Item 01 2025-00499 Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study (T15235000) - PART 2 — Sacramento City Council, February 18, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

January 2021
EXHIBIT 6-A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY (PES)
Federal Project No.: Final Design:
(Federal Program Prefix-Project No., Agreement No.) (Expected Start Date) To: Bomasur Banzon From: City of Sacramento
(District Local Assistance Engineer) (Local Agency)
Caltrans District 3 Fedolia “Sparky” Harris, (916) 808-2996 (District) (Project Manager’s Name and Telephone No.)
703, B Street, Marysville, CA 95901 915 I Street, Room 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 (Address) (Address)
[email protected] [email protected]
(Email Address) (Email Address)
Is this Project “ON” the Yes
State Highway System? No
IF YES, STOP HERE and contact the District Local Assistance Engineer regarding the completion of other environmental documentation.

Federal State Transportation Improvement Program
(FSTIP)
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/officeof-federal-programming-data-management-ofpdm 2023 MTP/SCS 54
(Currently Adopted Plan Date) (Page No.___ attach to this form) Programming
for FSTIP:

Preliminary Engineering Right of Way Construction
$ $ $
(Fiscal Year) (Dollars) (Fiscal Year) (Dollars) (Fiscal Year) (Dollars) Project Description as Shown in RTP and FSTIP: New all-modal Bridge: between downtown Sacramento and South Natomas across the Lower American River. Includes: Auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Scale and features to be determined through need and purpose study anticipated to begin in 2012.

Detailed Project Description: (Describe the following, as applicable: purpose and need, project location and limits, required right of way acquisition, proposed facilities, staging areas, disposal and borrow sites, construction activities, and construction access.) The City of Sacramento proposes to construct a multi-modal bridge connecting Truxel Road to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard across the American River.
(Continue description on “Notes” sheet, last page of this Exhibit, if necessary) Preliminary Design Information:

Does the project involve any of the following? Please check the appropriate boxes and delineate on an attached map, plan, or layout including any additional pertinent information.

Yes No Yes No Yes No
Widen existing roadway Ground disturbance Easements
Increase number of through lanes Road cut/fill Equipment staging New alignment Excavation: anticipated Temporary access road/detour Capacity increasing—other maximum depth 120 feet Utility relocation (e.g., channelization) Right of way acquisition
Drainage/culverts (if yes, attach map with APN)
Realignment Flooding protection
Ramp or street closure Stream channel work Disposal/borrow sites Bridge work
Pile driving Part of larger adjacent project
Vegetation removal
Tree removal Demolition Railroad
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 2 of 14 ends

January 2021
Required Attachments:

Regional map Project location map Project footprint map (existing/proposed right of way) Engineering drawings (existing and proposed cross sections), if available Borrow/disposal site location map, if applicable (Note: all maps (except project location map and regional maps) should be consistent with the project description (minimum scale: 1" = 200').) GeoTracker Printout for Hazardous Materials (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/).

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List from USFWS (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/).

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List from NMFS (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps/data/california species listtools.html).

Current Photos of Project Site FEMA map VIA Questionnaire Notes to support the conclusions of this checklist/project description continuation page (attached) Examine the project for potential effects on the environment, direct or indirect and answer the following questions.

The “construction area,” as specified below, includes all areas of ground disturbance associated with the project, including staging and stockpiling areas and temporary access roads.

Each answer must be briefly documented on the “Notes” pages at the end of the PES Form.

A. Potential Environmental Effects Yes To Be
Determined
No
General

1. Will the project require future construction to fully utilize the design capabilities included in the proposed project?

2. Will the project generate public controversy?
Noise

4. Does the project have the potential for adverse construction-related noise impact (such as related to pile driving)?
Air Quality

5. Is the project in a NAAQS non-attainment or maintenance area?

6. Is the project exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made? (If “Yes,” state which conformity exemption in 40 CFR 93.126, or 40 CFR 93.128 (check one box below and identify the project type if applicable):
40 CFR 93.126 40 CFR 93.128 Project type: _________

7. Is the project exempt from regional conformity? (If “Yes,” state which conformity exemption in 40 CFR 93.127, Table 3 applies):

8. If project is not exempt from regional conformity, (If “No” on Question #7) Is project in a metropolitan non-attainment/maintenance area? Is project in an isolated rural non-attainment area?
Is project in a CO, PM10 and/or PM2.5 non-attainment/maintenance area? Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

9. Is there potential for hazardous materials (including underground or aboveground tanks, etc.) or hazardous waste (including oil/water separators, waste oil, asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, ADL, etc.) within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? Water Quality/Resources

10. Does the project have the potential to impact water resources (rivers, streams, bays, inlets, lakes, drainage sloughs) within or immediately adjacent to the project area? Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 3 of 14 ends

January 2021

11. Is the project within a designated sole-source aquifer? Coastal Zone

12. Is the project within the State Coastal Zone, San Francisco Bay, or Suisun Marsh? Floodplain

13. Is the construction area located within a regulatory floodway or within the base floodplain (100-year) elevation of a watercourse or lake?
Wild and Scenic Rivers

14. Is the project within or immediately adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River System? Biological Resources

15. Is there a potential for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat or essential fish habitat to occur within or adjacent to the construction area?

16. Does the project have the potential to directly or indirectly affect migratory birds, or their nests or eggs (such as vegetation removal, box culvert replacement/repair, bridge work, etc.)?

17. Is there a potential for wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the construction area?

18. Is there a potential for agricultural wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the construction area?

19. Is there a potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plant species? Sections 4(f) and 6(f)

20. Are there any historic sites or publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges (Section 4[f]) within or immediately adjacent to the construction area?

21. Does the project have the potential to affect properties acquired or improved with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6[f]) funds?
Visual Resources

22. Does the project have the potential to affect any visual or scenic resources? Relocation Impacts

23. Will the project require the relocation of residential or business properties? (If the answer to questions 23-32 is “yes,” then Title VI Implementation and outreach may be triggered) Land Use, Community, and Farmland Impacts

24. Will the project require any right of way, including partial or full takes? Consider construction easements and utility relocations.

25. Is the project inconsistent with plans and goals adopted by the community?

26. Does the project have the potential to divide or disrupt neighborhoods/communities?

27. Does the project have the potential to disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations?

28. Will the project require the relocation of public utilities?

29. Will the project affect access to properties or roadways?

30. Will the project involve changes in access control to the State Highway System (SHS)?

31. Will the project involve the use of a temporary road, detour, or ramp closure?

32. Will the project reduce available parking?

33. Will the project construction encroach on state or federal lands?

34. Will the project convert any farmland to a different use or impact any farmlands? Cultural Resources

35. Is there National Register listed, or potentially eligible historic properties, or archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? (Note: Caltrans PQS answers question #35 )

36. Is the project adjacent to, or would it encroach on Tribal land? Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 4 of 14 ends

January 2021
For Sections B, C, and D, check appropriate box to indicate required technical studies, coordination, permits, or approvals.

B. Required Technical Studies
and Analyses
C. Coordination D. Anticipated
Actions/Permits/Approvals
Traffic
Check one:

Traffic Study Caltrans Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Noise
Check as applicable:

Traffic Related
Construction Related
Check one:

Noise Study Report Caltrans Approval
NADR Caltrans Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Air Quality
Check as applicable:

Traffic Related
Construction Related
Check one:

Air Quality Report Caltrans Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
FHWA Conformity Finding (23 USC 327 CEs,
EAs, EISs)
Caltrans Conformity Finding ( 23 USC 326 CEs)
Regional Agency PM10/PM2.5 Interagency Consultation
Hazardous Materials/
Hazardous Waste
Check as applicable:

Initial Site Assessment
(Phase 1)
Caltrans Approval
Preliminary Site Assessment
(Phase 2)
Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Cal EPA DTSC Review Database
Local Agency Review Database
Water Quality/Resources
Check as applicable:

Water Quality Assess. Report Caltrans Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Sole-Source Aquifer
(Districts 5, 6 and 11) EPA (S.F. Regional Office) Approval of Analysis in ED Coastal Zone CCC Coastal Zone Consistency Determination Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 5 of 14 ends

January 2021
B. Required Technical Studies
and Analyses
C. Coordination D. Anticipated
Actions/Permits/Approvals
Floodplain
Check as applicable:

Location Hydraulic Study Caltrans Approval
Floodplain Evaluation Report Caltrans Approval
Summary Floodplain
Encroachment Report
Caltrans Approval
Caltrans Only Practicable Alternative Finding
FHWA Approves significant encroachments and
concurs in Only Practicable Alternative
Findings
Wild and Scenic Rivers
River Managing Agency Wild and Scenic Rivers Determination Biological Resources
Check as applicable:

NES, Minimal Impact Caltrans Approval
NES
BA Caltrans Approves for Consultation
USFWS Section 7 Informal/Formal Consultation
NOAA Fisheries
EFH Evaluation NOAA Fisheries MSA Consultation
Bio-Acoustic Evaluation NOAA Fisheries Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Wetlands
Check as applicable:

WD and Assessment Caltrans Approval
ACOE Wetland Verification
NRCS Agricultural Wetland Verification
Caltrans Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative
Finding
Invasive Plants
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Section 4(f)
Check as applicable:

Caltrans Determine Temporary Occupancy
De minimis Caltrans De minimis finding
Programmatic 4(f) Evaluation Caltrans Approval
Type: ___________________
Individual 4(f) Evaluation Caltrans Approval
Agency with Jurisdiction
SHPO
DOI
HUD
USDA
B. Required Technical Studies
and Analyses
C. Coordination D. Anticipated
Actions/Permits/Approvals
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 6 of 14 ends

January 2021
Section 6(f)
Agency with Jurisdiction
NPS Determines Consistency with Long-Term
Management Plan
NPS Approves Conversion
Visual Resources
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Minor VIA Caltrans Approval
Moderate VIA Caltrans Approval
Advance/Complex VIA Caltrans Approval
Relocation Impacts
Check one:

Relocation Impact Memo Caltrans Approval
Relocation Impact Study Caltrans Approval
Relocation Impact Report Caltrans Approval
Land Use and
Community Impacts
Check one:

CIA Caltrans Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Construction/Encroachment
on State Lands
Check as applicable:

SLC Jurisdiction SLC SLC Lease
Caltrans Jurisdiction Caltrans Encroachment Permit
SP Jurisdiction SP Encroachment Permit
Construction/Encroachment
on Federal Lands
Federal Agency with
Jurisdiction
Encroachment Permit
Construction/Encroachment
On Indian Trust Lands
Bureau of Indian Affairs Right of Way Permit
Farmlands
Check one:

CIA Caltrans Approval
Technical Memorandum Caltrans Approval
Discussion in ED Only Caltrans Approval
Check as applicable:

Form AD 1006 NRCS Approves Conversion
CDOC Approves Conversion
Conversion to Non-Agri Use ACOE
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 7 of 14 ends

January 2021
B. Required Technical Studies
and Analyses
C. Coordination D. Anticipated Actions/Permits/
Approvals
Cultural Resources
(PQS completes this section)
Caltrans PQS Screened Undertaking
APE Map Caltrans PQS and DLAE Approves APE Map
Local Preservation Groups
and/or Native American
Tribes
Provides Comments Regarding Concerns
with Project
HPSR Caltrans Approves for Consultation
ASR
HRER
Finding of Effect Report Caltrans Concurs on No Effect, No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions
SHPO Letter of Concurrence on Eligibility, No
Adverse Effect without Standard
MOA Caltrans Conditions, Adverse Effect Approves MOA
SHPO Approves MOA
ACHP (if requested) Approves MOA
Permits
Copies of permits and a list of ACOE Section 404 Nationwide Permit mitigation commitments are ACOE Section 404 Individual Permit mandatory submittals following Caltrans/ACOE/EPA NEPA/404 Integration MOU NEPA approval. USFWS
NOAA Fisheries
ACOE Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit
USCG USCG Bridge Permit
RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification
CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement
RWQCB NPDES Permit
CCC Coastal Zone Permit
Local Agency
BCDC BCDC Permit
Notes: Additional studies may be required for other federal agencies.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 8 of 14 ends

January 2021
ACHP = Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACOE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADL = Aerially Deposited Lead
APE = Area of Potential Effect
APN = Assessor Parcel Number
ASR = Archaeological Survey Report
BA = Biological Assessment
BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BE = Biological Evaluation
BO = Biological Opinion
Cal EPA = California Environmental Protection Agency
CCC = California Coastal Commission
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOC = California Department of Conservation
CE = Categorical Exclusion
CIA = Community Impact Assessment
CWA = Clean Water Act
DLAE = District Local Assistance Engineer
DOI = U.S. Department of Interior
DTSC = Department of Toxic Substances Control
EA = Environmental Assessment
ED = Environmental Document
EFH = Essential Fish Habitat
EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
FONSI = Finding of No Significant Impacted
FTIP = Federal Transportation Improvement Program
HPSR = Historic Property Survey Report
HRER = Historical Resources Evaluation Report
HUD = U.S. Housing and Urban Development
MOA = Memorandum of Agreement
MSA = Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
NADR = Noise Abatement Decision Report
NES = Natural Environment Study
NHPA = National Historic Preservation Act
NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS = National Park Service
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service
PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 Microns in Diameter or Less PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns in Diameter or Less PMP = Project Management Plan
PQS = Professionally Qualified Staff
ROD = Record of Decision
RTIP = Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP = Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board
SER = Standard Environmental Reference
SEP = Senior Environmental Planner
SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer
SLC = State Lands Commission
SP = State Parks
TIP = Transportation Improvement Program
USCG = U.S. Coast Guard
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WD = Wetland Delineation
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 9 of 14 ends

January 2021
E. Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) Based on the evaluation of the project, the environmental document to be developed should be:

Check one:

Environmental Impact Statement (Note: Engagement with participating agencies in accordance with 23 USC 139 required) Compliance with 23 USC 139 regarding Participating Agencies required Complex Environmental Assessment
Routine Environmental Assessment
Categorical Exclusion without required technical studies.

Categorical Exclusion with required technical studies
(if Categorical Exclusion is selected, check one of the following):

Section 23 USC 326
23 CFR 771 activity (c)( )
23 CFR 771 activity (d) ( )
Activity listed in the Section 23 USC 326
Section 23 USC 327
F. Public Availability and Public Hearing
Check as applicable:

Not Required
Notice of Availability of Environmental Document
Public Meeting
Notice of Opportunity for a Public Hearing
Public Hearing Required
G. Signatures
Local Agency Staff and/or Consultant Signature
(Signature of Preparer) (Date) (Telephone No.)
(Name)
Local Agency Project Engineer Signature
This document was prepared under my supervision, according to the Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Exhibit 6-B, “Instructions for Completing the Preliminary Environmental Study Form.” (Signature of Local Agency) (Date) (Telephone No.)
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 10 of 14 ends

January 2021
Caltrans District Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS) Signature Project does not meet definition of an “undertaking”; no further review is necessary under Section 106 (“No” Section A, #35).

Project is limited to the type of activity listed in Attachment 2 of the Section 106 PA and based on the information provided in the PES Form, the project does not have the potential to affect historic properties (“No” Section A, #35).

Project is limited to the type of activity listed in Attachment 2 of the Section 106 PA, but the following additional procedures or information is needed to determine the potential for effect (“To Be Determined” Section A, #35):

Records Search
Project meets the definition of an “undertaking”; all properties in the project area are exempt from evaluation per Attachment 4 of the Section 106 PA (“No” Section A, #35).

The proposed undertaking is considered to have the potential to affect historic properties; further studies for 106 compliance are indicated in Sections B, C, and D of this PES Form (“Yes” Section A, #35). (Signature of Professionally Qualified Staff) (Date) (Telephone No.) The following signatures are required for all CEs, routine and complex EAs, and EISs:

Caltrans District Senior Environmental Planner (or Designee) and DLAE Signatures I have reviewed this Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form and determined that the submittal is complete and sufficient. I concur with the studies to be performed and the recommended NEPA Class of Action. (Signature of Senior Environmental Planner or Designee) (Date) (Telephone No.) (Name)
(Signature of District Local Assistance Engineer or Designee) (Date) (Telephone No.) (Name)
HQ DEA Environmental Coordinator concurrence ________________________. Email concurrence attached. (date)
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 11 of 14 ends

January 2021
Preliminary Environmental Investigation
Notes to Support the Conclusions of the PES Form
(May Also Include Continuation of Detailed Project Description) Brief Explanation of How Project Complies, or Will Comply with Applicable Federal Mandate (Part A):

1. Will the project require future construction to fully utilize the design capabilities included in the proposed project? No, the project does not require future construction to fully utilize the design capabilities of the proposed project. The Truxel Road Bridge project will be functionally independent of any future City of Sacramento projects.

2. Will the project generate public controversy? Yes. Controversial issues are focused on safety and environmental impacts to the American River. Thorough public outreach and coordination will be conducted throughout the design phase of the project.

3. Is the project a Type I project as defined in 23 CFR 772.5(h); “construction on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes”? Yes, the proposed project is constructing the Truxel bridge at a new location and is therefore a Type I project as defined in 23 CFR 772.5(h). There are multiple residences within 500 feet of the proposed bridge location. A Noise Study Report will be prepared to assess the project’s potential effects on future noise conditions and to evaluate temporary construction impacts and local noise ordinances. Based on the Noise Study Report, if noise impacts warrant abatement, a Noise Abatement Decision Report would be required.

4. Does the project have the potential for adverse construction-related noise impact (such as related to pile driving)? Yes, a Noise Study Report will be prepared to assess the project’s potential effects on future noise conditions and to evaluate temporary construction impacts and local noise ordinances. Construction of the proposed project will involve pile driving. However, construction related noise impacts will be limited in duration. Based on the Noise Study Report, if noise impacts warrant abatement, a Noise Abatement Decision Report would be required.

5. Is the project in a NAAQS non-attainment or maintenance area? Yes, the City of Sacramento is in a NAAQS non-attainment area for Ozone and Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5).

6. Is the project exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made? (If “Yes,” state which conformity exemption per 40 CFR 93.126, Table 2 applies): No, as none of the exemptions in 40 CFR 93.126 Table 2 apply, the project is not exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made.

7. Is the project exempt from regional conformity? (If “Yes,” state which conformity exemption in 40 CFR

93.127, Table 3 applies): No, as none of the exemptions in 40 CFR 93.127 Table 3 apply, the project is not exempt from regional conformity.

8. If project is not exempt (that is, if “No” on Question #6 and Question #7) a project-level conformity determination is required. The project-level conformity determination would include both the regional emissions analysis and a hot spot analysis (in PM2.5, PM10 and CO nonattainment or maintenance areas).

The project is listed in the conforming 2023 SACOG MTP/SCS (Truxel Bridge (SAC24539)) and therefore meets regional conformity requirements for a project level conformity determination. As the project is in a non-attainment area for PM2.5, interagency consultation is needed to determine if the project is a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC). If the project is determined to be a POAQC, a localized hot spot analysis for PM2.5 is required. An Air Quality Report will be prepared and will document potential impacts of the project on air quality, potential avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, and project-level conformity documentation. Additionally, an Air Quality Conformity Analysis, which contains the information that is required to make a project-level air quality conformity determination, will be prepared and submitted to FHWA for FHWA’s conformity determination.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 12 of 14 ends

January 2021

9. Is there potential for hazardous materials (including underground or aboveground tanks, etc.) and/or hazardous waste (including oil/water separators, waste oil, asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, ADL, etc.) within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? To be determined, based on a review of the California Department of Water Resources GeoTracker and the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor databases, there are no hazardous materials/waste sites within the project footprint (see Attachment 3).

