental increase in cost associated with the
environmental cleanup activities, and not the whole cost for using a staging yard during
construction.
In both cost estimates, the cost for Tasks 1, 3, and 4 will ultimately be dependant oil the quantity
of material requiring off-site disposal. Costs for disposing of unsuitable debris may be less than
shown if the area containing fill does not extend as far eastward as shown in the Genterra report
(as observed during a recent site visit by ESSW), or if the unsuitable material is less than 10
percent of the fill. Costs for disposal of hazardous waste will increase if these types of materials
are actually found in the fill.
7.0 Limitations
This report has been prepared for the cxclusive use of City of Cathedral City. The findings
presented in this report are opinions based on readily available information obtained to date
within the scope of the work authorized by the client. The scope of work for this project was
developed to address the needs of the client and may not meet the needs of other users. Any
other use of or reliance on the information and opinions contained in this report without the
written authorization of ESSW is at the sole risk of the user.
The results contained in this report are based upon the information acquired during the
evaluation, and includes information obtained from third parties. ESSW makes no claim as to
the accuracy of the information obtained from others. It should be noted variations may exist
beyond or between points explored during the course of this and prior investigations, and that
changes in conditions can occur in the future due to the works of man, contaminant migration,
variations in rainfall, temperature, and/or other factors not apparent at the time of Ate field
investigation. Economic factors may render the estimate provided herein obsolete in a short
period of time. No effort was made to predict the effect of inflation or other factors on the cost
estimate presented herein.
The services performed by ESSW have been conducted in a manner consistent with tite level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under
similar conditions in the site vicinity. No warranty is expressed or implied.
-000-
EARTH SYS]`FM5 SOUTH W 8ST
February 8, 2008 - 11 - File No.: 08340-02
Doc. No.: 07-12-785
REFERENCES
Earth Systems Southwest, Report of Environmental Testing and Evaluation, Proposed Eagle
Canyon Dam, RCFCWCD Project 6-0-0190, ,Pain? Springs/Cathedral City, California,
File No_: 08340-01, Document No.: 01-12-732, dated February 20, 2002.
Genterra Consultants, Inc., ReMit'" Survey Site Plan, Figure 1, dated October 2006.
Technical Memorandum, Completion of Additional Seismic Survey, ReM7'1't Seismic
Suf•vey for Eagle Canyon Dam, District Project 6-0-0190, GLNTERRA Project No. 296-
RCF, dated November 2, 2006.
.Eagle Canyon Dam and Debris Basing Dumped Fill removal Plan, Project No. 6-0-0190,
Drawing No. X-X 1'Z, Sheet No. 6 of 19, dated February 2007.
Hazardous Waste Remediation Plan for the Proposed Site of'Eagle Canyon Dam and
Debris, Basin, Palm Springs, California, Project No. 296-RCF, dated February 10,2007.
,Section 5' Excavation, 296-RCF-EC_DesignReportText_110607_REVDRAFT.doc.
Replies to Questions Submitted by Scot Stormo by E-Mail of Dec. 17, 2007, Eagle
Canyon Dam and Debris Basin, Riverside County, CA, dated December 19, 2007.
Marantz, George, with G&M Construction, personal communications, December 2007 and
January 2008,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, letter to LSSW dated May 8,
2001, Eagle Canyon Dam, Assessment Investigation for Artificial Fill, Suggested Scope
of Work, including summaries of Wahler, Leighton & Associates, and Gradient Engineers
reports.
EARTH SYSTEM-S SOrJ"1'HWL-'ST
Table 1
Cost Estimate -Sorting In place
Footnote Basis Units Per Unit Subtotal
Mobilization/Demobilization A Lump Sum 1 $5,000 $5,000
Task 1 Surface Hydrocarbon Removal
Excavation B Days 1 $5,000 $3,000
Transportation B Tans 100 $32 $3,200
Disposal B Tans 100 $55 $5,500
Subtotal $11,700
Task 2 UST Removal Estimate 1 $10,000 $10,000
Task 3 Unsuitable Debris Removal
