Wells is the senior geologist for Geomatrix Consultants Inc. the firm that
has done the earthquake fault investigations for this project. He has been
evaluating geologic and seismic hazards for 19 years, including participating
in and managing studies done for UC (for the last 14 years), Mills College,
Fremont City Hall, and the Kensington Fire Station. He is responsible for the
day-to-day management of projects for Geomatrix, and has a lead role in conducting
the technical work, interpreting the data, and preparing reports.
 |
|
Bear Insider Photo
South Trench Location |
Credentials aside, we found him this morning in boots, jeans, and work gear,
sitting beside the new trench, notebook in hand, taking notes on work progress
to date.
The 20 foot trench is about 15 feet deep - as deep as their backhoe can work
- and, according to Wells, deep enough to reveal the information needed about
possible fault traces. The trenching work is finished, so the "faces" of the
trench can now be surveyed for the needed data.
Wells said that the site work will be done in a few weeks - including the
bore holes that have yet to be drilled at the north end of the stadium - but
that data analysis and report preparation could take up to two months to complete.
He added that as soon as data gathering is finished they would have a
good intuitive sense of what the final results will be, but won't be free to
talk about those until the final report is prepared.
 |
|
Bear Insider Photo
Earthquake Testing Announcement |
We discussed the USGS letter that was received by the City of Berkeley on
December 5th, a day before the Regents certified the project EIR that was supposed
to have covered all project risks. The letter expressed some uncertainly about
Geomatrix's interpretation of the data developed from the first set of
trenches and bore holes, saying that perhaps more data was needed to be sure
that the interpretation applied to the furthest reaches of the project footprint
- the northeast and southeast corners of the crescent-shaped-building that
will curve around the perimeter of the stadium almost from end to end.
I asked if the USGS representatives had been present when the original work
was done - and if so, why they had not expressed their reservations at that
time. Wells explained that the USGS letter was in response to the Geomatrix
interpretation of the data - which emerged late in the process - not to the trenching work or investigation methods employed. He also said he thought the City of Berkeley had "leaned" on
the USGS - asking them to make a definitive statement about Geomatrix' interpretation
- which led to the letter expressing concerns about the remote corners of the project.
I asked Wells about the declaration filed by Robert Curry with the court that contested Geomatrix findings. Curry is a Geology professor who has retired
from his work at UC Santa Cruz. Without going into specifics, Wells asserted
that Curry was not a specialist in relevant areas, and was flat out wrong
in some of his analysis and conclusions. Curry might be expected to feel differently
about that, of course.
 |
|
Bear Insider hoto
Fault Investigation Trench |
Wells also described at least one of Curry's recommendations as being rather unusual, saying that it would require a hole as big as Memorial Stadium to be dug at the north end of the stadium - and require dynamiting to reach Franciscan formations to look for faults millions of years old. Wells admiited that that would be a lot of fun to do - "boys like dynamite", he said - but that it would not be relevant to discovering
currently active faults.
Resolving conflicting technical testimony has to be difficult for a judge who must weigh testimony in areas where she has little expertise. I asked Wells how a judge can do that. He said he had never been in court before on cases like this, so speculated that weighing the relevant experience of those who testify would be one consideration.
Wells also pointed out that the USGS letter did not in fact disagree with any of the central conclusions of the Geomatrix work, rather it just pointed out areas where further data would be useful. He said he expected that when the new data was weighed, the USGS would arrive at the same conclusions about faulting as would Geomatrix - and that the USGS testimony to that effect would lend weight to the Geomatrix claims in court. Thus the USGS which initially raised concerns about the project may ultimately be important in certifying the project's geologic safety in ways the judge can understand.
©Copyright 2006, BearInsider.com and Scout.com.
All rights reserved.
If you haven't done so already, subscribe to The Bear Insider
so you can participate in this active online Cal community and get access
to the members-only content from the nation-wide Scout.com network.
Bear Insider staff writers visit the Insider discussion board regularly,
and are available to discuss questions you may have about this article and Cal Athletics.