However, the project would include improvements along Truxel Road and Sequioa Pacific Boulevard and could result in removal of yellow thermoplastic pavement markings and other types or colors of street or municipal markings containing lead-based paint from the existing roadways. There is also potential for aerially deposited lead (ADL) to be present in soils adjacent to Garden Highway and existing roadways. The Hazardous Waste Phase 1 Initial Site Assessment will further evaluate the potential for hazardous materials/waste concerns related to construction of the proposed project.

10. Does the project have the potential to impact water resources (rivers, streams, bays, inlets, lakes, drainage sloughs) within or immediately adjacent to the project area? Yes, the proposed project crosses the American River. A Water Quality Assessment Report will be prepared to evaluate potential impacts to water resources and water quality and identify Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize and avoid water quality impacts. Work within the American River will require regulatory permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Valley Flood Board, and the Coast Guard. See Section B for a list of permits required for the project.

11. Is the project within a designated sole-source aquifer? No, designated sole-source aquifers in California are in the counties of Fresno, Santa Cruz, San Diego, and Imperial. The project is in the City of Sacramento.

12. Is the project within the State Coastal Zone, San Francisco Bay, or Suisun Marsh? No, the project is not within the State Coastal Zone, San Francisco Bay, or Suisun Marsh. The proposed site is located in City of Sacramento and is roughly 70 miles inland. See Attachment 1 for Location and Vicinity map.

13. Is the construction area located within a regulatory floodway or within the base floodplain (100-year) elevation of a watercourse or lake? Yes, the proposed project location occurs within Zone AE, which indicates floodway areas, and Zone A99, which indicates a 1% annual chance of flooding that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. The project also occurs within Zone X, area with reduced flood risk due to levee. A Location Hydraulic Study, Floodplain Evaluation Report, and Summary Floodplain Encroachment Report will be prepared to analyze impacts of the new bridge on the floodplain. An encroachment permit from the Central Valley Flood Board will be obtained prior to construction. A FEMA Map, which includes the FEMA map number, has been included in Attachment 1 to this PES form.

14. Is the project within or immediately adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River System? Yes, the American River (Lower), from Nimbus Dam to Sacramento River confluence, is a nationally designated wild and scenic recreational river. The proposed project is located in this segment of the American River. The Visual Impact Assessment prepared for this project will evaluate if the construction or operation of the project will affect this segment of the American River. Additionally, the Discovery Park Area Plan Map in the American River Parkway Plan would need to be amended. Last, since the Project is a nationally designated wild and scenic recreational river, it is subject to Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and will need to be evaluated under the “direct and adverse effect” standard listed in the Technical Report of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. This evaluation will be documented in a Wild and Scenic Rivers Study. Coordination with the River Managing Agencies (Sacramento County Regional Parks and California Resources Agency) for the Lower American River is required as part of this process.

15. Is there a potential for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat or essential fish habitat to occur within or adjacent to the construction area? Yes, the project will impact the American River, which is considered Critical Habitat for the Chinook salmon, California Central Valley Steelhead, and the Green sturgeon. The project will also impact the American River riparian corridor, sections of which are considered Critical Habitat for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The closest is approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the project. Lastly, western pond turtle, which is proposed for listing as federally threatened, has the potential to occur within the project area. The species list retrieved from USFWS and NMFS lists potential species of concern in relation to the proposed project (see Attachment 4). A single Natural Environment Study (NES) and separate Biological Assessments for USFWS and NMFS will be prepared to document the potential impacts to biological resources and federally threatened or endangered species.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 13 of 14 ends

January 2021

16. Does the project have the potential to directly or indirectly affect migratory birds, or their nests or eggs (such as vegetation removal, box culvert replacement/repair, bridge work, etc.)? Yes, tree and vegetation removal will occur as part of this project. Bird exclusionary devices, if required, will be installed prior to the nesting season. Due to the presence of vegetation within and adjacent to the identified limits of disturbance for the proposed project, there is the potential for impacts to native nesting birds during construction activities. The requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will be addressed in the environmental document, as well as in the NES.

17. Is there a potential for wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the construction area? Yes, a qualified biologist will conduct a wetland delineation to confirm the limits of aquatic resources within the project area. A Wetland Assessment will be prepared to discuss results of the wetland delineation and will quantify project related impacts.

18. Is there a potential for agricultural wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the construction area? No, according to the National Wetland Inventory Map, no agricultural wetlands are anticipated to occur within or adjacent to the project area.

19. Is there a potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plant species? Yes, construction equipment traveling in and out of the project area, and ground disturbing construction activities would increase the potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plant species. BMPs will be specified in the NES to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of invasive plant species.

20. Are there any historic sites or publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges (Section 4[f]) within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? Yes, the Two Rivers Bike Trail, Jedediah Smith Trail, American River Parkway, and Discovery Park are located either within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Additionally, the following historic sites, which qualify as Section 4(f) resources, are located within the project: Natomas East Main Drain / historic levees and Delta Tribal Cultural Landscape. A Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation will be prepared and will appropriately document minimization effort to the Section 4(f) resources within or adjacent to the project.

21. Does the project have the potential to affect properties acquired or improved with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6[f]) funds? No. According to the LWCF project map, which tacks information on projects funded through LWCF over the program’s history, there are multiple LWCF funded projects within the American River Parkway. However, after coordinating with the Director of Sacramento County Regional Parks, the closest LWCF funded parcel (APN 274-0050-020-0000) is outside of the Project vicinity. Thus, the Section 6(f) evaluation process is not anticipated.

22. Does the project have the potential to affect any visual or scenic resources? Yes. There are various visual and scenic resources within the project area, such as the Lower American River, which is a nationally designated wild and scenic recreational river. Construction of the project will introduce a new bridge across the American River and require vegetation removal; therefore, impacts to the visual environment are anticipated. To assess how these changes could impact viewer groups in the project vicinity, a Visual Impact Assessment Advanced Report will be prepared. A Caltrans format Questionnaire to Determine Visual Impact Assessment Level has been completed which resulted in a preliminary score of 39 (Attachment 6).

23. Will the project require the relocation of residential or business properties? To be determined, construction of the project may result in the relocation of the CalOES building, located at 630 Sequoia Pacific Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95811. If it is determined that the CalOES building will be relocated, a Relocation Impact Report will be prepared.

24. Will the project require any right of way, including partial or full takes? Yes, the proposed project would require sliver takes for right of way acquisition along with temporary construction easements (TCEs). Full acquisitions may be necessary.

25. Is the project inconsistent with plans and goals adopted by the community? No, the project is consistent with plans and goals adopted by the community by providing a multi-modal crossing across the Lower American River.

The following plans address the need for a new crossing over the Lower American River: Sacramento 2040 General Plan, River Direct Specific Plan, Sacramento Railyards Specific Plan, City of Sacramento Bicycle Master Plan, City of Sacramento Pedestrian Master Plan, American River Parkway Plan, 2023 SACOG MTP/SCS.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 6-A
Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Page 14 of 14 ends

January 2021

26. Does the project have the potential to divide or disrupt neighborhoods/communities? To be determined.

Currently, there limited crossings across the Lower American River. The proposed project will construct a multi modal bridge which will create greater connectivity from South Natomas to the Central City, allowing for better mobility within the area. A Community Impact Assessment will be prepared to identify impacts to neighborhoods/communities.

27. Does the project have the potential to disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations? To be determined. It is anticipated that the proposed project will benefit low-income and minority populations. The Truxel Bridge will serve disadvantaged and low-income communities as identified under the CalEPA SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities website, California Climate Investments, and under CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicators.

The proposed project will provide access to more opportunities on foot, by bicycle, and transit. Additionally, the Truxel Bridge will catalyze development in the River District and the Railyards District which will provide easily accessible job opportunities in over 800,000 square feet of planned commercial development and over 3 million square feet of planned office development. A Community Impact Assessment will be prepared to assess impacts to low-income and minority populations.

28. Will the project require the relocation of public utilities? To be determined, utilities within the project area may require relocation as part of the project.

29. Will the project affect access to properties or roadways? To be determined, road closures may be necessary throughout construction and may impact access to some properties/roadways. However, these closures will be short in duration and there will be coordination with residents and businesses impacted by these closures. A Community Impact Assessment will be prepared to evaluate whether the will project affect access to properties or roadways.

30. Will the project involve changes in access control to the State Highway System (SHS)? No. The proposed project would not result in a change in access control as no SHS facilities would be impacted by the proposed project.

31. Will the project involve the use of a temporary road, detour, or ramp closure? To be determined, detours may be necessary throughout construction. A Community Impact Assessment will be prepared to discuss if any detours are necessary.

32. Will the project reduce available parking? No, the proposed project would not reduce available parking as no parking is currently provided within the project limits.

33. Will the project construction encroach on state or federal lands? No, the project does not encroach on state or federal lands. The project area comprises private properties, City owned parcels, and County owned parcels.

34. Will the project convert any farmland to a different use or impact any farmlands? No. According to the California Important Farmland Finder, there is no farmland within the vicinity of the project. As such, the project would not require any permanent conversion of any farmland.

35. Is there National Register listed, or potentially eligible historic properties, or archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? Yes, the Project falls within the boundaries of the Delta Tribal Cultural Landscape and the Lower American River Tribal Cultural Landscape. Furthermore, potentially eligible resources including river levees and the Natomas East Main Drian. Caltrans cultural staff will make the final determinations regarding these resources.

36. Is the project adjacent to, or would it encroach on Tribal Land? No. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are no known tribal lands or reservations within or adjacent to the project area. (https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/ca_tribe.html)
Continuation of Detailed Project Description: N/A
Distribution 1) Original - DLAE, 2) Local Agency Project Manager, 3) DLA Environmental Coordinator 4) Senior Environmental Planner (or designee), 5) District PQS Attachment 1
Regional Map, Project Location Map, Project
Footprint Map, FEMA Map
I
0 5 10 15
Miles
Source: ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering7/15/2024; Created By: ahale

Y O L O

S A C R A M E N T O

S O L A N O

P L A C E R

S U T T E R

S A N J O A Q U I N

C O L U S A

E L D O R A D O

Y U B A
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
§¨¦505
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦5
£¤50
£¤50
UV160
UV99
UV84
UV113
UV16
UV45
UV104
UV193
UV12
UV65
UV70
UV128
UV49
UV88
UV99 UV49
UV16
UV99
UV12
UV113
UV70
UV65
UV49
UV99
UV99
UV12
UV113
UV113
AAuubbuurrnn SSttaattee RReeccrreeaattiioonn AArreeaa
FFoollssoomm LLaakkee SSttaattee RReecc AArreeaa
OOlldd SSaaccrraammeennttoo SSttaattee HHiissttoorriicc PPaarrkk WWooooddllaanndd OOppeerraa HHoouussee SSttaattee HHiissttoorriicc PPaarrkk V:\3069_Truxel_Concept_Feasibility\F1_Vicinity.mxd
FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California

PACIFIC
OCEAN
Sacramento
County
CA
NV
AZ
UT
OR ID
^_
Project Location
¨¦§5
¨¦§5
Garden Hwy
Truxel R
d
Richards Blvd
W El Camino Ave
Jibboom
St
Richards Blvd
Garden Hwy
W El Camino Ave
N 10th
St
N
7th
St
Erin
Dr
N B St
N
5th
St
St
Azusa St
Brewerton Dr
Millcreek
Dr
Bannon St
Aze
ve
d
o
Dr
Hawk Ave
Bercut
Dr
M
orell St
Dos
Rios
St
Fairweather Dr
Aquino Dr
Dorin
e
Way
N
3rd
St
Athena Ave
Sto
n
e
cre
e
k
Dr
Natomas
Park
Dr
Thelma A
ve
Waterwheel Dr
Vine St
Mint St
Greenlea Ave
Seamist Dr
Primo Way
River City
Way
Sandcastle Way
Jibbo
o
m
St
Chief Ct
Brunswick Way
N D St
C
a
pitol O
a
k
s
Dr
Helmsman Way
Seq
uoia
Pacific
Blvd
Derow Ct
Prestwick Ct
Virgil Ct
St
St
St
St
Bercut Dr
American River
First Bannon Slough
Discovery Park American River
Parkway
Northgate Park
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200
Feet
I
Source: ESRI World Street Maps Online; Dokken Engineering 9/24/2024; Created By: ahale Project Location
FIGURE 2
Project Location
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California
Document Path: V:\3069_Truxel_
Concept_Feasibility\F2_Location.mxd
¨¦§5
¨¦§5
Garden Hwy
Richards Blvd
Truxel R
d
Bercut Dr
Azusa St
N
5th
St
Vine St
N 10th
St
N
3rd
St
N
7th
St
N
ato
m
a
s
P
ark
Dr
Levee
Rd
M
orell St
Jibboom
St
Sandcastle Way
Seq
uoia
Pacific
Blvd
Helmsman Way
Capital Park Dr
River Plaza Dr
Thelma A
ve
Creekside Oaks Dr
FIGURE 3
Project Footprint
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California
Source: ESRI Maps Online; Dokken Engineering 9/24/2024; Created By: ahale V:\3069_Truxel_Concept_Feasibility\F3_Project Features.mxd I 0 550 1,100 1,650 2,200 2,750
Feet
1 inch = 550 feet
Truxel Preliminary Study Area
Parcels
Garden Hwy
W El Camino Ave
Truxel R
d
Richards Blvd Richards Blvd
Bercut Dr
N
5th
St
Azusa St
Hawk Ave
N
3rd
St
N 10th
St
Millcreek Dr
N
7th
St
Thelma Ave
Waterwheel Dr
Greenlea Ave
Seamist Dr
Sandcastle Way
N
ato
m
a
s
P
ark
Dr
Creekside Oaks Dr
Reiner Way
Apartment Rd
Tide Ct
0 430 860 1,290 1,720
Feet
I
Source: ESRI World Street Maps Online; Dokken Engineering 9/24/2024; Created By: ahale Truxel Preliminary Study Area
High-Risk Areas: Special Flood Hazard Area
Zone AE, Floodway
Zone A99
Other Areas of Flood Hazard
X, Area with reduced flood risk due to levee
FIGURE 4
FEMA Map
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California
Document Path: V:\3069_Truxel_Concept_Feasibility\PES\FEMA.mxd FEMA FIRM ID: 06067C
Attachment 2
Engineering
Drawings
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200

FEASIBILITY STUDY

BRIDGE CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
ALT 1
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
SHLD/
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
SHLD/
6'
SW
81'
ALT 1
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BIKE

1.5'
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BIKE
6'
SW

1.5'
84'

SEQUOIA PACIFIC BLVD

ON BRIDGE
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
ALT 1
VAR
3'-18'
6'
SW
8'
Shld
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
8'
Shld
CL
58 ALT 2

SEQUOIA PACIFIC BLVD
ALT 2

ON BRIDGE
CL
MPP
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
2'
Shld Shld
12' 8' 8'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
69'
1'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
ALT 2
VAR
3'-18'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
12'
BL
WAY
2 12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
10'
SW
WAY
2 CL
90'
1'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
2'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
BL
SHLD/
6'
BL
SHLD/
ALT 3

SEQUOIA PACIFIC BLVD
ALT 3

ON BRIDGE
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
ALT 3
VAR
3'-18'
N 5TH ST

TRUXEL RD NORTH TRUXEL RD NORTH TRUXEL RD NORTH
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
SHLD/
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
SHLD/
6'
SW
81'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BIKE

1.5'
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BIKE
6'
SW

1.5'
84'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST
GARDEN
HW
Y

CONNECTION
TRAIL
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1"=400'

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
KEEP
CLEAR
CLEAR
KEEP
6'
SW
8'
Shld
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
8'
Shld
CL
58 TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
MPP
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
2'
Shld Shld
12' 8' 8'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
69'
1'
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 2

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
BL
SHLD/
6'
BL
SHLD/
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
12'
BL
WAY
2 12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
10'
SW
WAY
2 CL
90'
1'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 3

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
Attachment 3
Geotracker and
Envirostor Printout

Attachment 4

USFWS & NMFS
Species List
07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2024-0110948
Project Name: Truxel Road Bridge Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
2 of 8
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
3 of 8
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
4 of 8

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2024-0110948
Project Name: Truxel Road Bridge Project
Project Type: Bridge - New Construction
Project Description: New bridge over the American River Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@38.6054371,-121.49645563176959,14z Counties: Sacramento County, California
Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
5 of 8

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
6 of 8
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5945
Endangered

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482
Threatened
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened
FISHES

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened
Longfin Smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys
Population: San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9011
Proposed
Endangered

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
7 of 8

NAME STATUS
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Project code: 2024-0110948 07/01/2024 18:38:52 UTC
8 of 8

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Dokken Engineering
Name: Jeffrey Harris
Address: 110 Blue Ravine Rd #200
City: Folsom
State: CA
Zip: 95630
Email [email protected]
Phone: 9167651015
Quad Name Sacramento East
Quad Number 38121-E4
ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) -
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) - X
NC Steelhead DPS (T) -
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) - X
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X
ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - X
ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -
ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -
ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -
ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -
ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -
Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH -
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -
MMPA Species (See list at left)
ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
Thank you,
Jeff Harris
Biologist/Environmental Planner
Dokken Engineering
Phone: 916.858.0642
Email: [email protected]
110 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 200 | Folsom, CA
95630
www.dokkenengineering.com
Attachment 5
Current Photos
Photo 1. View of buildings along Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, facing south (08/07/2023) Photo 2. View of the American River within the project area, facing north (08/07/2023) Photo 3. View of the Two Rivers Trail within the project area, facing west (08/07/2023) Photo 4. View the American River (upstream) within the project area, facing northeast (08/07/2023) Photo 5. View the American River (downstream) within the project area, facing northeast (08/07/2023) Attachment 6
VIA Questionnaire

Attachment 7
SACOG 2023 MTP/SCS Listing

Attachment P. Hydraulics Memo

Preliminary
Hydraulic Study
Report
October 2024

This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report
October 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................iii

1.1 Background............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Project Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Need .......................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Stakeholder Coordination....................................................................................... 5

2.2 Hydrology............................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Hydraulic Criteria ................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Existing Condition .................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Proposed Conditions.............................................................................................. 7

2.6 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Long Term Aggradation/Degradation................................................................... 11

3.2 Localized Scour ................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 12 List of Tables
Table 1. WSEL Summary in LAR Channel...................................................................... 8 Table 2. Proposed vs Existing WSEL Difference in LAR Channel .................................. 8 Table 3. WSEL Summary in Discovery Park ................................................................... 8 Table 4. Proposed vs Existing WSEL Difference in Discovery Park................................ 9 Table 5. FEMA / CVFPB / USACE / USCG Freeboard Analysis ..................................... 9 Table 6. Velocity Summary ........................................................................................... 10 List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity……………………………………………………………...……………….2 Figure 2. Project Location....................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Bridge Cross Section Alternatives …...………………………………………………...4 Appendices
Appendix A. Truxel Bridge Advanced Planning Study (APS) Appendix B. Truxel Bridge Alternatives 1-3 Exhibits
Appendix C. FEMA Flood Map

Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study
October 2024

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report
Submitted To:

City of Sacramento
This report has been prepared by or under the supervision of the following Registered Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based.

Ashley Orsaba-Finders, PE
Registered Civil Engineer
Date
Executive Summary
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study
October 2024 iii
Executive Summary
The City of Sacramento proposes to construct a multi-modal bridge connecting Truxel Road to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard across the American River. In 2013, the City prepared the American River Crossing Study to evaluate optional alignments to cross the American River. Eight alignments were prepared and studied, with Alignment 3 (the Truxel Road alignment) ultimately selected as the preferred alternative.