Excavation C Yards 65,000 $4,50 $292,500
Sorting C Yards 65,000 $2.50 $162,500
Debris Disposal (tipping fee) D Tons 10,000 $45 $450.000
Loading and Trucking D Tons 10,000 $15 $150,000
Subtotal 31,055,000
Task 4 Buried Hazardous Waste (In fill)
Onsite Observations for Haz Waste E Days 50 $1,000 $50,000
Subtotal $60,000
Project Management Estimate 1 20000 $20.000
Total for Tasks 1through 4 $1,151,700
F 8,5 % Contingency $98,300
Grand Total $1,250,000
Footnotes A Mobilization of Equipment
B Assumes 65 cubic yards,cleaned up in one day
C Volume based on estimate by Genterra Consultants
D Assumes 10%of fill is debris, and 1 5 tons per cubic yard
E Assumes sorting an average if 1,300 cubic yards per day
F Contingency added to accommodate uncertainty and round final value
26
Table 2
Cost Estimate - Staging Yard
Footnote Basis Units Per Unit Subtotal
Mobilization/Demobilization A Lump Sum 1 $20.500 $20,000
Rental of Staging Yard Not included 0 $0 $0
Task 1 Surface Hydrocarbon Removal
Excavation S Days 1 $3,000 $3,000
Transportation B Tons 100 $32 $3,200
Disposal B Tons 100 $55 $5,500
Subtotal $11,700
Task 2 UST Removal Estimate 1 $10,000 $10,000
Task 3 Unsuitable Debris Removal
Excavation C Yards 65,000 $4.50 $292,500
Relocation to Staging Yard C Yards 65,000 $1 75 $113,750
Sorting C Yards 05,000 $4 00 $260,000
Debris Disposal (tipping fee) D Tons 10,000 $45 $450,000
Loading and Trucking D Tons 10,000 $15 $150,000
Rock Crushing Not included $7.50 $0
Soil/Rock Disposal Not included $0 $0
Subtotal $1,266,250
Task 4 Buried Hazardous Waste (In Fill)
Onsite Observations for Haz. Waste E Days 50 $1,000 $50,000
Subtotal $50,000
Project Management Estimate 1 20000 $20,000
Total for Tasks I through 4 $1,377,950
F 8.9 % Contingency $122.050
Grand Total $1,500,000
Footnotes A Includes setting up yard at former trailer park for sorting and temporary storage of material
8 Assumes 65 cubic yards,cleaned up n1 one day
C Volume based on estimate by Genterra Consultants-
0 Assumes 10%of fill is debris, and 1.5 tons pei cubic yard
E Assumes removing an average of 1,300 cubic yards per day.
F Contingency added to accommodate uncertainty and round final value
!Id 4i :I�
IIIi!
?3QTI
J
11 94 34
L.2 30 PALM MT4,
2,
NOW PARK
TNa taf,
'ONO Z�
Y J,r
/I
a r AGM11
F1
Y
T 7 ZI
-v
�N
I Y11,
1 V62",
'INDIA
V A,
, l4N
1,-1
I ark P
F I
n 4 J
5 " I. i[
vN ' �
7,
W,
RO, -5
ILL
L
16
Basc Map:USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map CarlI Cirv, Calif,dated 1958.photo-rovu,vd 1981.
Figare 1
Site Location
0 Site Location Proposed Eagle Canyon Dam
i Palm Springs and Cathedral City, California
Scale: 1 2,000' Earth Systems
J Southwest
0 2,000' 4,000' _02/0S/2----------------- File No.: 08340-
..i�l Ir ♦III M1- .�
r [� • .r " - Landscaping-Ro&
iL, fir -y'a Storage Yard ��1
11 1 •h�l.h ^ i�... i - r
Y • ,\'Y � •• 1 f111
. ..y` a ♦ � ,�r Yin. -"!e• ' 1•— � �r'��, ��`^, ra"'i'r1
� � _ . �rl�� • . xlwl
r'Nr r •x r r ,ri ` n Y\ r V� n ^r'� `•` �F
,y r
A
r r
�, • 114, r 1 url � S
��•• 17-
Morcncc:L'umpu Tcchnologic5,2007
.LEGEND Figure 2
Site Layout
Proposed Eagle Canyon Dam
Palm Springs and Cathcdral City, California
Approximate Scale: 1" = 275' ;E Earth Systems
mm%."pmw � Southwest
0 275 550 02/08/08 File No.: 08340-02
.. IrWWllc
7?W
I f^tfpv! d ,
Y _
ia` n
114�. u�NDiY1DV FLt245 •�'� -
I 4 8f
4
AE
w
1
Rcferwce:Europa Technologies,2007
LEGEND Figure 3
Site Features
Proposed Eagle Canyon Dam
Palm Springs and Cathedral City, California
Approximate Scale: 1" = 150' wy Earth Systems
0 150 300 I 7 Southwest
02/08/08 File No.: 08340-02
e�A S'
o.ox— �x�w
/ orpy
U A OP5➢ISIdfC
SRN%
311ILW VON Ss
�si�u;en�x;cn�r or•
vtemane>?Asneneo:�smt
_ - uiT,vcvx cora'n" PROPOSED LAGLE CANYON DAM AND /� GEA'TERRA ROMP SURVEY SITE PLAN
A'lfWN.slf1F.'LOi.St'i l; C! RL'SERVOIR
I r 1 Ilk
PEI
Ir
,nr4 kl\., ...,` _ `\r rl/ rr I 1 r�3 � E� 1 I �,%\\ "\'h •1 \ ) \ I,
�I ���� � / i l �l i III I 113)� .\� w\ `\,\•\ \\`\```` ��`w_"�
q � \ I I � it � �•L� � I"� ,�1 j i I �`'� `i�`1`I\
A 1\`! ` ` '\�•\ \\ \�__" ��i�`\`v. ;\\ � 1 � `sor -c/ (/ % � I i �III/��l� 1
�� Imq�O �' [ ` \\ •�\ \\`� � -- �\ �\�I� �. 1 ` �1` y��\f 1 \ I,\ ' �l ii 11M'ji� i 1