The proposed project aims to construct a multimodal bridge over the Lower American River (LAR), enhancing pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle, and public transit options in line with the City of Sacramento’s Neighborhood Friendly Bridge Policy. This bridge will improve connectivity between the Central City and South Natomas, facilitate better access to resources and commerce, provide additional evacuation and emergency response routes, and enhance recreational access to the American River Parkway.

The purpose of this Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report is to summarize anticipated hydraulic impacts from the construction of the Truxel Bridge across the LAR. The report also summarizes the potential scour anticipated for the project.

The LAR Floodway is comprised of the LAR channel, Discovery Park, and Steelhead Creek. The 2024 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) specifies a 100-year flow rate of 157,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the LAR channel, while the Central Valley Hydrology Study (CVHS) provides a 200-year flow rate of 160,000 cfs. The CVHS flowrate is also the maximum authorized flow out of Folsom Lake. Therefore, the slightly higher CVHS 200-year flow rate will be used as the primary inflow for the LAR channel to ensure that freeboard requirements are met. Steelhead Creek has a separate, independent flow of approximately 4,200 cfs for the 200-year storm. Both the LAR channel and Steelhead Creek overtop to contribute flow to Discovery Park.

The hydraulic analysis was performed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). An existing 2-dimensional model prepared by CBEC for other LAR projects was used as the existing condition and modified to include the bridge as the proposed condition. The hydraulic analysis shows small increases in water surface elevation (WSEL) upstream/downstream of the proposed Truxel Bridge for the Central Valley 200-year WSEL between the existing and proposed conditions.

The hydraulic results for the proposed project indicate a rise in both WSEL and velocity. The WSEL increase ranges from 0.13 to 0.14 feet upstream of the bridge, while the velocity increase ranges from 2.2 to 2.3 feet per second (fps) within 100 feet downstream, with maximum velocities approaching 9 fps. As the LAR is categorized as a FEMA designated floodway, a Letter of Map Amendment will be required to be processed through FEMA for the project.

These changes necessitate mitigation measures to address potential scour and ensure the integrity of the bridge, banks, and levees. The proposed bridge meets all governing agencies freeboard requirements, including those from FEMA and USACE. However, the north levee freeboard is approximately half a foot below the required additional foot of freeboard within 100 feet of the bridge. Since the soffit of the Truxel Bridge will need to clear the north levee, the Truxel Road/Garden Highway intersection will be raised, necessitating the raising of Garden Highway to match. The additional elevation of Garden Highway will provide the required freeboard along the north levee for the segment that is 100 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge.

Chapter 1. Introduction
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 1
October 2024
Introduction

1.1 Background
The City of Sacramento proposes to construct a multi-modal bridge connecting Truxel Road to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard across the American River (Figure 1. Project Vicinity and Figure 2.

Project Location). In 2013, the City prepared the American River Crossing Study to evaluate optional alignments to cross the American River. Eight alignments were prepared and studied, with Alignment 3 (the Truxel Road alignment) ultimately selected as the preferred alternative.

Dokken Engineering (Dokken) was selected to complete a feasibility study for the Truxel Road alignment, evaluating various engineering and environmental constraints. Ultimately, three alternatives were developed and analyzed for the project (Figure 3: Bridge Cross Section Alternatives). For plan and profile view exhibits of the three alternatives refer to Appendix B.

The Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report is intended to document the qualitative analysis of anticipated hydraulic impacts to water surface elevation, scour, and freeboard.

1.2 Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed Project is to:
• Provide a crossing of the LAR for all modes of transportation which will increase the ability of the community to walk, bike, and utilize public transit as an alternative to driving while being in compliance with the City of Sacramento’s Neighborhood Friendly Bridge Policy. • Improve connectivity across the LAR between the Central City and South Natomas for all modes of travel in order to enhance accessibility to resources, jobs, commerce, and social exchanges.
• Increase evacuation and emergency/disaster response options for Central City and South Natomas residents and businesses.
• Enhance recreational access to the American River Parkway from both banks of the LAR for pedestrians and cyclists.

1.3 Project Need
The proposed Project addresses the following needs:
• The LAR creates a barrier to mobility that causes longer trip lengths for relatively close origins and destinations which discourages walking and bicycling, leads to a dependence on automobiles, and creates inefficient transit routing. These transportation system limitations lead to negative effects on public health.
• The LAR creates a barrier to economic activity, social exchanges, and job access between the Central City and South Natomas. In addition, lack of direct connection between the Central City and South Natomas diminishes the viability of development that has been planned and approved in the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, the River District Specific Plan, and the Sacramento Railyards Specific Plan.
• Limited connectivity across the LAR contributes to longer emergency/disaster response times and limits evacuation alternatives.
• Limited options for access to recreational facilities reduces opportunities to utilize the LAR Parkway, especially for those walking and biking.

I
0 5 10 15
Miles
Source: ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering7/15/2024; Created By: ahale

Y O L O

S A C R A M E N T O

S O L A N O

P L A C E R

S U T T E R

S A N J O A Q U I N

C O L U S A

E L D O R A D O

Y U B A
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
§¨¦505
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
§¨¦5
£¤50
£¤50
UV160
UV99
UV84
UV113
UV16
UV45
UV104
UV193
UV12
UV65
UV70
UV128
UV49
UV88
UV99 UV49
UV16
UV99
UV12
UV113
UV70
UV65
UV49
UV99
UV99
UV12
UV113
UV113
Auburn State Recreation Area
Folsom Lake State Rec Area
Old Sacramento State Historic Park
Woodland Opera House State Historic Park
V:\3069_Truxel_Concept_Feasibility\F1_Vicinity.mxd
FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California

FEASIBILITY STUDY

BRIDGE CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
ALT 1
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
SHLD/
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
SHLD/
6'
SW
81'
ALT 1
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BIKE

1.5'
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BIKE
6'
SW

1.5'
84'

SEQUOIA PACIFIC BLVD

ON BRIDGE
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
ALT 1
VAR
3'-18'
6'
SW
8'
Shld
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
8'
Shld
CL
58 ALT 2

SEQUOIA PACIFIC BLVD
ALT 2

ON BRIDGE
CL
MPP
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
2'
Shld Shld
12' 8' 8'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
69'
1'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
ALT 2
VAR
3'-18'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
12'
BL
WAY
2 12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
10'
SW
WAY
2 CL
90'
1'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
2'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
BL
SHLD/
6'
BL
SHLD/
ALT 3

SEQUOIA PACIFIC BLVD
ALT 3

ON BRIDGE
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
ALT 3
VAR
3'-18'
N 5TH ST

TRUXEL RD NORTH TRUXEL RD NORTH TRUXEL RD NORTH
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
Chapter 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 5
October 2024

2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
The hydraulic analysis of the proposed Truxel Bridge was performed using HEC-RAS. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the effects of the proposed Truxel Bridge on WSELs, velocities, and scour depths of the bridge foundations.

2.1 Stakeholder Coordination
This section summarizes the Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) stakeholder coordination that has taken place to date. On September 27, 2023, a project meeting was held between Dokken Engineering, City of Sacramento, Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), USACE, and American River Flood Control District (ARFCD). The following H&H topics were discussed:
• CVFPB confirmed that this project will need to meet Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC). • CVFPB provided a 200-year flow rate of 160,000 cfs which is the maximum authorized flow out of Folsom Lake and recommended that this project be designed for these maximum flows.
• CVFPB confirmed that their freeboard requirement is consistent with the USACE O&M manual and that the current levees meet this requirement. • A key goal of this project is to avoid increasing the WSEL. CVFPB has confirmed that WSEL increases of 0.1 feet or less fall within the threshold tolerance of the modeling effort and are not considered a violation of their criteria.
• CVFPB provided typical mitigation for a rise in WSEL which consists of improving the flow within the channel (e.g., improvements to the topography so the river can flow more efficiently) and keeping abutments out of the floodway. • CVFPB requires all new structures near the project site to have low chords set at or above the adjacent levees.
• CVFPB confirmed that the ongoing levee projects will not be raising the levees within our project area and that the current levees at the project area meet the ULDC and are adequate to protect against the peak releases from Folsom Lake.

On July 02, 2024, a meeting between Dokken and ARFCD was held. The following topics were discussed:
• After reviewing the alternatives and profiles, ARFCD expressed concerns regarding the clearance between the top of the south levee and the bottom of the proposed bridge due to potential maintenance issues. The clearance requirement, as specified in Title 23, ensures that sufficient space is available for the maintenance team to perform routine activities such as mowing the levee access road.
• Dokken stated that raising the proposed bridge profile to meet the clearance requirements would present challenges, particularly due to the need to extend the conforming limits, which could impact adjacent areas and project scope.
• Alternatives were discussed to eliminate the need for maintenance under the bridge.

Ultimately, it was decided that Dokken will place fill under the bridge at the south levee, and the new maintenance access will be relocated to the land side of the levee beneath the bridge.
• ARFCD confirmed that placing fill under the proposed bridge will require pushing the landside of the south levee out with 2:1 side slopes.

Chapter 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 6
October 2024

2.2 Hydrology
The LAR Floodway is comprised of the LAR channel, Discovery Park, and Steelhead Creek.

According to the 2024 FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS), a 100-year storm event in the LAR channel has a flow rate of 157,000 cfs. No flow data for a 200-year storm event was available in the FIS, so it was sourced from the Central Valley Hydrology Study (CVHS), which specifies a 160,000 cfs flow rate for this event. Given that the CVHS 200-year event is also the maximum allowable flow rate out of Folsom Lake and only slightly higher than FEMA’s 100-year flow, it will serve as the primary inflow for the LAR channel and will be used to ensure that freeboard requirements are met.

Steelhead Creek, which flows parallel to LAR on the north side of Discovery Park, has a 200-year flow of approximately 4,200 cfs. Both the LAR channel and Steelhead Creek overtop to contribute flow to Discovery Park.

2.3 Hydraulic Criteria
The Truxel Bridge Project is located within the LAR levee system and is required to meet FEMA, CVFPB, USACE and USCG design requirements. See below for the required design criteria from each agency:

FEMA: Levee’s must have a minimum freeboard of three feet above the water-surface level of the 100-year storm event. An additional one foot above the minimum is required within 100 feet on either side of structures (such as bridges) riverward of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted.

CVFPB: Bridges must have a minimum of three (3) feet of freeboard above the design 200-year flood plain. Levees within one hundred feet of a bridge, or other structure which may constrict floodflows, must have one foot of additional freeboard.

USACE: A minimum levee freeboard of three feet above the water-surface level of the 100-year base flood. An additional one foot above the minimum is required within 100 feet on either side of structures (such as bridges) riverward of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted.

USCG: Bridges must have 10 feet of vertical clearance above the design flow elevation of 37.4± feet (USACE SACRIVERBASIN G4 NAVD88 datum) to the lowest hittable portion of the bridge.

As mentioned in Section 2.2, the 200-year flow was used as the baseline for this preliminary analysis, in lieu of the 100-year event, to assess compliance with the above criteria.

2.4 Existing Condition
Dokken Engineering received a 2D HEC-RAS model from CBEC on October 24, 2023, which analyzed the lower 14 River Miles (RMs) of the LAR. This model will serve as the existing condition for the Truxel Bridge Project. This model is an unsteady model which includes hydrographs representing a 100- and 200- year discharge in the LAR.

The 2D hydraulic model encompasses the entire floodway, including the LAR channel, Discovery Park, and Steelhead Creek. The LAR channel flows along the south side of the floodway and is approximately 400 feet wide. Its banks are relatively steep and support significant riparian Chapter 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 7
October 2024
vegetation, including large mature trees, bushes, and shrubs. The channel maintains a constant flow, which is regulated by Folsom Dam, with no significant obstructions aside from manmade structures up- and downstream of the project site. Steelhead Creek flows along the north side of the floodway and is approximately 125 feet wide. Its moderately sloped banks are covered with dense riparian vegetation, consisting of mature trees and thick bushes/shrubs. Supporting a highly urbanized watershed, Steelhead Creek has a constant, year-round flow. Discovery Park lies in the low-lying area between the American River and Steelhead Creek, supporting numerous recreational activities such as biking, fishing, archery, picnicking, and boat launches to the American River. The park also supports significant riparian vegetation, primarily trees, and is designed to flood when the LAR and Steelhead Creek overtop their banks. At the project site, the Lower American River floodway is protected by levees to the north and south. Garden Highway sits atop the northern levee along the north bank of Steelhead Creek and the Two Rivers Bike Trail sits atop the southern levee along the south bank of the American River. Both the Steelhead Creek and LAR channels typically experience the most concentrated floodwaters, resulting in higher velocities and depths. In contrast, the floodway at Discovery Park, features shallower water and lower velocities. See Appendix C for the FEMA flood map.

The model and data are in U.S. customary units. The horizontal projection is NAD83 NSRS 2007 State Plane CA Zone II (US feet) and the vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), feet. Manning’s n values range from 0.03 to 0.07 in the model.

The existing hydraulic conditions of the LAR floodway within the project area are relatively stable.

This section of the LAR floodway experiences backwater effects from the Sacramento River due to its proximity. This area has mild slopes with subcritical flow, and velocities range from 6.4 to

7.2 fps within the LAR floodway. The Froude number in both the LAR channel and Discovery Park is below 0.20, indicating stable conditions without hydraulic jumps. Typical depths in the LAR channel range from 33 to 40 feet, while depths in Steelhead Creek range from 30 to 32 feet, and in Discovery Park, they vary between 7 and 15 feet.

2.5 Proposed Conditions
The proposed HEC-RAS model was created for Alternative 3 of the Truxel Bridge. Alternative 3 was determined to be the most conservative design, featuring a bridge that is 90 feet wide and 2755 feet long. This bridge will consist of three 3-foot diameter piers and sixteen 5-foot diameter piers, with three piers proposed within the LAR channel banks and two within the banks of Steelhead Creek. Piers are modeled to have a semi-circular nose shape. This project will also include a connection to the Jedediah Smith Trail, which is driving the location of the bike/pedestrian path on the bridge. For the purpose of this study, trail connections from both the east and west side of the bridge were modeled. Refer to Appendix A for the Truxel Bridge APS, which also includes the westerly trail connection, and Appendix B for the layout of the easterly connection (Alternative 3b). The hydraulic results summarize the impacts of the project with and without the trail connections. The proposed model utilized the Yarnell equation to calculate WSEL upstream and downstream of the Truxel Bridge. All other model parameters are consistent with the existing conditions modeled by CBEC.

The hydraulic results are reported separately for the Discovery Park and LAR channel portions of the floodway. This separation was necessary because the proposed trail connections are located within Discovery Park, while the bridge spans both Discovery Park and the LAR. To accurately assess the impacts of the trail connections, it was essential to evaluate the entire floodway extents.

Chapter 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 8
October 2024
The results of the HEC-RAS analysis are summarized in the tables below:

Table 1: WSEL Summary in LAR Channel
River Mile (mi) Existing
(ft)
Proposed
(No Trail)
(ft)
Proposed (With Trail -
Westerly Connection)
(ft)
Proposed (With Trail -
Easterly Connection)
(ft)

0.89 37.19 37.32 37.32 37.32

0.87 37.18 37.31 37.31 37.31

0.85 37.16 37.29 37.29 37.29

0.83 37.15 37.28 37.28 37.28

0.81 37.14 37.27 37.27 37.27

0.79 (Bridge) 37.12 37.26 37.26 37.26

0.77 37.09 37.09 37.09 37.09

0.75 37.08 37.07 37.07 37.07

0.73 37.05 37.05 37.05 37.05

0.71 37.03 37.03 37.03 37.03

0.69 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 1. WSEL is reported at the center of the LAR channel, where the impact from the proposed bridge is most evident.

Table 2: Proposed vs Existing WSEL Difference in LAR Channel River Mile (mi)
∆
Proposed
(No Trail)
(ft)
∆
Proposed (With Trail -
Westerly Connection)
(ft)
∆
Proposed (With Trail -
Easterly Connection)
(ft)

0.89 +0.13 +0.13 +0.13

0.87 +0.13 +0.13 +0.13

0.85 +0.13 +0.13 +0.13

0.83 +0.13 +0.13 +0.13

0.81 +0.13 +0.13 +0.13

0.79 (Bridge) +0.14 +0.14 +0.14

0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.75 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 3: WSEL Summary in Discovery Park
River Mile (mi) Existing
(ft)
Proposed
(No Trail)
(ft)
Proposed (With Trail -
Westerly Connection)
(ft)
Proposed (With Trail -
Easterly Connection)
(ft)

0.89 37.15 37.26 37.27 37.27

0.87 37.14 37.24 37.25 37.25

0.85 37.12 37.23 37.23 37.24

0.83 37.11 37.22 37.22 37.23

0.81 37.10 37.21 37.21 37.21
Chapter 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 9
October 2024
River Mile (mi) Existing
(ft)
Proposed
(No Trail)
(ft)
Proposed (With Trail -
Westerly Connection)
(ft)
Proposed (With Trail -
Easterly Connection)
(ft)

0.79 (Bridge) 37.09 37.19 37.19 37.20

0.77 37.07 37.10 37.10 37.10

0.75 37.06 37.08 37.08 37.08

0.73 37.04 37.06 37.06 37.05

0.71 37.02 37.04 37.04 37.03

0.69 37.00 37.01 37.01 37.01 1.The WSEL is reported approximately 700 feet south of Steelhead Creek, near the proposed trail connections, where the impact from the trail is most evident.

Table 4: Proposed vs Existing WSEL Difference in Discovery Park River Mile (mi)
∆
Proposed
(No Trail)
(ft)
∆
Proposed (With Trail -
Westerly Connection)
(ft)
∆
Proposed (With Trail -
Easterly Connection)
(ft)

0.89 +0.11 +0.12 +0.12

0.87 +0.10 +0.11 +0.11

0.85 +0.11 +0.11 +0.12

0.83 +0.11 +0.11 +0.12

0.81 +0.11 +0.11 +0.11

0.79 (Bridge) +0.10 +0.10 +0.11

0.77 +0.03 +0.03 +0.03

0.75 +0.02 +0.02 +0.02

0.73 +0.02 +0.02 +0.01

0.71 +0.02 +0.02 +0.01

0.69 +0.01 +0.01 +0.01
Table 5: FEMA / CVFPB / USACE / USCG Freeboard Analysis River Mile (mi)
1 Soffit
Elevation
Top of Levee 2
WSEL
(North
Levee)
2 WSEL
(South
Levee)
Freeboard Provided
From Top of Levee From Soffit
North South of Bridge North South

0.77 (100'
Downstream)
- 40.74 41.50 37.03 37.09 3.71 4.41 -

0.79 (Bridge) 47.40 40.69 41.40 37.16 37.26 3.53 4.14 10.14

0.81 (100'
Upstream) - 40.81 41.47 37.18 37.27 3.63 4.20 -

1. The soffit elevation is provided at the lowest hittable point of the proposed bridge over the LAR channel, near the south levee. 2. The WSEL is based on the 200-year flow and is reported at the LAR channel adjacent to the south levee and at Steelhead Creek adjacent to the north levee.

Chapter 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 10
October 2024
Table 6: Velocity Summary
River
Mile (mi)
Existing
(ft/sec)
Proposed
(No Trail)
(ft/sec)
Proposed
(With Trail -
Westerly
Connection)
(ft/sec)
Proposed
(With Trail -
Easterly
Connection)
(ft/sec)
∆
(No Trail)
∆
(With TrailWesterly
Connection)
∆
(With TrailEasterly
Connection)

0.77 6.61 8.87 8.87 8.89 +2.26 +2.26 +2.28

0.79 (Bridge) 6.51 8.81 8.80 8.82 +2.30 +2.29 +2.31

0.81 6.53 6.40 6.39 6.40 -0.13 -0.14 -0.13

2.6 Conclusions
Based on Tables 1 and 2, the preliminary HEC-RAS analysis shows a WSEL rise of 0.13 to 0.14 feet upstream of the proposed Truxel Bridge within the LAR channel. Tables 3 and 4 show a WSEL rise of 0.01 to 0.12 feet within the Discovery Park portion of the floodway. The WSEL rise gradually dissipates upstream, returning to existing conditions near RM 10. The HEC-RAS results for both the westerly and easterly Jedediah Smith Trail connections (Tables 3 and 4) are similar.

However, just upstream of the easterly connection at RM 0.85, WSEL is 0.01 feet higher than at the westerly connection due to the additional piers required. The easterly connection also results in slightly higher velocities at the bridge compared to the westerly connection and the no-trail alternative, as shown in Table 6. While neither trail connection significantly impacts WSEL in the floodway, the westerly connection requires fewer piers and results in a slightly smaller velocity increase near the bridge, making it a safer hydraulic alternative.

A rise in WSEL within the FEMA floodway would necessitate processing a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), requiring coordination with FEMA for remapping the floodplain due to this rise. However, this increase in WSEL is minimal and potentially can be mitigated by more detailed analysis and design elements during the final design phase.

As shown in Table 5, the bridge freeboard requirements set by all governing agencies are met using the 200-year flow frequency, accounting for the rise in WSEL. Similarly, the levee freeboard requirements have been satisfied along both the north and south levees up through RM 10, with the exception of the segment 100 feet upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge location.

Due to the addition of the bridge, an additional foot of freeboard is required within 100 feet of the bridge. The freeboard on the north levee will be approximately 0.5 foot less than the required 4 feet in this segment of the LAR floodway. Since the Garden Highway (north levee) will be raised to accommodate the new bridge crossing, the additional elevation of Garden Highway will provide more than the needed 0.5 feet of additional freeboard along the north levee for the segment that is 100 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge. The vertical clearance from the WSEL of

37.26 feet to the lowest hittable portion of the bridge is confirmed to be around 10.14± feet, which meets the minimum Coast Guard required clearance.

As shown in Table 6, this project will result in a velocity increase ranging from 2.2 to 2.3 fps, 100 feet downstream of the proposed bridge in the LAR channel, with maximum velocities approaching 9 fps. This increase raises concerns about scour, necessitating mitigation to prevent Chapter 3. Scour Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 11
October 2024
failures of the bridge, river/creek banks, and levees, as well as general river degradation and sediment transport. Refer to Chapter 3 for the preliminary scour analysis.

3. Scour Analysis
The scour analysis and recommendations for this project utilized the proposed preliminary model results in conjunction with the findings from the RiverSmith Engineering technical memorandum, "Geomorphic, Erosion, and Sedimentation Analysis for the Proposed Green Line Bridge Crossing over the Lower American River," completed on February 20, 2017, and the State of California Department of Transportation (DOT) memorandum, "Geological and Geotechnical Scour Evaluation for the American River Bridge," completed on March 5, 2018.

3.1 Long Term Aggradation/Degradation
The project site is underlain by Latest Holocene stream channel deposits (Qhc) described as deposits in active, natural stream channel consisting of loose alluvial sand, gravel, and silt. Longterm scour for the LAR has varied from 1907 to the present. This area previously experienced a high volume of hydraulic mining activities, leading to aggradation throughout the project reach.

However, after the construction of the Folsom and Nimbus Dams, sediment supply from the upper watershed to the LAR significantly decreased. Since then, the LAR has shown a long-term trend towards degradation in the project area. Despite this, the project area still experiences some aggradation as stored upstream riverbed sediments continue to move downstream. Since 1987, the lower reach within the project vicinity has demonstrated relative vertical stability, with bed elevation variations ranging from -3 feet to +3 feet from modest river flows.

Based on the hydraulic results, it is anticipated that with design peak flows and velocities reaching up to 9 fps within 100 feet downstream of the proposed bridge, some bed scour may occur. This scour may not be replenished, as the upstream in-channel stored sediments are gradually being depleted. Additional sedimentation studies may be needed during final design.

3.2 Localized Scour
Abutment scour for this project is not a major concern due to the proposed locations of Abutments 1 and 21. Abutment 1 is located just outside the FEMA floodplain, near the conform point of Sequoia Pacific Blvd, outside of the levee prism. Abutment 21 is located on the slope of the northern levee where velocities are in the 3-5 fps range. The final design will investigate potentially armoring the northern levee to avoid any future erosion.

Pier scour presents a significant concern for this project. Previous boring data from the Interstate 5 (I-5) American River Bridge, located approximately 2700 feet downstream of the proposed Truxel Bridge, indicates the presence of very loose to compact sand, silty sand, and gravel extending from an elevation of about 0 feet down to approximately -19 feet. Below this depth, interbedded layers of dense and very dense sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles were observed, all of which are considered potentially scourable materials.

No erosion or migration is expected along the south bank of the LAR since most of this reach is already armored and maintained by the American River Flood Control District. However, the armoring may need to be modified to withstand peak flows. The north bank of the active river Chapter 3. Scour Analysis
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 12
October 2024
channel is unarmored and further movement in the river planform can be expected in that direction from peak flows and high velocities. The flow in the main LAR channel migrates into the adjacent Discovery Park floodway during high flow events and is protected by levees along Garden Highway.

To mitigate scour, this project will implement strategies similar to those used at the I-5 American River Bridge. These measures may include removing alluvial materials around the support piles and replacing them with rip-rap boulders, and modifying or adding armoring to the north and south banks of the LAR to withstand the design flow, and designing the bridge foundation depths to be below the scour elevations.

3.3 Conclusions
Based on the scour analysis discussed, the following conclusions are drawn for this feasibility study:
• Riverbed degradation is anticipated, particularly when velocities near 9 fps in the proposed conditions. The final design will mitigate for this, and the bridge foundations will be extended accordingly.
• Armoring of the north bank of the LAR is imperative to prevent further planform movement in that direction, while modifications to existing south bank armoring are necessary to withstand the 160,000 cfs design flow.
• Abutment scour is not a concern for Abutment 1 due to it being located outside the FEMA floodplain but warrants further investigation for Abutment 21 during the final design phase. • Pier scour will be addressed by removing alluvial material around support piles and replacing it with rip-rap boulders. The final design will specify rip-rap sizes capable of withstanding peak flows and velocities.

The existing Manning's n values at the north and south banks range from 0.035 to 0.07, corresponding to small-medium sized trees and valley foothill riparian ground cover. Additional armoring of these banks should lower the n values, allowing for smoother flow and potentially reducing the WSEL, though this may increase velocity as water will be able to travel faster.

Some armoring methods that will be considered during final design include riprap and slope paving. These methods will be sized to handle peak flows and velocities, ensuring the stability and integrity of the riverbanks.

Chapter 4. References
Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report 13
October 2024

4. References
USACE-SPK, 2019b. Memorandum for Record: “CVHS Hydrograph Package for HEC-RAS Model Inputs.” Prepared by CESPK-ED-HH. 20-Feb 2019
California Department of Transportation. Geological and Geotechnical Scour Evaluation for American River Bridge. Memorandum, 5 Mar. 2018. Office of Geotechnical Support, Division of Engineering Services, MS 5.

RiverSmith Engineering. Technical Memorandum - Geomorphic, Erosion, and Sedimentation Analysis for the Proposed Green Line Bridge Crossing over the Lower American River.

AECOM, 20 Feb. 2017.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study: Sacramento County, California, and Incorporated Areas. FIS No. 06067CV001E, vol. 1 of 4, 31 Mar. 2024.

Appendices

Appendix A. Truxel Bridge APS

Appendices

Appendix B. Truxel Bridge Alternative 1-3 Exhibits
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
SHLD/
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
SHLD/
6'
SW
81'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BIKE

1.5'
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BIKE
6'
SW

1.5'
84'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST
GARDEN
HW
Y

CONNECTION
TRAIL
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1"=400'

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
KEEP
CLEAR
CLEAR
KEEP
6'
SW
8'
Shld
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
8'
Shld
CL
58 TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
MPP
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
2'
Shld Shld
12' 8' 8'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
69'
1'
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 2

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
BL
SHLD/
6'
BL
SHLD/
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
12'
BL
WAY
2 12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
10'
SW
WAY
2 CL
90'
1'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 3

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
1' 1'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
BL
WAY
2 10'
SW
WAY
2 6'
SW
1' 2'
97'
1'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 3B

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'

AMERICAN RIVER

STEELHEAD CREEK

BRIDGE PROFILE
JUNE 2024

PG&E TOWER

JEDEDIAH SMITH TRAIL

TRAIL CONNECTION TO

TWO RIVERS TRAIL

TRAIL CONNECTION TO

TRUXEL BRIDGE

CONCEPT & FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE 1, 2, & 3
Appendices

Appendix C. FEMA Flood Map
1DWLRQDO)ORRG+D]DUG/D\HU),50HWWH

)HHW
Ü
6((),65(3257)25'(7$,/('/(*(1'$1',1'(;0$3)25),503$1(//$<287 63(&,$/)/22'
+$=$5'$5($6
:LWKRXW%DVH)ORRG(OHYDWLRQ
%)(

=RQH$9$

:LWK%)(RU'HSWK =RQH$($2$+9($55HJXODWRU\)ORRGZD\$QQXDO&KDQFH)ORRG+D]DUG$UHDVRIDQQXDOFKDQFHIORRGZLWKDYHUDJHGHSWKOHVVWKDQRQHIRRWRUZLWKGUDLQDJHDUHDVRIOHVVWKDQRQHVTXDUHPLOH =RQH;)XWXUH&RQGLWLRQV$QQXDO&KDQFH)ORRG+D]DUG =RQH;$UHDZLWK5HGXFHG)ORRG5LVNGXHWR/HYHH6HH1RWHV =RQH;$UHDZLWK)ORRG5LVNGXHWR/HYHH =RQH' 126&5((1 $UHDRI0LQLPDO)ORRG+D]DUG =RQH;
$UHDRI8QGHWHUPLQHG)ORRG+D]DUG =RQH'&KDQQHO&XOYHUWRU6WRUP6HZHU/HYHH'LNHRU)ORRGZDOO&URVV6HFWLRQVZLWK$QQXDO&KDQFH :DWHU6XUIDFH(OHYDWLRQ
&RDVWDO7UDQVHFW&RDVWDO7UDQVHFW%DVHOLQH3URILOH%DVHOLQH+\GURJUDSKLF)HDWXUH%DVH)ORRG(OHYDWLRQ/LQH %)(
(IIHFWLYH/205V/LPLWRI6WXG\-XULVGLFWLRQ%RXQGDU\'LJLWDO'DWD$YDLODEOH 1R'LJLWDO'DWD$YDLODEOH
8QPDSSHG
7KLVPDSFRPSOLHVZLWK)(0$
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
27+(5$5($62)
)/22'+$=$5'
27+(5$5($6
*(1(5$/
6758&785(6
27+(5
)($785(6
0$33$1(/6

%

7KHSLQGLVSOD\HGRQWKHPDSLVDQDSSUR[LPDWHSRLQWVHOHFWHGE\WKHXVHUDQGGRHVQRWUHSUHVHQWDQDXWKRULWDWLYHSURSHUW\ORFDWLRQ

:
1

:
1
%DVHPDS,PDJHU\6RXUFH
86*61DWLRQDO0DS
Discovery ParkFloodway
LAR Floodway
Attachment Q. Constructability Memo
Constructability
Assessment
Prepared by:

Prepared for:

October 2024
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Constructability Assessment i
July 2024
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Project Purpose...................................................................................................... 3 Bridge Cross Section ................................................................................. 4

2.1 Bridge Width Limits ................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Building Impacts ..................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Safety ..................................................................................................................... 6 PG&E Tower ................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Power Lines ........................................................................................................... 7 Contractor Access ...................................................................................... 8

4.1 Access Site ............................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Construction in American River .............................................................................. 8 Light Rail ..................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Systems ................................................................................................................. 9

5.2 Stray Currents ........................................................................................................ 9

5.3 Light Rail Tracks .................................................................................................... 9 Appendices
Appendix A. Planning Studies
Appendix B Right of Way Exhibit
Appendix C Project Footprint
Table of Contents
Constructability Assessment
July 2024
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Constructability Assessment 1
October 2024
Executive Summary
A constructability assessment was performed on the documents prepared during the initial phases of the development of the Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study. This review included the constructability of all alternatives presented in the Study. While all alternatives presented in the Study are constructable, the intent of this Constructability Assessment is to highlight critical it was determined that Alternative 3 can be constructed and is, therefore, a feasible alternative.

Alternatives for the bridge ranged in width from 63 feet to 116 feet and 2,400 feet to 2800 feet in length. The most recent Planning Studies, dated 10/16/24, are attached to this Assessment.

The key differentiator of Alternatives 2 and 3 is these alternatives include extend the bridge section between two existing buildings on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard for approximately 300 feet south of the levee. These buildings are approximately 80 feet apart. Between the buildings, the bridge width is 63 feet for alternative 2 and 74 feet for alternative 3. While the bridge width physically fits between the existing buildings, the impacts to the building’s operations during and after construction cannot be understated.

Figure 1 Existing Buildings at Southern Conform (Alts 2 & 3) Communication with the building owners and their tenants to understand how they access the buildings and the equipment they use in the area between the buildings will be crucial to successfully acquire the right of way and temporary construction easements to complete the project. See Appendix B for the project right of way needs for the preferred alternative (Alternative 3). After bridge construction is complete, the space under the bridge will preserve many parking spaces and provide access to the existing entries and roll up doors on the sides of the buildings, however during construction these facilities will be unusable and inaccessible due to falsework and foundation installation. This will require significant outreach and coordination during the later phases of the project delivery.

Since the edge of the bridge will be a few feet away from each of the buildings, it is important to include safety fence on the edges of the bridge that will preclude people on the bridge from accessing or attempting to access either building.

Executive Summary
Constructability Assessment 2
October 2024
Existing high voltage overhead power lines run east and west just south of Steelhead Creek and will cross over the new bridge. It is very important to design bridge foundations as far away from these lines as possible. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations provide recommendations for driven steel pipe piles and large diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles. These piles are constructed using two 250-feet tall cranes. The bridge foundations on each side of the power lines should be laid out so they provide approximately the same clearance from the lines (i.e., place the piers supporting the span under the power lines equal distances from the power lines). The Planning Studies included in Appendix A have laid out the piers immediately south of Steelhead Creek near the overhead lines to center the span on the overhead line to minimize potential impacts to the power lines. A detailed survey of the power line wire heights, as well as required clearances base on voltages should be carefully examined during the later phases of the project delivery.

Additionally, driving forces and vibrations from driven piles or driven temporary casings installed for CIDH piles adjacent to the existing buildings on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard will potentially damage the existing buildings. Oscillated casings or grouted micro piles should be considered at these locations to minimize this potential damage.

The contractor will need numerous locations to access the site. The main roadways at each end of the project are Richards Boulevard on the south end and Garden Highway on the north end, with Discovery Park in between. The American River and Steelhead Creek also create gaps in the contractor’s access that will need to be improved. Numerous access points and paths of travel for the contractor and their suppliers should be identified and evaluated. Cranes, large trucks with trailers, concrete trucks, pickups, and large trailered holding tanks for the slurry circulation will need to get to all areas currently separated by the river and creek. Identifying these contractor routes will dramatically improve bidding and the results. Also, a project of this magnitude will need an area for the Contractor to set up their on-site office. No site is obvious from looking at project exhibits and aerials. A few viable locations for a field office and yard should be identified and evaluated. Ultimately, large staging areas in the flood plain as well as access trestles over the American River and Steelhead Creek will be required. The environmental study area is included in Appendix C details a large footprint to account for this access. The Environmental Document Memorandum also outlines all regulatory permits that will be required for the temporary and permanent impacts associated with the project.

The bridge spans the American River and includes four (4) sets of piers in the water, or close to the water’s edge. Performing the bridge construction will require a temporary trestle for the contractor to use to build foundations and the bridge portion over the water. Coffer dams or oscillated casings with circulated slurry and baker tanks for dewater for foundation and column installation will be required in addition to the trestle and falsework over the water. This construction will be limited by flood control and fish windows, generally restricting in water work to a June to October work window. Working day schedules developed during the later phases of the project delivery must properly account for this restricted in-water work window.

The bridge spans the Steelhead Creek and includes one pier close to the water’s edge.

Performing the construction will require a temporary platform for the contractor to use to build foundations and the bridge portion over the water.

Chapter 2. Bridge Cross Section
Constructability Assessment 3
October 2024

1. Introduction

1.1 Background
The City of Sacramento is undertaking an engineering feasibility study for a new multi-modal bridge across the lower American River between Truxel Road and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard to better connect North and South Natomas with the Central City.

In 2013, the City of Sacramento completed the American River crossings alternatives study, and City Council adopted the vision for a new multi-modal crossing at Truxel Road as the preferred alignment. The Truxel Bridge alignment was chosen based on its ability to address limited connectivity across the lower American River which creates a barrier to economic activity, land use development, social exchanges and access to jobs within the Central City by communities just north of the river including South Natomas and North Natomas where a significant portion of Sacramento City residents live, and a considerable amount of residential growth is planned.

Currently, there is a lack of direct multi-modal crossings over the American River, which discourages alternative modes of travel besides driving, therefore resulting in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to longer trips, inefficient routes for transit services, and reduced public health and air quality. Additionally, this limited connectivity leads to longer emergency response times and can hinder evacuation during future natural disasters.

1.2 Project Purpose
A significant portion of Sacramento City residents live in North and South Natomas north of the American River and are forced to use I-5 as the most direct route into the regional employment center and cultural hub which is the Central City. Interstate 5 offers no reasonable options for pedestrians and bicycles resulting in more vehicle trips, higher GHG emissions and higher VMT as well as higher public health and air quality impacts. While cyclist and pedestrians can use the Jibboom Street bridge and are permitted to use I-5 when Discovery Park is flooded, this is not ideal. The Truxel Bridge will not only provide an addition crossing, but also an all season crossing, offering improved resiliency of the existing active transportation network in the area.

Transit ridership is also impacted due to inefficient routing that requires buses to use I-5.

To address this critical need, the City of Sacramento is studying the feasibility of a new multi-modal bridge between the terminus of Truxel Road north of the river and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard south of the river consistent with Sacramento Regional Transit’s (Sac RT) plans to light rail to the Sacramento International Airport.

This alignment was selected following an exhaustive alternative analysis with the goal of serving all modes to reduce VMT, air pollutant, and GHG emissions; to reduce the overall reliance of local trips on state facilities; to increase options for evacuations and emergency response; and to improve recreational access to the American River Parkway.

This study will develop alternatives for the new bridge through an inclusive public outreach and engagement process, through which the study team will seek feedback on right of way configuration, conceptual design, opportunities and constraints, and funding strategies.

Chapter 2. Bridge Cross Section
Constructability Assessment 4
October 2024
The proposed Project is located near the City of Sacramento in Sacramento County, California (Figure 2. Project Vicinity and Figure 3. Project Location).

Figure 2 Project Vicinity
Chapter 2. Bridge Cross Section
Constructability Assessment 5
October 2024
Figure 3 Project Location
Chapter 2. Bridge Cross Section
Constructability Assessment 6
October 2024

2. Bridge Cross Section

2.1 Bridge Width Limits
Alternatives for the bridge ranged in width from 63 feet to 116 feet and 2,400 feet to 2800 feet in length. The most recent Planning Studies, dated 10/16/24, are attached to this Assessment.

The 16 foot reduction in width was possible by creating a 12 feet wide path (entrance/exit) to the ground tying into the existing trail system located on the south levee of the American River. See Planning Studies included in Appendix A for conceptual path and maintenance access routes at the south end of the bridge.

2.2 Building Impacts
The bridge will be above ground in the area between the two existing buildings. Communication with the building owners and their tenants to understand how they access the buildings and the equipment they use in their business in the area between the buildings will be crucial to a successful outcome.

Communication with the building owners and their tenants to understand how they access the buildings and the equipment they use in the area between the buildings will be crucial to successfully acquire the right of way and temporary construction easements to complete the project. See Appendix B for the project right of way needs for the preferred alternative (Alternative 3). After bridge construction is complete, the space under the bridge will preserve many parking spaces and provide access to the existing entries and roll up doors on the sides of the buildings, however during construction these facilities will be unusable and inaccessible due to falsework and foundation installation. This will require significant outreach and coordination during the later phases of the project delivery.

2.3 Safety
Since the edge of the bridge will be a few feet away from each of the buildings, it will be important to include a special fence on the edges of the bridge that will preclude people on the bridge from accessing or attempting to access either building.

Bridge construction is anticipated to take 3 years, protected paths under the bridge construction for path users, maintenance vehicles and building tenant access should be included. Using falsework systems typical of highway overpass construction will provide necessary protection of users passing under the bridge, while limiting full closures to placement of protective covers and falsework.

Chapter 3. PG&E Tower
Constructability Assessment 7
October 2024

3. PG&E Tower

3.1 Power Lines
Existing high voltage overhead power lines run east and west just south of Steelhead Creek and will cross over the new bridge. It will be very important to design bridge foundations as far away from these lines as possible. The bridge foundations will likely be large diameter concrete piles that are constructed using two 250-feet tall cranes. The bridge foundations on each side of the power lines should be laid out so they provide approximately the same clearance from the lines.

Constructability Assessment 8
October 2024

4. Contractor Access

4.1 Access Site
The contractor will need numerous locations to access the site. The main roadways at each end of the project are Richards Boulevard on the south end and Garden Highway on the north end, with Discovery Park in between. The American River and Steelhead Creek also create gaps in the contractor’s access that will need to be improved.

4.2 Construction in American River and Steelhead Creek
The bridge spans the American River and includes four (4) sets of piers in the water, or close to the water’s edge. Performing the bridge construction will require a temporary trestle for the contractor to use to build foundations and the bridge portion over the water. Coffer dams or oscillated casings with circulated slurry and baker tanks for dewater for foundation and column installation will be required in addition to the trestle and falsework over the water. This construction will be limited by flood control and fish windows, generally restricting in water work to a June to October work window. Working day schedules developed during the later phases of the project delivery must properly account for this restricted in-water work window.

Constructability Assessment 9
October 2024

5. Light Rail

5.1 Systems
It is anticipated that the bridge will eventually carry electric powered Light Rail vehicles which require substantial amounts of ducting, cables in and on the bridge, access hatches and special large penetrations into the bridge to allow the systems to rise from the ground and into the bridge at various locations. Provisions to run these elements up bridge columns and create blockouts as large as 2 feet by 3 feet in the soffit of the bridge and bents caps and diaphragms will need to be made. These same elements are also placed in the ground along the alignment.

With the American River and Steelhead Creek as obstacles, the systems will need to be entirely carried by the bridge, which increases the impacts on the bridge and bridge design by increasing the numbers of penetrations. Design and layout of all of these Systems will be critical to the design of the bridge and should be determined as soon as feasible.

5.2 Stray Currents
With electric power for the trains, the bridge will need to include provisions for stray currents.

Special welding of reinforcing in the bridge and columns along with monitoring equipment must be incorporated in the design.

5.3 Light Rail Tracks
The bridge will include two sets of tracks for future Light Rail vehicles on the bridge deck. In the interim these lanes will be used as a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane. Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) requires track plinths to be placed with the bridge construction. To facilitate use of these lanes by busses until the Light Rail is extended to the project area, the track plinths can be covered with precast deck panels. Additionally, SacRT requires foundations for the Overhead Catenary System (OCS) poles to be installed with the bridge construction. The anchors for these poles can be embedded in the median barrier. See Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 SacRT Light Rail Infrastructure Installation Concept Constructability Assessment
October 2024
Appendix A. Planning Studies

15 1 2
3 4 6
7 10

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24

DEVELOPED ELEVATION
1" = 150'
PLAN
1" = 150'
Abut 1
PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 4 PIER 6 PIER 7 PIER 8 PIER 9 PIER 10 PIER 11 PIER 12 PIER 13 PIER 14 PIER 15 PIER 16 Abut 17
DATUM Elev. = -140.00'
32+00 34+00 36+00 38+00 40+00 42+00 44+00 46+00 48+00 50+00 52+00 54+00 56+00 58+00 LIMITS OF SECTION "A-A" = 2,320'-0"
BB EB
RIVER

AMERICAN
E
X
IST
C
ANA
L

NATOMAS

TO SOUTH
GA
RD
EN
H
WY

DISTRICT

TO RIVERSIDE
Elev = 52.40'
BB 33+33.46
Elev = 44.73'
EB 57+20.96
-2% -2%
OG
FG
BRIDGE
TRAIL
TRAIL
A
A
PIER 5
B
B
6'-6"
PG
B-B" = 67'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION
FRAME 1 = 680'-0" FRAME 2 = 960'-0" FRAME 3 = 747'-6"
LANE
12'-0" VARIES

TRANSIT
12'-6"

TRANSIT
12'-6"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
SDWK
6'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
54'-0" 54'-0"
108'-0"
14 SPACES @ 160'-0" = 2240'-0" 67'-6"
PLANNING STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 1)

SECTION A-A
1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
1" = 10'

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
MAX WIDTH*
AREA*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT
TOTAL COST**
10-16-2024
6'-6"/3'-0"
2387'-6"
116'-0"
222,953 sqft
$560.66
$125,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$172,000,000

BARRIER
2'-0"
80'-0"
SHLD
VARIES 8'-0"
SHLD
8'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
SDWK
6'-0"
PG

TRANSIT
12'-6"
LANE
12'-0"
SDWK
6'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
62'-0" 54'-0"
116'-0"
SHLD
VARIES 8'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
SHLD
8'-0"
-2%
3'-0"
-2%
SDWK
6'-0" VARIES

BARRIER
2'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE ABOVE.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NOT

AND OPERATIONS OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL RESULT IN

BUT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, UTILITY

EASTERN BUILDING ON ON SEQUOIA PACIFIC BOULEVARD,
** THE BRIDGE DESIGN PHYSCALLY FITS ADJASCENT TO THE
* WIDTH VARIES, AREA USED ACCOUNTS FOR VARYING WIDTH.

FUTURE RAIL AND OCS

LIGHT RAIL PLINTHS,
CURB
1'-0"
CURB
1'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-6"
CURB
1'-0"
46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32
31 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24

DEVELOPED ELEVATION
1" = 150'
PLAN
1" = 150'
Abut 1
PIER 2
PIER 3
PIER 4
PIER 6 PIER 7 PIER 8 PIER 9 PIER 10 PIER 11 PIER 12 PIER 13 PIER 14 PIER 15 PIER 16 Abut 21
DATUM = -140.00'
112+00 114+00 116+00 118+00 120+00 122+00 124+00 126+00 128+00 130+00 132+00 134+00 136+00 138+00 140+00 A-A" = 307'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION LIMITS OF SECTION "B-B" = 2,400'-0"
BB EB
RIVER

AMERICAN
E
X
IST
C
ANA
L
T

NATOMAS

O SOUTH
GA
RD
EN
H
WY

DISTRICT

TO RIVERSIDE
Elev = 41.64'
BB 111+95.00
Elev = 44.21'
EB 139+50.00
OG
PIER 17 PIER 18
FG
113+54.94 BC
BRIDGE
TRAIL
TRAIL
A
A
B
B
PIER 5
PIER 19 PIER 20
C
C
PG
C-C" = 67'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION
FRAME 1 = 307'-6" FRAME 2 = 740'-0" FRAME 3 = 960'-0" FRAME 4 = 747'-6" = 240'
3 @ 80'-0" 14 SPACES @ 160'-0" = 2240'-0" 67'-6"
PLANNING STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 2)

SECTION A-A
1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
1" = 10'
67'-6"
124+00.81 EC
137+29.59 BC
-2% -2%
PG
SDWK
6'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
35'-0" 28'-0"
63'-0"

SECTION C-C
1" = 10'
Shld
12'-0"
3'-0"
1 2
3 4
15 10
6 140'-0"
Clr
10'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

BUILDING
Exist
Clr
6'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

BUILDING
Exist
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
SDWK
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
35'-0" 28'-0"
63'-0"
Shld
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
6'-6"
SDWK
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
35'-0" 28'-0"
63'-0"
Shld
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
PG
-2% -2%
3'-0"

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
WIDTH*
AREA*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT
TOTAL COST**
10-16-2024
6'-6"/3'-0"
2755'-0"
63'-0"
190,406 sqft
$577.71
$110,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$151,000,000
IN THE ESTIMATE ABOVE.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED

OPERATIONS OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL RESULT IN

WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, UTILITY AND

EASTERN BUILDING ON ON SEQUOIA PACIFIC BOULEVARD, BUT
** THE BRIDGE DESIGN PHYSCALLY FITS ADJASCENT TO THE
* AREA USED ACCOUNTS FOR SOUTHERN TRAIL CONNECTION.

AND FUTURE RAIL

LIGHT RAIL PLINTHS
4 115 6 7 8 9 120 1 2 3 4 125 6 7 130 8 9 1 2 3 135 6 7 4 140
8 9
1 2
1 2 3
110

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24

AMERICAN
E
X
IST
C
ANA
L
T

NATOMAS

O SOUTH
GA
RD
EN
H
WY

DISTRICT

TO RIVERSIDE
Elev = 41.64'
BB 111+95.00
Elev = 44.21'
EB 139+50.00
-2% -2%
OG
PIER 17 PIER 18
FG
113+66.33 BC
BRIDGE
TRAIL
TRAIL
A
A
B
B
PIER 5
PIER 19 PIER 20
C
C
6'-6"
PG
-2%
PG
-2%
3'-0"
C-C" = 67'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION
FRAME 1 = 307'-6" FRAME 2 = 740'-0" FRAME 3 = 960'-0" FRAME 4 = 747'-6" SDWK
10'-0"
LANE
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
1'-0" CURB
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
37'-6" 52'-6"
90'-0"

BARRIER
1'-0"
= 240'
3 @ 80'-0" 14 SPACES @ 160'-0" = 2240'-0" 67'-6"
PLANNING STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 3)

SECTION A-A
1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
1" = 10'
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
3'-0"
SDWK
10'-0"
LANE
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
1'-0" CURB
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
37'-6" 52'-6"
90'-0"

BARRIER
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
3'-0"
67'-6"
124+02.64 EC
137+28.68 BC
-2% -2%
PG
SDWK
6'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
1'-0" CURB
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
21'-6" 52'-6"
74'-0"

BARRIER
1'-0"

SECTION C-C
1" = 10'
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
3'-0"
3'-0"
1 2
3 4
15 10
6 7
140'-0"
Clr
3'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

BUILDING
Exist
Clr
2'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
MAX WIDTH*
AREA*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT
TOTAL COST**
10-16-2024
6'-6"/3'-0"
2755'-0"
90'-0"
251,937 sqft
$555.69
$140,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$193,000,000
INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE ABOVE.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NOT

AND OPERATIONS OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL RESULT IN

BUT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, UTILITY

EASTERN BUILDING ON ON SEQUOIA PACIFIC BOULEVARD,
** THE BRIDGE DESIGN PHYSCALLY FITS ADJASCENT TO THE
* WIDTH VARIES, AREA USED ACCOUNTS FOR VARYING WIDTH.

FUTURE RAIL AND OCS

LIGHT RAIL PLINTHS,
9 2
3 4 135
6 7
140
8 9
130 1
1 2
125
6 7
8 4
3 2 1
7 8 9 120
6 115
4 3
2 1 110
1 2
3 4
6 10
15 7

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24
PLAN
1" = 40'
Elev = 23.82'
BB 12+19.84
Elev = 49.63'
EB 16+30.66
BRIDGE
TRAIL
A
A

PLANNING STUDY (BIKE TRAIL BRIDGE)

SECTION A-A
8" = 1'-0"
3 -1.5%
BRIDGE
PG
1'-0" 1'-0"
1'-6"
+1.5%
PATH
6'-0"
PATH
6'-0"
12'-0"
14'-0"
CURB
6"
RAILING, Typ

CHAIN LINK
SLAB

CIP R/C
1'-6"Á COLUMN
OG
R1
ABUT
R2
BENT
NATOMA
S
TO
S
OUTH
R3
BENT
R4
BENT
R5
BENT
R6
BENT
R7
BENT
R8
BENT
R9
BENT
R10
BENT
R11
BENT
R12
BENT
R13
BENT
R14
BENT

DEVELOPED ELEVATION
1" = 40'
DATUM Elev. = -10.00'
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
13 SPANS @ 30'-0" = 390'-0" 20'-10"

LIMITS OF CHAIN LINK RAILING
BB EB
OG
WALL = 142'-3"

LIMITS OF RETAINING
BENT
R2
BENT
R3
BENT
R4
B
ENT
R5
BENT
R6
BENT
R7
BENT
R8
B
ENT
R9
BENT
R10
BENT
R11
BENT
R12
B
ENT
R13
BENT
R14
BRIDGE
D
IS
TRICT
TO
RIVERS
IDE

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
WIDTH
AREA
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT

TOTAL COST
10-16-2024
1'-6"
410'-10"
14'-0"
4,103 sqft
$1,218.62
$5,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$6,900,000
13 0 129 12
8 127
Constructability Assessment
October 2024
Appendix B. Right of Way Exhibit

Constructability Assessment
October 2024
Appendix C. Project Footprint
¨¦§5
¨¦§5
Garden Hwy
Richards Blvd
Truxel R
d
Bercut Dr
Azusa St
N
5th
St
Vine St
N 10th
St
N
3rd
St
N
7th
St
N
ato
m
a
s
P
ark
Dr
Levee
Rd
M
orell St
Jibboom
St
Sandcastle Way
Seq
uoia
Pacific
Blvd
Helmsman Way
Capital Park Dr
River Plaza Dr
Thelma A
ve
Creekside Oaks Dr
FIGURE 3
Project Footprint
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, California
Source: ESRI Maps Online; Dokken Engineering 9/24/2024; Created By: ahale V:\3069_Truxel_Concept_Feasibility\F3_Project Features.mxd I 0 550 1,100 1,650 2,200 2,750
Feet
1 inch = 550 feet
Truxel Preliminary Study Area
Parcels
Attachment R. Funding Strategy
Funding Strategy
Memo
July 2024
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................. 4 TRUXEL BRIDGE FUNDING STRATEGY MEMO ................................................................................................ 6 WHAT IS A FUNDING STRATEGY? ............................................................................................................................. 6 10,000-FOOT OVERVIEW OF FUNDING FOR EACH PHASE OF THE TRUXEL BRIDGE PROJECT ................................................... 6 FUNDING NEEDS FOR TRUXEL BRIDGE...................................................................................................................... 8 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL FUNDING AND/OR FINANCING SCENARIOS ............................................................................... 9 PARTNER COORDINATION ................................................................................................................................... 11 IDENTIFY AND TRACK FUNDING SOURCES................................................................................................................ 14 ALIGN THE PROJECT WITH HOW FUNDING DECISIONS ARE MADE ................................................................................... 20 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT FINANCING MODELS............................................................................................................. 27 ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY MODELS ............................................................................................................... 32 Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
3 Table of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Spelling Abbreviation Spelling
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act IFP Infrastructure Financing Plan BAB Build America Bureau IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act BCA Benefit-Cost Analysis ISRF Infrastructure State Revolving Fund BRT Bus Rapid Transit LRT Light Rail Transit
CalSTA California State Transportation Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Caltrans California Department of Transportation NOFO Notice of Funding Opportunities CAPTI Climate Action Plan for Transportation
Infrastructure PA&ED Project Approval & Environmental Documentation CARB California Air Resource Board PLBP Priority Legislative Budget Projects CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PS&E Plans, Specifications, and Estimates CFP Call for Projects RAISE Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
CIG Capital Investment Grants RIA Regional Infrastructure Accelerator CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality ROW Right-of-Way CM/GC Construction Manager/General Contractor RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agencies CPFCDS
Community Project
Funding/Congressionally Directed
Spending
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Government
CTC California Transportation Commission SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit District DB Design-Build SCCP Solution for Congested Corridor Program DBB Design-Bid-Build SHS State Highway System
DOT Department of Transportation SIB State Infrastructure Bank EIFD Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District SMF Sacramento International Airport EIR Environmental Impact Report STA Sacramento Transportation Authority EJ Environmental Justice STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant Program
ETC Equitable Transportation Community STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
FHWA Federal Highway Administration SVS Sacramento Valley Station FTA Federal Transit Administration TIF Tax Increment Financing GHG Greenhouse Gas TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
GO General Obligation TIRCP Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program HFT High-Frequency Transit TOD Transit-Oriented Development ICE Independent Cost Estimator USDOT United States Department of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
4 Executive Summary
The Truxel Bridge project has the potential to significantly transform how people travel between Natomas and the Central City in the City of Sacramento (the City). The future multimodal bridge will connect the two growing parts of Sacramento, mitigating the substantial mobility barrier that is the American River and providing more convenient, direct access to destinations and activity centers on both sides of the river. At the same time, a new crossing will enable Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to extend the long-awaited Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Extension into Natomas, creating a new high-frequency transit (HFT) corridor that expands access to affordable transportation options and increases transit ridership in Natomas. Furthermore, the Truxel Bridge and the associated HFT corridor are an important component of the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG’s) regional transit vision, and future HFT into Natomas and eventually the Sacramento Internation Airport (SMF) will help the region meet its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction and land use goals.

To move this transformative project forward, the City must have a strategy to acquire the necessary funds to advance each phase of project delivery. This Funding Strategy Memo was developed to help the City understand what funding and financing assistance exists and how to coordinate with key partners to position the Truxel Bridge project to successfully acquire those funding and/or financing sources. This funding strategy also contains brief sections about alternative financing and delivery models, but additional analysis is required from the City to explore those options in greater depth. Finally, this funding strategy is not meant to be a static document, and it will need to evolve with changes in funding programs, partners’ needs, legislation and policy, the economy, and the political environment. This memo is the start of what will be a living document. To accomplish the goals of this funding strategy, the document includes the following sections:
10,000-Foot Overview of Funding for Each Phase of the Truxel Bridge Project contains a table that simplifies what funding sources can be applied to each phase and potential award sizes. It is meant to be updated regularly, and the first draft is not a specific recommendation, especially given that there is no guarantee of what programs will exist when the Truxel Bridge project is ready to pursue construction funds. This section also contains a flow chart of potential funding decisions and options for the Truxel Bridge project and a breakdown of the components of a project funding strategy.

Funding Needs for Truxel Bridge provides a brief overview of the funds required to deliver each phase of the project. Current cost estimates are $6 million for Project Approval & Environmental Documentation (PA&ED), $14 million for final design, and $501 million for construction.

Overview of Potential Funding and/or Financing Scenarios proposes four theoretical scenarios based on whether the project only pursues discretionary sources or receives Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and/or financing assistance.

Partner Coordination assesses the roles of current and potential partners in pursuing funding for the Truxel Bridge and insights from previous engagements with those partners. Some of the partners have not yet been formally engaged during the development of this funding strategy.

Identify and Track Funding Sources reviews the existing local, regional, state, and federal funding sources that could potentially assist the Truxel Bridge project. There are a limited number of discretionary funding sources that the Truxel Bridge project could be eligible for, and all of them have been oversubscribed in the past. Highcost projects must piece together awards from multiple funding programs, and even “highly recommended” projects are often not awarded funds until the second or third application. In addition, there is always an uncertainty of what the funding landscape will look like in the future as new legislation is passed, policies evolve, and new elected officials enter office.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
5 Align the Project with How Funding Decisions are Made provides considerations and insights to position the Truxel Bridge project for success before pursuing discretionary programs, overviews the importance of aligning the project with existing plans and policies, and calls out key strengths of the Truxel Bridge project with consideration to existing funding programs. High-cost projects must adequately demonstrate exceptional benefits and performance outcomes to compete in the discretionary funding landscape.

Alternative Project Financing Models introduce potential project financing options and value capture mechanisms the City could consider to fill large funding gaps and expedite project delivery. The strategy does not recommend a specific type of project financing without further analysis.

Alternative Project Delivery Models briefly summarizes the available project delivery models for the Truxel Bridge project. Alternative delivery models have the potential to reduce project costs and the delivery timeline, but there are many factors the City needs to consider before determining what is suitable for the Truxel Bridge project.

Key Takeaways for the Truxel Bridge Funding Strategy:

1. Addressing the reality of the current funding landscape relative to the Truxel Bridge’s funding needs: Projecting the existing discretionary funding landscape into the future, funding the construction phase of the Truxel Bridge will be challenging without FTA investment (which requires SacRT to advance the Green Line Extension/HFT project in parallel with the Truxel Bridge), project financing, or another local sales tax measure. However, there is always the possibility of greater state and federal resources in the future, which could result in a more beneficial funding landscape for the Truxel Bridge project.

2. What makes the Truxel Bridge a fundable project: Considering the very high cost of the project and the direction of state funding policies, the Truxel Bridge’s greatest strength as a project is that it will be a multimodal bridge with transit-priority infrastructure and accommodate a future HFT service between the Central City and Natomas, and eventually to the airport. Compared to driving and active modes, HFT across the Truxel Bridge is more likely to result in project performance metrics and impacts that are strongly aligned with existing funding policy (i.e., access to affordable travel options, increased transit ridership, reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduced GHG emissions, etc.), especially given the high project cost. Emphasizing the beneficial local and regional impacts of extending HFT into Natomas is critical to increasing the project’s competitiveness in a crowded funding landscape. The City will need to gain more insight into SacRT’s project delivery timeline for HFT to Natomas (whether that is the Green Line or an interim BRT service) and how it will be funded.

3. FTA funds could be available in the future, but it depends on SacRT’s readiness: Bundling SacRT’s Green Line Extension/HFT project across the bridge and the Truxel Bridge project could help the City access FTA funds, which in an optimal scenario, could fund a share of the bridge’s construction cost.

SacRT would need to be willing to coordinate with the City to advance the HFT project into FTA’s Capital Improvement Grants (CIG) New Starts Program at some point in the future, and at this moment in time, there is no certainty as to how much FTA funds would go towards the Truxel Bridge project. In addition, FTA’s CIG Program considers factors such as projected ridership and transit-supportive land uses to determine if a project is eligible for funding.

4. Fostering a shared vision for delivering the Truxel Bridge and Green Line Extension/HFT projects will benefit both projects in the long term: The Truxel Bridge and Green Line Extension/HFT projects are unique in that they are two high-cost projects closely linked in terms of funding and project delivery outcomes. An inter-agency working group, quarterly inter-agency meetings, or similar forum for communication and collaboration could benefit both projects. The intention of such a forum is to ensure all parties are informed about short- and long-term project delivery goals, improve project delivery coordination and inter-agency relations, maintain clarity about project funding efforts, and develop a shared vision for how the two projects can be funded and delivered.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
6 Truxel Bridge Funding Strategy Memo
What is a Funding Strategy?
In the United States (U.S.), local governments are allocated state and federal assistance to fund transportation needs, from project planning and design to construction and maintenance. However, these funds must be distributed to numerous projects and programs that serve many communities and modes of transportation.

There is limited local financial capacity to deliver high-cost capital projects, such as the Truxel Bridge project. To ensure our communities have the resources to advance transformative transportation projects, additional assistance is available through competitive state and federal funding programs, and for certain projects, financing can also be a viable option.

The funding strategy has been developed to identify potential funding and financing options for each phase of project delivery. The funding strategy provides an overall approach to aligning key partners, leveraging locally available resources, and positioning the Truxel Bridge project for the regional, state, and federal funding programs that can help advance this project.

Funding strategies for large projects that will take a decade or longer to deliver must also be able to evolve. New legislation and policy initiatives at the state and federal levels will eventually be enacted, the needs and priorities of key partners may change, and other external factors, such as changes in political leadership and the economy, influence the availability of transportation funding as well. This memo is the start of a living Funding Strategy Memo. 10,000-Foot Overview of Funding for Each Phase of the Truxel Bridge Project Table 1 represents possible funding sources based on Scenario 1 (see Overview of Potential Funding and/or Financing Scenarios) and assumes the City does not pursue state or federal funding for PA&ED, financing is not a viable option, earmarked funds are not allocated, and that SacRT and Caltrans are not a funding partner. The dollar amounts are not recommendations but examples of how the funding could be pieced together from multiple discretionary programs in a favorable funding environment. The dollar amounts for state and federal programs represent the medium to higher award sizes for somewhat similar projects (bridges/transit extensions), and the Measure A values are based on estimates provided by the City. The federal share for construction in this example is ~60%, but that could be increased. This table should be updated regularly as the City advances the project.

Table 1. Overview of funding sources for each phase of the Truxel Bridge project. Values are in millions (M).

Source PA&ED (~$6M) Final Design (~$14M) Construction (~$501M) Local *Impact Fees ($3M)
*Measure A ($2M)
*Impact Fees ($2.4M)
*Measure A ($2.6M)
*Measure A ($20M)
State Funds SACOG Funding Round ($1M)
CalSTA TIRCP
*SACOG Funding Round ($2M)
CalSTA TIRCP ($7M)
**CalSTA TIRCP ($111M)
**CTC SCCP ($45M)
**CTC LPPc ($25M)
Non-FTA Federal
Funds USDOT RAISE USDOT RAISE
SACOG Funding Round ($5M)
USDOT MPDG Mega ($270M)
USDOT RAISE ($25M)
FTA Funds - - -
Financing - - -
*Local matching funds to pursue state or federal programs. **State matching funds to pursue federal programs.

The Funding Challenge: Most state and federal funding programs are oversubscribed, and even highly beneficial projects must apply to programs multiple times to be awarded funds. Due to this scarcity, high-cost projects must demonstrate exceptional benefits and performance outcomes to be competitive for funding assistance. In addition, most discretionary programs can only fund a portion of the total project cost, requiring projects to piece together funds from various local, regional, state, and federal sources.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
7 Figure 1. Flowchart of potential funding decisions and options for the Truxel Bridge project.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
8 Funding Strategy Components
Figure 1 displays the basic components of a funding strategy and provides the City with a structured approach to identifying, tracking, positioning the project for, and pursuing future funding and/or financing opportunities. Alternative Financing/Funding Considerations and Alternative Delivery Considerations are optional because they do not apply to every project. Each component will evolve as the funding landscape changes and the City and its partners make more concrete project delivery and funding decisions.

Figure 2. The components of the Truxel Bridge funding strategy.

Funding Needs for Truxel Bridge
Following the completion of the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, the City will need to secure funds for each phase of project delivery moving forward, including PA&ED, Final Design (Plans, Specifications, and Estimates or PS&E), and Capital Construction. With the standard Design-Bid-Build delivery model, funding is usually pursued one phase at a time, but there are alternative delivery models where final design and construction funds can be pursued simultaneously.

Dokken Engineering developed the 10% design cost estimates and schedule for each phase of the Truxel Bridge project. To advance the project on schedule, the City must acquire the necessary funding for each phase before they begin.

Table 2. Truxel Bridge project schedule and cost estimate.

Phase Timeline Cost Estimate *Non-Federal Match (20%)
PA&ED Support (CEQA and NEPA Documentation) 2025-2027 $6.0 Million $1.2 Million PS&E (Final Design) 2027-2030 $14.0 Million $2.8 Million Capital Construction, ROW, & Construction Support 2031-2034 $500.8 Million $100.2 Million *Applies to federal discretionary programs.

Funding
Strategy
Identify Funding
Needs
Compare Potential
Funding/Financing
Scenarios
Partner
Coordination
Identify and Track
Funding Sources Align the Project
with the Funding
Decision-Making
Process
Alternative
Financing/Funding
Considerations
(Optional)
Alternative
Delivery
Considerations
(Optional)
Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
9 Overview of Potential Funding and/or Financing Scenarios Given that the Truxel Bridge project is still in the pre-environmental phase and the funding strategy will be updated as funding sources evolve, the first draft of this memo presents four broad project funding and/or financing scenarios. The scenarios are based on whether the City decides to pursue financing and whether FTA funds would be committed to the project. In the scenarios with FTA funding, it is assumed that SacRT would receive the FTA New Starts Project Funding Agreement.

Local & Discretionary Funds Only Local & Discretionary Funds + Financing No FTA Funding Scenario 1 Scenario 3
FTA Funding Scenario 2 Scenario 4
Scenario 1 – Local & Discretionary Funds Only
Scenario 1 would put 100% of the project funding responsibility on the City. SacRT would be a key partner but not a major funding partner.

Benefits Challenges
- The City maintains total ownership of the project
delivery and funding acquisition process.
- The City does not acquire any long-term debt
obligations.
- Least complex funding scenario.
- Potentially the longest project delivery timeline,
assuming the future state and federal discretionary
funding landscape is similar to today. Longer project
delivery timelines risk cost increases.
- Uncertainty of when SacRT will implement the
Green Line Extension/HFT project, potentially
impacting the project's competitiveness on grant
applications.

Scenario 2 – Local & Discretionary Funds Only (w/ FTA Funding) Scenario 2 would make the City and SacRT partners in funding and delivering the project. SacRT would likely be the lead agency pursuing the FTA New Starts Project Funding Agreement.

Benefits Challenges
- SacRT has a greater stake in the success of the
project’s delivery. The City shares some of the
project funding burden and risk with SacRT.
- Ensures the SacRT Green Line Extension/HFT is
delivered somewhat parallel to the Truxel Bridge
project, strengthening grant applications.
- New BRT services qualify for FTA New Starts funding
if SacRT is not ready to deliver LRT.
- The City does not acquire any long-term debt
obligations.
- Requires SacRT to commit to a HFT project (LRT or
BRT) and be willing to pursue FTA funds.
- Potentially longer project delivery timeline if SacRT’s timeline for pursuing FTA funding is further out than
Truxel Bridge’s proposed timeline. Longer project
delivery timelines risk cost increases.
- Receiving a New Starts Funding Agreement can be a
long and complex process, and changes in federal
legislation could impact funding availability.
- Currently, we cannot make explicit assumptions
regarding what cost share the Truxel Bridge would
receive from FTA. The boldest assumption would be
the percentage of right-of-way (ROW) dedicated to
transit-priority infrastructure on the bridge, but it
could be significantly less.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
10 Scenario 3 – Local & Discretionary Funds + Financing Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 1, but the City also pursues project financing options, such as a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan, State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) loan (i.e., IBank), or bonds.

Benefits Challenges
- The City maintains total ownership of the project
delivery and funding acquisition process.
- Allows the City to leverage available funding to
address funding gaps and expedite project delivery.
- Potential to reduce project lifecycle cost.
- Delivers project benefits quickly.
- Strengthens the project’s competitiveness in some
discretionary funding applications.
- The TIFIA and IBank terms of agreement can be
negotiated and provide added flexibility.
- Local tax measures can be used to repay TIFIA
loans.
- The City acquires long-term debt obligations and
would need to identify funds to cover the long-term
debt obligations.

Scenario 4 – Local & Discretionary Funding + Financing (w/ FTA Funding) Scenario 4 is similar to Scenario 2, but the City also pursues project financing options, such as a TIFIA loan, SIB loan, or bonds.

Benefits Challenges
- Same benefits of Scenario 2, but the City does
acquire long-term debt obligations.
- Potentially the fastest delivery timeline, assuming
SacRT is willing to commit to pursuing FTA New
Starts funds in the near future.
- Same challenges as Scenarios 2 and 3.
- Most complex scenario.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
11 Partner Coordination
As the project owner, the City is primarily responsible for advancing the project delivery and securing the funds necessary for each phase. However, other government partners will be important in advancing the Truxel Bridge project and supporting the City in pursuing various funding sources.

Partner coordination is critical to funding large, regionally significant transportation projects. Aligning partners' goals and developing broad support for a project results in more competitive grant applications and reduces the potential for inter-agency friction throughout the project delivery process. However, partners’ priorities may evolve over time, influencing the City’s approach to funding and delivering the project.

Table 3 summarizes each partner's role and/or relevance, key insights from previous engagements with the partners, and relevant plans, policies, or initiatives that may influence how the City pursues funds or crafts the messaging around the project. Some partners have not been formally engaged to discuss funding.

Table 3. Partner information table.

Partner(s) Role/Relevance Key Insights from Previous Engagements Relevant Plans, Policies, or Initiatives
SacRT
• Primary transit operator for Sacramento
County.
• Plans to deliver the Green Line Extension/HFT
into Natomas, which requires the
construction of the Truxel Bridge.
• Design coordination for transit-priority
infrastructure.
• Direct FTA funding recipient.
• The City has not formally engaged this partner in project funding discussions yet.
• Potential to be a key funding partner. SacRT would likely need to pursue FTA CIG funds to advance the Green Line
Extension/HFT into Natomas.
• Uncertainty of when SacRT will advance the Green Line Extension/HFT beyond the environmental phase, which
impacts the funding strategy for the Truxel Bridge project. • Green Line Extension EIR/EIS
(Program EIR adopted in 2008;
updated administrative draft
pending).

SACOG
• MPO and RTPA for Sacramento County.
• Responsible for long-term transportation and
planning and programming initiatives.
• Administers state and federal transportation
funds (including the upcoming 2025 Regional
Funding Program). Future funding rounds can
be used to obtain matching funds.
• Administers yearly Project Prioritization
process (required to receive letters of
support/conformity).
• Potential partner for pursuing TIRCP grants.
• Believes the project can help achieve regional transit and VMT/GHG reduction goals.
• Appreciates the project’s potential to overcome a mobility barrier and connect people to jobs/destinations via transit. • Recommends the City to pursue the 2025 Regional Funding Round.
• Recommends the City apply to the Regional Project
Prioritization Program each cycle. Truxel Bridge applied in 2024 and has been prioritized for RAISE (Planning) 2025. • Concerned about the City having three high-cost bridge projects in the pipeline and uncertain about the City’s funding priorities for bridge projects.
• 2025 MTP/SCS
• Regional Transit Network Plan
• Next-Gen Transit Strategy
• Regional Trail Network
• Green Means Go Funding
Initiative
STA
• Governing and administrative body for
Measure A sales tax funds.
• Responsible for the existing Measure A
Expenditure Plan and the future Expenditure
Plan of a voter-approved measure.
• The City has not formally engaged this partner in project funding discussions yet.
• Measure A Expenditure Plan
• Yearly Adopted Budgets
Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
12 Partner(s) Role/Relevance Key Insights from Previous Engagements Relevant Plans, Policies, or Initiatives
Caltrans District
3 • State DOT responsible for the State Highway
System (SHS) and coordinating with
jurisdictions on local projects impacting the
SHS in some capacity.
• Develops plans and policies that influence
funding decisions.
• Truxel Bridge is within the I-5 CMCP study area
and will influence traffic patterns along the I-5
corridor.
• Truxel Bridge can potentially serve as a VMT
mitigation measure for the I-5 Managed Lanes
Project, led by Caltrans District 3.
• Has roughly $50 million to spend on environmental
mitigation measures for the I-5 Managed Lanes Project.
• Mitigation funds will go towards projects with the greatest VMT reduction potential per dollar spent and can only be allocated to the construction/implementation phase.
• Must spend the mitigation funds within three years of completing the I-5 Manage Lanes Project.
• There is uncertainty on whether the Truxel Bridge delivery schedule meets Caltrans’ timeline to allocate funds and if the project achieves adequate VMT reduction (Note: the
City must use Caltrans VMT methodology to help make this determination).
• I-5 CMCP
• I-5 Managed Lanes Project
• California Transportation Plan
2050
• 2023 State Rail Plan Draft
• California Transportation Carbon
Reduction Strategy
• 2017 Towards an Active
California
CTC/CalSTA
• Establishes state policies that guide project
funding decisions.
• Responsible for programming and allocating
the state’s discretionary transportation funds.
• The City has not formally engaged this partner in project funding discussions yet.
• Climate Action Plan for
Transportation Infrastructure
(CAPTI)

USDOT/FHWA/

FTA/BAB
• Establishes federal policies that guide project
funding decisions.
• Administers discretionary federal funds.
• Finances public infrastructure projects.
• The City has not formally engaged this partner in project funding discussions yet.
• USDOT Strategic Plan
• USDOT National Roadway Safety
Strategy
• U.S. National Blueprint for
Transportation Decarbonization.

CCJPA/SJJPA/
SJRRC
• Agencies that manage, plan, and/or operate
intercity rail in the Sacramento Region.
• The construction of the Truxel Bridge improves
transit connectivity to rail services at SVS and
potentially the future Valley Rail Natomas
Station.
• Potential partners for pursuing TIRCP grants.
• The City has not formally engaged this partner in project funding discussions yet.
• CCJPA Business Plan
• SJJPA Business Plan
Elected
Officials
• Creates and votes on legislation that creates
transportation funding policy and funding.
• Helps build public support and educate the
public about projects.
• Helps improve inter-agency communication
and coordination.
• Advocates for project funding.
• Can provide Earmark funding for specific
projects.
• U.S. Representative Ami Bera has shown interest in the project.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
13 Recommendations/Takeaways:
- Consider developing a simplified Partner Engagement Plan that tracks ongoing engagement activities with key partners, including but not limited to partners’ needs and concerns about the project, how each partner makes organizational decisions and what/who influences those decisions, partners’ projects or operations impacted by the project, and opportunities to strengthen relationships with partners. - An inter-agency working group, quarterly senior management meetings, or a similar forum could benefit the Truxel Bridge and Green Line Extension/HFT projects. The intention of such a forum is to ensure all parties are informed about short- and long-term project delivery goals, improve project delivery coordination and inter-agency relations, maintain clarity about project funding efforts, and develop a shared vision for how the two projects can be funded and delivered. In addition, there is currently no other partner that can replace the role of SacRT on this project. Other FTA recipients like CCJPA and SJJPA can be partnered with to pursue TIRCP funds, but the HFT component of the project will be led by SacRT. - This funding strategy will evolve as the City gains deeper insight into SacRT’s proposed schedule and funding strategy to deliver HFT into Natomas.

Delivering both projects in somewhat parallel timelines will demonstrate to funding agencies that the Truxel Bridge will accommodate transit service(s), ideally HFT services, after construction.
- Continue to provide Caltrans with project delivery updates when touch points occur. Complete the VMT analysis using Caltrans’ approved methodology, which is needed for them to determine if the Truxel Bridge project could be a valuable project for mitigation funds. - Consistently engage with state and federal elected officials to build political interest in the project and have an influential advocate for funding the project. State and federal elected officials can help reinforce the broad support for a project, develop stronger inter-agency relationships, increase public interest in a project, request allocation of Earmarked funds, and influence the decisions of funding agencies by emphasizing the project’s critical need and benefits. Special events like Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce’s Cap-to-Cap are crucial opportunities to advocate for the project and show a united front in front of elected officials. - Receiving letters of support/conformity is critical to advancing a project as large as the Truxel Bridge. Funding agencies are more likely to award funding to projects with broad support at multiple levels of government. For the Truxel Bridge project, the most important partners to provide letters of support/conformity are SacRT, SACOG, and elected officials. - Take advantage of workshops, office hours, and other opportunities to engage with CTC, CalSTA, and USDOT staff to discuss the Truxel Bridge project.

Agency staff can provide insight into how funding decisions are evolving each cycle.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
14 Identify and Track Funding Sources
As previously stated, the Truxel Bridge project will be delivered with assistance from various local, regional, state, and federal funding programs. State and federal funding programs will evolve as existing legislation expires and new legislation is passed and implemented. For instance, the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) programs will be awarded through FY 2026, and a new federal infrastructure bill may have different programs.

Note that the City is not eligible to pursue some of these funding sources without an eligible project partner, such as FTA CIG New Starts funding and multiple state programs.

Local Sources
Measure A
Description: Measure A established Sacramento County’s 0.5% local transportation sales tax and transportation impact fee program. The measure was initially passed in 1988 and, in 2004, was extended by voters to 2039.

Measure A also created the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) as the governing body responsible for administering the sales tax revenues.

The City is exploring the possibility of moving future Measure A funds from lower-priority projects to the Truxel Bridge project. Measure A funds will be a critical source for matching funds when pursuing state and federal grants.

Truxel Bridge is included in STA’s 2024-25 Budget, with the expenditure assumption of $2 million in FY25-26, $2.4 million in FY 26-27, and $2 million in FY 27-28.

Evaluation Criteria: Funding allocation must be compliant with the Measure A Expenditure Plan.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases None N/A Ongoing No Any
Impact Fees
Description: Impact Fees are among the most common mechanisms for generating local funding for transportation and infrastructure projects. The City has multiple impact fee programs in the project area. As of Fall 2024, the City has about $5 million in impact fees available to be used as matching funds. The availability of impact fees may increase as new development occurs, but the revenue growth is difficult to estimate.

Evaluation Criteria: The use of funds must comply with local impact fee ordinances and state laws.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases N/A N/A N/A No Any
Recommendations/Takeaways:
- Measure A revenues and impact fees are currently the City’s primary source of matching funds. While matching funds can be acquired from certain regional and state programs in the future, they are not guaranteed. The City may consider transferring additional Measure A funds to the Truxel Bridge project if it is a higher priority than other Measure A projects. In addition, growth in impact fee revenues, even if minimal, could help increase the amount of local matching funds in the future. Review Table 2 for an estimate of matching funds to pursue federal programs. Many state programs do not have matching requirements, but the local match is considered during project evaluation. - Continue to work with STA, elected officials, and other project partners to advocate for a new tax measure, including set-aside funding for the Truxel Bridge in the new Expenditure Plan. Increased revenue from a new sales tax measure would increase the amount of funding committed to the local match, which will also improve the project’s competitive advantage when pursuing discretionary funds.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
15 Regional Sources (Allocates State and Federal Funds) SACOG Regional Funding Round
Description: SACOG is currently developing its Regional Funding Round for FY 2025. The Regional Funding Program intends to meet federal and state performance objectives, position the region’s most important projects for larger state and federal grants, and implement regional policies and priorities in the MTP/SCS.

The Truxel Bridge qualifies for the following federal programs:
• Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program (CMAQ Funds): Funds projects or programs that contribute to attaining or maintaining the national ambient air quality. The selected project should advance the Next Gen Transit, Regional Transit Network Study, and Regional Trails Network. • System Performance Program (STBG Funds): To fund projects that increase the performance of the regional transportation network. STBG funding is the most flexible and can go to many projects, including high-frequency/capacity transit and new transit infrastructure.

The project also qualifies for the Four-County STIP funds.

The Regional Funding can be used as a match to pursue larger state and federal assistance programs.

Evaluation Criteria - Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program (based on draft guidelines): GHG/VMT Reduction; Reduce Regional Congestion; Increase Multimodal Travel Options; Provide Long-Term Economic Benefit; and Climate Adaptation and Resilience.

Evaluation Criteria - System Performance Program (based on draft guidelines): GHG/VMT Reduction; Reduce Congestion; Increase Multimodal Travel Options; Provide Long-Term Economic Benefit; Improve Goods Movements; Improve Safety and Security; and State of Good Repair.

Evaluation Criteria - Four-County STIP Program (based on draft guidelines): State of Good Repair; Improve Safety and Security; Increase Multimodal Travel Options; Improve Goods Movements; and Climate Adaptation and Resilience.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases TBD in 2025 TBD in 2025 2025 No Any
Recommendations/Takeaways:
- Continue to track SACOG’s funding programs, which could be used to partially fund PA&ED or final design or increase matching funds for larger discretionary programs. The upcoming Regional Funding Program will accept applications in 2025. The Truxel Bridge project is eligible for the federal ‘Next Generation Solutions and Clean Air Program’ and ‘System Performance Program’ and the Four-County STIP program. SACOG staff called out the following factors to increase the Truxel Bridge project’s competitiveness for regional funding: partnership with partners (i.e., SacRT), VMT/GHG reduction, regional transit connectivity, and mobility barrier removal. - Continue to engage with SACOG staff and apply to the yearly Regional Project Prioritization Program to build project support at the regional level and receive future letters of support/conformity for future grant applications. To be positioned as a regionally significant project, it is critical to show SACOG’s support of the project to state and federal officials. The City applied to SACOG’s Regional Project Prioritization Program in August 2024 and was selected by SACOG to be prioritized for RAISE 2025 (Planning).

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
16 State Sources
California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Description: TIRCP funds transformative capital improvements (including environmental review and design) that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, urban rail, bus, and ferry transit systems to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion.

The City must partner with an FTA recipient (e.g., SacRT, CCJPA, or SJJPA) to pursue TIRCP funds.

Evaluation Criteria: Reduce GHG Emissions; Increase Ridership; Integrate with Rail & Transit Operators; and Improve Safety.
*Requires the completion of the “Jobs Co-Benefit Modeling Tool” and “CARB Quantification Tool.” Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases No No Spring 2026 *No, see note above Any
CTC/Caltrans Solution for Congested Corridor Program (SCCP) Description: Every two years, the SCCP makes $500 million available to construction projects (including design for alternative delivery projects) that reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly congested corridors through performance improvements that balance transportation improvements, community impacts, and environmental benefits. Projects must be part of a comprehensive corridor plan. Truxel Bridge is in the I-5 CMCP under the project name “New American River Crossing.”
The City must partner with Caltrans or SACOG to pursue SCCP funding. City governments are not eligible applicants.

Evaluation Criteria: Safety; Congestion; Accessibility; Economic Development/Job Creation; Air pollution and GHG Reduction; Efficient Land Use; Level of Matching Funds; and Timely Project Completion.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases No No Summer 2026 Yes Construction
CTC Local Planning Partnership (LPPc)
Description: Every two years, the LPPc Competitive provides funding to jurisdictions where voters have approved fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements. LPPc solely funds construction.

Evaluation Criteria: Accessibility & Multimodal Infrastructure; Air Quality and GHG Reduction; Community Engagement; Economic Development/Job Creation; Cost Effectiveness; Deliverability; Matching Funds; Safety; System Preservation; Land Use & Housing Goals; Vehicle Miles Traveled; Innovative Delivery Methods; and Project Segmenting/Scalability.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases $25 Million 1-to-1 Match Summer 2026 Yes Construction
Caltrans I-5 Managed Lane Project Mitigation Funding
Description: Caltrans has about $50 million to invest in projects that will mitigate the environmental impacts of the I-5 Managed Lanes Project in Sacramento County. The Truxel Bridge corridor is parallel to the I-5 and can lower VMT along the I-5 corridor. However, Caltrans must be able to fund the Truxel Bridge project within three years of the I-5 Managed Lanes Project's start of operations, and it is uncertain if Truxel will advance in time. In addition, the City needs to utilize Caltrans’ VMT methodology to determine the potential VMT reduction per dollar spent.

Evaluation Criteria: VMT Reduction Potential per Dollar Spent.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases TBD No N/A No Construction
Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
17 Priority Legislative Budget Projects (PLBP)
Description: PLBP are earmarked funds for specific projects authorized by state legislation. The legislative sponsors identify projects that are a priority in their respective districts and authorize PLBP funding for these projects through legislation. Caltrans is the authorizing agency for distributing the funding provided by this legislation. Matching funds are not a requirement. The funding capacity varies yearly, with project awards historically ranging from $250,000 to $20,000,000. However, the most recent PLBP, AB 102, ranged between $500,000 and $3,000,000 per project.

Evaluation Criteria: Not applicable.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases No No Yearly No Design & Con
Recommendations/Takeaways:
- TIRCP and SCCP do not require a 20% match and can be pursued to create a larger match for federal programs. TIRCP and SCCP do consider the size of the match in evaluating the project, but a low match will not necessarily disqualify a project if it performs well in other aspects of the evaluation. - Complete the Jobs Co-Benefit Modeling Tool and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Quantification Tool for the Truxel Bridge project before the next TIRCP cycle to see how well the project performs. During the 2024 cycle, many agencies did not use those tools until the CFP and had to remove projects and make significant changes to their applications. - Continue to communicate project benefits to elected officials. Earmarked funds are flexible and can be used as a match for larger discretionary programs.
- As previously stated, utilize opportunities to meet with CTC and CalSTA staff, who can provide their perspective about the project and insights into how funding decisions are evolving each cycle. - If The City is unsuccessful is pursuing state discretionary funds, it is critical the City receive a debrief from CTC or CalSTA staff to understand why the project wasn’t selected and how to improve the application for the next cycle.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
18 Federal Sources
With the passage of IIJA in 2021 came a significant increase in federal funding for large multimodal transportation projects like the Truxel Bridge. However, most discretionary funding programs created or extended by IIJA will be awarded by the end of FY 2026. For now, the City can only assume today’s federal discretionary funding landscape will be somewhat similar in the future, but that is not a certainty. The funding strategy must be updated to align with programs created or extended by the next large federal transportation and infrastructure bill.

USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Description: The RAISE program invests in surface transportation projects that will have a significant local or regional impact and align with USDOT’s strategic goals. Planning Grants are for project activities related to planning, preparation, or design, including pre-construction activities, and Capital Construction Grants are for the construction of surface transportation projects.

Priority Criteria: Safety; Environmental Sustainability; Quality of Life; and Mobility and Community Connectivity.

Other Criteria: Economic Competitiveness and Opportunity; State of Good Repair; Partnership and Collaboration; and Innovation Areas (Technology, Project Delivery, and Financing).

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases $25 Million 20% Non-Federal;
40% non-RAISE Fall 2024 Yes (Con Only) Env, Design, & Con USDOT Multimodal Project Delivery Grant (MPDG) - Mega
Description: The Mega program invests in large, complex projects that are difficult to fund by other means and are likely to generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits. Previous cycles have included extremely large awards to multimodal bridge projects, such as the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (Oregon and Washington State), awarded $600 million in MPDG – Mega funds.

Evaluation Criteria: Safety; State of Good Repair; Economic Impacts/Freight Movement/Job Creation; Climate Change/Resilience/Environment; Equity/Multimodal Options/Quality of Life; and Innovation Areas (Technology, Project Delivery, and Financing).

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases No 20% Non-Federal;
40% non-MPDG
TBD (No More
NOFOs under IIJA) Yes Env, Design, & Con
FTA Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program - New Starts Description: The CIG program funds large transit and rail capital investments, including BRT. FTA recipient agencies seeking CIG funding must complete a series of steps over several years.

New Starts projects must be new fixed guideway projects or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems with a total estimated capital cost of $400 million or more or seeking $150 million or more in CIG program funds.

The FTA CIG program has specific processes, requirements, and timelines to advance a project through the statutorily defined Project Development and Engineering phases, which can take many years to navigate before reaching a funding agreement with the FTA.

Project Justification Criteria: Mobility improvements; Environmental Benefits; Congestion Relief; Economic Development Effects; Land Use; and Cost Effectiveness.

Local Financial Commitment Criteria: Availability of reasonable contingency amounts, availability of stable and dependable capital and operating funding sources, and availability of local resources to recapitalize, maintain, and operate the overall existing and proposed public transportation system without reducing existing services.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases No 50% non-CIG (can
vary) Ongoing No Construction
Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
19 Community Project Funding / Congressionally Directed Spending (CPFCDS, “Congressional Earmark”) With the passage of IIJA, the CPFCDS program was created to support specific community projects as part of the Annual Appropriations process. For every year of funding, the CPFCDS projects are solicited and selected by the members of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate. Once selected, the individual scope and funding amount for each CPFCDS project is written into law via the Annual Appropriations bill. Most CPFCDS funding requests are usually between $1 and $10 million per project, but a higher amount can be requested.

Evaluation Criteria: Depends on the elected official’s political priorities.

Award Maximum Required Match Next Cycle BCA Required? Project Phases No No Yearly No Design & Con
Recommendations/Takeaways:
- Gain insight into how SacRT will fund the Green Line Extension/HFT project, including if the agency plans to pursue FTA Small Starts funds and the preferred timeline for entering the Small Starts program. SacRT’s strategy for funding the Green Line Extension/HFT project will influence the potential for FTA funds on the Truxel Bridge project. The CIG program is prescriptive and has specific timeframes for project delivery activities, so if the City wants to explore FTA as a funding source for construction, they need to discuss it with SacRT sooner rather than later.
- Utilize opportunities to meet with USDOT and FTA staff to gauge their opinion of the Truxel Bridge project and its potential performance in the federal programs identified above. - IIJA funds will be obligated through FY 2026. When meeting with elected officials, the City should advocate for another large transportation and infrastructure bill with programs designed for large multimodal projects like the Truxel Bridge.
- Continue to communicate project benefits to elected officials. Earmarked funds are flexible and can be used as a match for larger discretionary programs.
- If the City is unsuccessful is pursuing federal discretionary funds, it is critical the City receive a debrief from the federal agency to understand why the project wasn’t selected and how to improve the application for the next cycle.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
20 Align the Project with how Funding Decisions are Made Most discretionary funding programs are highly competitive, and even “highly recommended” projects are often not awarded funds until the second or third time applying. For this reason, to maximize the project’s competitiveness, the City should pursue discretionary funding programs with an understanding of how funding agencies make decisions.

Key Considerations Before Pursuing Discretionary Programs:
- Understand how grant applications are evaluated, with specific attention to the merit criteria. After reviewing project eligibility and readiness (usually a pass/fail grade), alignment with program evaluation/merit criteria determines the likelihood of a project being awarded funds. - The decisions made by funding agencies have become increasingly performance- and data-driven. As the project advances, the City should consider what data and further studies are needed to highlight the project’s strengths and long-term performance outcomes. When applicable, leverage governmentrecommended GIS and analysis tools, including but not limited to the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer, Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJ Screen), Screening Tool for Equity Analysis of Projects (STEAP), CalEnviroScreen 4.0, and Healthy Places Index (HPI) Tool. - As the project approaches final design and construction, consider completing an initial Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) before Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) or Call for Projects (CFPs). State and federal programs increasingly require BCAs to ensure a project’s economic returns exceed the initial investment. Completing BCAs early gives insight into how the project performs and how certain factors, such as projected transit ridership, impact the BCA. Coordination with SacRT may be required to complete the BCA.
- Build consensus with project partners before NOFOs or CFPs. Continue to coordinate and foster interagency relations with SacRT to ensure they can provide a letter of support when requested and to understand the project delivery timeline for HFT into Natomas relative to Truxel Bridge. How SacRT funds its HFT project could impact how the Truxel Bridge is funded and/or the project delivery timeline. Continue applying to SACOG’s Regional Project Prioritization Program each cycle to qualify for board approval for letters of support/conformity. Letters of support/conformity from project partners reinforce that there is broad support for the project and that it advances or supports the goals and priorities of other partners. - Take advantage of touch points with funding agencies, such as office hours and workshops. Agency staff can provide insight into how to approach specific funding programs and how funding programs are evolving each cycle.
- If funds are not awarded and the City plans to pursue a funding program for a second time, scheduling debriefs with funding agency staff can provide insight into improving the application for the next cycle. - Keep state and federal elected officials informed about the project. Take advantage of touch points with elected officials to regularly communicate why the project is needed and its benefits. Fostering political support for a project ensures letters of support will be received when requested and helps elected officials leverage some level of influence in funding the project. - When developing the application, provide adequate time for reviewing application materials. Two rounds of review are recommended, at 60-70% complete and 90-95% complete. Rushed applications can often result in a less competitive project.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
21 Alignment with Regional and State Plans and Initiatives Funding programs and, in turn, funding decisions are guided by regional, state, or federal policy. In California, state policy has increasingly guided funding agencies to invest in transportation projects that help accomplish the state’s ambitious climate change goals (i.e., CalSTA’s CAPTI) and result in more equitable outcomes (i.e., SB 535, later followed by AB 1550). Federal policy is less predictable when considering the long project delivery timeline for the Truxel Bridge, and the results of future elections may impact future federal transportation policy.

The Partner Coordination section identifies project partners' plans and policies potentially relevant to the Truxel Bridge project. However, some plans and policies are more relevant from a funding perspective. In discussing the need and benefits of the Truxel Bridge project with funding agency staff and elected officials and on grant applications, the City may want to emphasize how the project supports the following policy initiatives at the regional and state levels. Federal plans and policies, such as USDOT’s Strategic Plan and the White House’s Justice40, are relevant as well, but they are not included due to the likely administration changes by the time Truxel Bridge is pursuing federal construction dollars.

Regional Plans and Initiatives
2025 MTP/SCS, “The Blueprint” (Planned Adoption in 2025): SACOG’s 2025 Blueprint will serve as the long-range, comprehensive vision for transportation investments and land use patterns in the six-county Sacramento region.

The Triple Bottom Line Framework, equity, economy, and environment, guides the policies and projects in the Blueprint. The updated Blueprint will include a financially constrained project list, which collectively is required to meet the region’s challenging GHG emission reduction and land use goals. The Truxel Bridge project is included in the draft financially constrained 2025 Blueprint project list (Project ID #SAC24539), and the “Future Green Line Station Areas” are identified as Center and Corridor Communities in the 2025 Blueprint land use assumptions, with an estimated increase of 1,260 jobs and 2,040 housing units by 2050.

Overall, the Truxel Bridge project is well-aligned with the policy framework and goals of the 2025 Blueprint. The project will expand access to affordable transportation options in disadvantaged communities (equity), reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants (equity & environment), enhance multimodal connectivity to employment opportunities and popular destinations (equity & economy), and promote more sustainable transit-supportive land uses (equity, environment, & economy).

Regional Transit Network Plan (Adopted 2021): This plan develops and prioritizes a list of regional transit corridors for future investment and inclusion in the 2025 Blueprint. The Truxel/Commerce corridor has been identified as a Medium-Distance HFT Corridor in the plan and received a prioritization score of 3.3, roughly in the middle compared to other corridors. Truxel Bridge must be constructed to expand a new HFT corridor into Natomas.

Regional Trail Network/Ready-Set-Trails (Adopted Action Plan in 2022): This plan identifies a regional network of existing and planned trails, with the intention of filling trail gaps and improving connections between trails. The Truxel Bridge is not part of the Regional Trail Network, but it will be constructed near existing trail segments. The bridge will be constructed over the Jedediah Smith Trail and Two Rivers Trail and be sited roughly a mile from the Ninos Parkway Trail. To improve competitiveness in SACOG Funding Rounds, the City may consider how the Truxel Bridge can enhance active transportation connectivity with the trail network.

State Plans and Initiatives
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, CAPTI (Adopted 2021): CAPTI was developed to align CalSTA’s transportation programming policies with Executive Order N-19-19, which identifies the critical need to fund transportation projects that advance more sustainable, equitable, and healthy modes of transportation. The plan also calls for a more data- and performance-driven investment strategy to ensure state funds effectively advance statewide mobility, GHG reduction, and equity goals. CalSTA and its agencies (CTC and Caltrans) must align discretionary grant funding decisions with the goals and strategies in CAPTI and the CAPTI Investment Strategy.

As previously stated, elements of the Truxel Bridge project are well-aligned with the State’s climate goals. As the project approaches construction, the City may want to consider how it will be able to quantify the performance of the alternative modes using the bridge – transit and active transportation – since the state’s funding programs are becoming increasingly performance-based.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
22 California State Rail Plan (2023 Draft Plan Under Review): The draft State Rail Plan identifies the need to improve connectivity between rail and transit networks at regional mobility hubs like Sacramento Valley Station (SVS). The Truxel Bridge project enables a new HFT connection between Natomas and intercity rail services at SVS. The new Truxel Bridge could also enable a more direct transit service between Valley Rail’s future Natomas Station and SVS, creating a more resilient/redundant transit and rail network during potential shutdowns or delays at Valley Rail’s Midtown Station. Showing that the project advances the goals of the State Rail Plan is a required component of TIRCP applications.

I-5 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan, CMCP (Adopted 2022): The goal of the I-5 CMCP document is to create a decision-making process for developing mobility solutions that increase accessibility and mobility, improve safety, and enhance the quality of life and the environment within the I-5 corridor in the region. The Truxel Bridge project, referred to as “Lower American River Crossing,” is included in the I-5 CMCP study area, which makes it eligible for future SCCP funding and Caltrans I-5 Managed Lanes project mitigation funding. The Truxel Bridge project will reduce congestion on I-5 by creating a more direct route for vehicles, transit, and active modes between Natomas and the Central City.

Truxel Bridge’s Project Strengths
The following summarizes the key strengths of the Truxel Bridge project that will improve its competitive advantage when pursuing state and federal funding programs and help develop broad support from the public, agency partners, and elected officials. Many of these project strengths also align with existing merit/evaluation criteria for the discretionary programs included in Identify and Track Funding Sources.

It is recommended the City thoroughly review the merit criteria for funding programs they are about to develop applications for, including developing a general outline of how the Truxel Bridge project will address each criterion and identifying what kind of data and information are needed to craft a compelling narrative (e.g., if a BCA is required, it is recommended the City complete it before the NOFO or CFP is released).

Overall, Truxel Bridge’s key strengths as a project are:
- Improved multimodal connectivity over an existing mobility barrier, connecting two parts of the City with growing employment and housing opportunities, accommodating HFT into Natomas with transit-priority infrastructure, and improving active transportation connectivity across the river. - Reduced transportation-related environmental impacts by improving access to affordable and clean modes of transportation, promoting mode shift behaviors, accommodating more efficient travel patterns, and incentivizing more sustainable infill development patterns. - Safer transportation network by using a Complete Streets design approach, designating separate ROWs for transit, vehicles, and active modes, creating a more direct and visible route for active modes, improving intersections at both ends of the bridge, and authorizing emergency vehicles to use transit-priority lanes to quickly reach medical resources in the Central City.
- Equitable Investment that will benefit disadvantaged populations by expanding affordable transportation options in Natomas, creating new connections to employment opportunities and community amenities for those who cannot drive or have access to a vehicle, and improving air quality in an area heavily impacted by air pollution.
- Positive economic outcomes by improving connectivity to growing employment and activity centers in Natomas and the Central City, incentivizing investment near future HFT stations, and by extending HFT to the airport in the future, enhancing Sacramento as a destination for conferences and tourism. - Regionally impactful project by improving transit connectivity to regional destinations like the airport and growing employment centers, changing travel behaviors beyond the project area, and relieving congestion on major highways in the region.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
23 Mobility and Connectivity
The American River is a natural mobility barrier that constrains north-south trips to a limited number of crossings in the City of Sacramento. Despite the population and employment growth occurring in Natomas and the Central City, there is no direct route for transit or vehicles to cross the river. The one nearby active transportation crossing, the Jibboom Bridge, is not well connected to the existing street network, is often flooded in the wet season, and is uncomfortable to utilize at night due to a lack of public visibility. SacRT has planned a major HFT extension into Natomas, the Green Line Extension project, but the project cannot be built without a new crossing over the river.

The Truxel Bridge project creates a direct, multimodal connection between Natomas and the Central City, mitigating an existing mobility barrier and providing access to new destinations and opportunities on both sides of the river.

The new bridge will provide significant benefits for multiple modes of transportation:

Transit: The bridge will include transit-priority infrastructure to accommodate a direct HFT corridor extending from the Central City to North Natomas. To maximize transit performance and improve traffic safety along the new HFT corridor, the City has planned lane reductions and transit-priority infrastructure on Truxel Road in Natomas. The new HFT service will expand access to affordable transportation options in Natomas and connect to growing housing and employment centers in North Natomas and the Central City. The HFT service between Natomas and the Central City will offer shorter headways and faster, more reliable travel times than existing transit services in Natomas, promoting mode shift to transit and decreasing VMTs. Ultimately, Truxel Bridge will accommodate HFT to the airport, enabling travelers to reach the airport from any part of SacRT’s light rail network and SVS. HFT to the airport will shift a share of vehicle trips to and from the airport to lower-cost and potentially faster transit.

Vehicles: Drivers who typically rely on I-5 or SR 160 to cross between Natomas and the Central City can utilize a more direct route on the local street network. More efficient travel patterns will reduce driving travel times and reduce VMTs and congestion on I-5. The improved roadway connectivity across the river will also create a more resilient roadway network, with multiple travel options over the river in case of an emergency, evacuation, or severe congestion on I-5. Emergency vehicles will have a more direct, faster connection to hospitals and resources in the Central City and could utilize the transit-priority lanes to avoid traffic delays.

Active transportation: The bridge will have a protected, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant path for pedestrians and bicyclists to ensure the bridge is safe, comfortable, and accessible for all users. The bridge will integrate with the existing pedestrian and bicycle networks on both sides of the river to create seamless connections for active modes. The City will explore strategies to improve active transportation connectivity between the bridge and the nearby Jedediah Smith Trail and Two Rivers Trail.

Environmental Sustainability
The Truxel Bridge and future HFT service using its transit-priority infrastructure can help the Sacramento region achieve its challenging GHG reduction goal of 19% below 2005 levels by 2035. The project also aligns with the statewide goals established in CAPTI by improving multimodal connectivity, expanding access to affordable modes of transportation, promoting mode shift, and reducing VMT and GHG emissions.

The project will reduce barriers to accessing affordable HFT in an area lacking quality transit and promote mode shift behaviors by creating new transit connections to employment and commercial centers and other amenities.

Transit-priority infrastructure on Truxel Bridge and along Truxel Road will improve transit speed and reliability, increasing the attractiveness and convenience of transit services and, in turn, transit ridership. Increasing transit mode share will reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants, creating a more sustainable and healthier region.

The Truxel Bridge project will also support more sustainable and efficient infill development activities along the future HFT corridor. The City has planned transit-supportive land uses along the Truxel Road corridor in Natomas in preparation for the future LRT/BRT expansion and has a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Ordinance that incentivizes transit-supportive uses along existing and future LRT corridors. The City’s commitment to more sustainable, transit-supportive land uses is emphasized by the approval of Innovation Park in North Natomas, a 183- acre mixed-use development at the former Sleep Train Arena site on the Truxel Road corridor. Mixed-use infill development activities are also ongoing in the River and Railyard Districts in the Central City, where significant population and job growth are projected.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
24 Safety
The City is taking a Complete Streets design approach to ensure the Truxel Bridge maintains a neighborhood bridge character that is safe and accessible for all modes and users with different abilities. The bridge will have dedicated ROWs for transit and active modes, potentially with physical barriers or bollards, to increase a sense of safety for all users and prevent accidental swerving into another mode’s ROW. Transit-priority lanes are also associated with slower driving speeds due to the decreased number of general-purpose lanes.

The Truxel Bridge provides a more direct and safe route for active modes than the nearby Jibboom Bridge, which is often flooded in the wet season and has poor public visibility at night. The City will integrate the bridge’s active transportation infrastructure with the pedestrian and bicyclist networks on both sides and potentially explore opportunities to improve connections to the nearby Jedediah Smith Trail and Two Rivers Trail.

The bridge will also be an important route for emergency service vehicles. South Natomas lacks hospitals with trauma centers, and the nearest trauma centers are in the Central City. The Truxel Bridge will help reduce transport times for emergency vehicles by creating a more direct and reliable route across the river instead of using the often congested I-5. The City is considering allowing emergency vehicles to access the transit-priority lanes, which will help emergency vehicles avoid traffic on the bridge and reduce the chance of accidental collisions with vehicles.

Equity/Quality of Life
The Truxel Bridge project will improve the quality of life for disadvantaged populations by expanding access to affordable transportation options in Natomas, improving air quality, and creating new multimodal connections to employment opportunities and amenities. The Truxel Bridge project is in a federal Historically Disadvantaged Community and a California SB 535 Disadvantaged Community. The project’s benefits will also reach disadvantaged populations in North and South Natomas, the Central City, and other communities with existing access to the light rail and intercity rail network.

Affordable and Accessible Travel Options: The Truxel Bridge will be constructed with a separate, protected ROW for active modes and be ADA accessible, allowing people of all abilities to safely and comfortably cross the bridge to reach opportunities and destinations across the river. The Truxel Bridge will also enable SacRT to expand HFT into Natomas, increasing access to an affordable and convenient mobility option for people who do not drive or would be willing not to drive if transit was a more viable option. Access to affordable mobility options also benefits children, older adults, single-parent households, and people with disabilities who are more likely to experience severe isolation and mobility barriers created by car-centric urban design.

Air Quality: Due to the project’s proximity to I-5 and other high-traffic arterials, the project area experiences high air pollution. Most Census Tracts in the project area have high amounts of PM2.5 and diesel particulate matter (note that PM 2.5 pollution is shown much higher on EJ Screen than CalEnviroScreen) and are in the highest percentiles for the proportion of the population with asthma. The Truxel Bridge project can help minimize air pollution impacts in this area by promoting mode shifts to more sustainable, clean modes of transportation, such as HFT and active transportation, and by reducing VMTs due to more direct driving routes.

Access to New Destinations, Opportunities, and Amenities: The Truxel Bridge project will create new connections to destinations that are difficult or impossible to reach for transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

People with disabilities, children, older adults, and people who do not drive or have access to a vehicle will benefit from new transit connections to destinations in Natomas and the Central City. Residents in Natomas will have a direct connection to job opportunities, medical resources, amenities, and popular destinations in the Central City, and since future HFT services on Truxel Road will link to SVS and other light rail lines, they will be able to reach destinations in South Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Roseville, and even the Bay Area without a vehicle. There are also many social and cultural amenities in the Central City, such as the Downtown Commons (DOCO), Old Sacramento, the Capitol Area, and other popular neighborhoods that will be accessible via the Truxel Bridge. The same is true for residents in Central City, who will have direct access to the growing employment opportunities in North Natomas. In addition, residents in the River and Railyards District will have more direct access to the public parks and shopping centers in South Natomas.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
25 Important Note About Affordable Housing: A common concern with projects that result in transit and rail expansion is gentrification and displacement of existing community members around new station areas. Lowerincome households, people of color, and people with disabilities are more likely to rely on transit for commuting, errands, and other day-to-day trips. Therefore, affordable living spaces must be available near transit stations to ensure disadvantaged populations have equitable access to services. The City is taking proactive steps to ensure that future development near the Truxel Bridge and the Truxel Road corridor will support affordable housing options.

The City has a Mixed-Income Housing Ordinance that established a citywide Housing Impact Fee, which is used to develop affordable housing in the City. In addition, projects greater than 100 acres, such as Innovation Park on Truxel Road, must meet certain affordable housing production requirements. Residential development in Innovation Park will provide 10% of constructed units as affordable housing units.

Economic Development and Growth
Creating a new multimodal connection between Natomas and the Central City will boost economic activity by improving access to growing employment centers, educational opportunities, shopping and entertainment destinations, and other activity centers. Per The 2025 Blueprint’s land use assumptions, North Natomas and Central City are projected to contain some of the region’s greatest amount of growth, with thousands of new housing units and jobs by 2050, many of which will become more accessible with a new HFT service between Natomas and the Central City. Future activity centers, such as Innovation Park, the Railyards, and a revitalized SVS, will be connected along an HFT corridor, attracting more people to visit those destinations for work, errands, and play. Truxel Bridge will also improve HFT connectivity to the existing SacRT LRT network and intercity rail service at SVS, expanding access to major employment centers in Roseville, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Elk Grove, and even the Bay Area.

Extending HFT into Natomas will attract new investment into future station areas, which will enhance the existing commercial areas, promote more economically efficient land uses, create new businesses and jobs, and increase the municipal tax revenues in the long term. As new investments are made in public and commercial spaces, many new station areas will become hubs for shopping, eating, and entertainment.

In the more distant future, expanding LRT service to the airport will make Sacramento a more attractive destination for visitors and businesses. New transit connections between airports and central business districts can catalyze economic activity, such as conferences and other large events, tourism, and businesses opening new downtown offices.

Regional Impact
Communicating the regional benefits of the Truxel Bridge project is critical to pursuing larger federal funding programs and developing wider regional support for the project. Most mobility, environmental, and economic impacts discussed above will also result in regional benefits. Furthermore, the following describes how the Truxel Bridge project will have a regional impact on the transportation network, how people travel, and where people travel.

Network Connectivity: The Truxel Bridge will add redundancy to the existing network, so in the case of severe congestion on I-5 or an emergency, there are additional routes to cross the river to prevent worsening backups on I5.

A new HFT service expanding into Natomas would impact regional transit and rail connectivity, especially if the new HFT service connects to popular regional destinations like the airport, SVS, and/or employment centers in North Natomas. All SacRT LRT routes could connect to those destinations as well, assuming passengers are comfortable with transferring during the trip. Passengers arriving at SVS from outside Sacramento County could connect directly to employment centers in North Natomas and/or the airport via HFT. Vice versa, travelers arriving at the airport could connect directly to SVS via HFT and take intercity rail to destinations outside of the County.

Travel Behaviors: Creating a more direct route across the American River may have a regional impact on driving patterns by reducing the number of vehicles and increasing throughput on I-5. Expanding HFT connectivity to major destinations in Natomas and the Central City will influence a share of existing drivers to shift to more affordable, convenient transit options. In addition, HFT connectivity with rail services like SacRT’s light rail and Capitol Corridor’s commuter rail will influence workers’ preferences for employment locations.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
26 Access to Regional Destinations: The extension of HFT into Natomas and, eventually, the airport expands access to popular regional destinations for transit and rail passengers. North Natomas and the Central City are projected to have significant job and housing growth by 2050. A new HFT corridor connecting to regional employment centers in North Natomas and the Central City, including SVS, will greatly expand access to employment opportunities for rail and transit passengers within and outside Sacramento County. If SacRT eventually expands HFT to the airport, many travelers will have a lower-cost, convenient connection to the airport; and vice versa, transit connections into the City’s core from the airport will be more direct.

Congestion Reduction: The new bridge will re-route a share of vehicle trips between South Natomas and the Central City, reducing vehicles and congestion on the I-5 during peak travel hours. More direct, convenient transit and active mode connections will influence some drivers to shift to transit or bicycling instead of driving on highways. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of residential and job growth planned for North Natomas, and without alternative transportation options in North Natomas, congestion on the I-5 will worsen. Overall, moving trips off the I-5 and other major highways will reduce congestion in the region.

Recommendations/Takeaways:
- Consider what kind of studies or analysis will help broaden the City’s understanding of the Truxel Bridge’s ultimate impact. For example, project owners often perform an Economic Impact Analysis early in project development to be able to show the public, elected officials, and funding agencies the beneficial economic outcomes of a high-cost infrastructure project. Furthermore, SacRT should be able to provide additional data and information about the Green Line Extension/HFT project, such as projected ridership. - Given the high-cost of the project, the Truxel Bridge project’s ultimate competitive advantage in the funding landscape is that it will be constructed with transit-priority infrastructure and will accommodate the extension of HFT into Natomas (and eventually to the airport). Most of the project strengths identified above rely on SacRT advancing HFT into Natomas. The Truxel Bridge project will need to show that it will result in mode shift (higher transit ridership) and reduced VMT if state funding agencies are going to provide large enough awards for the project to advance, which means integrating the benefits of a new HFT corridor into the project’s identity. However, that does not mean the benefits of enabling shorter, more direct vehicle trips and creating new active transportation connections is not meaningful in funding the project.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo
27 Alternative Project Financing Models
It can take multiple funding cycles to combine awards from various discretionary grants to fund a large project. Discretionary programs are highly competitive and oversubscribed, with many “Highly Recommended” projects not receiving awards until their second or third time applying. For this reason, it is not uncommon for highcost projects to explore alternative financing or funding mechanisms to address funding shortfalls, expedite project delivery, and deliver project benefits quickly.

Project financing allows projects to receive cash upfront to advance project delivery, then later pay back the principal amount borrowed with additional interest and debt service to account for lending risks, inflation, and administrative costs. Under certain conditions, interest rates can be favorable and may result in long-term project lifecycle cost savings. However, the City would need to identify a long-term funding source, such as Measure A, to pay the debt obligation.

This funding strategy does not recommend any specific financing options. We present these as options for the City to consider. If the City wants to explore these options, it should consider developing a Project Financing Plan before the PS&E phase begins.

Overall Benefits of Innovative Financing:
- Leverage available funding sources quickly
instead of leaving them stagnant and losing
purchasing power over time.
- Expedite project delivery for high-cost projects
that would typically take many more years to
acquire the necessary funding via discretionary
sources.
- Financing has a higher ceiling than most
discretionary grants, depending on what level of
credit the borrower can repay.
- Flexibility in terms of availability of when
financing is obtained.
- Spread project cost burden over a more
extended period of time.
- Deliver the project's beneficial impacts many
years sooner.
- Many discretionary funding programs include
“innovative financing” as an evaluation criterion
for project selection. Financial assistance can
increase a project's chance of being awarded
discretionary grants.

Key Considerations for Alternative Financing:
- State infrastructure financing laws.
- Short- and long-term financing costs.
- Local debt capacity.
- Long-term financial risks.
- Availability of local funds or long-term revenues
to pay debt obligations, such as future sales tax
revenues or value capture mechanisms.
- Timing and availability of new funds.
- Public opinion and government transparency.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo Outline
28 Alternative Project Financing Options
Build America Bureau (BAB) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loans TIFIA provides credit assistance through direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit (rather than grants) to projects of national or regional significance. Direct TIFIA loans are made to state and local project sponsors with low interest rates and flexible repayment terms. Loan repayments can start up to five years after substantial completion of projects. The BAB is responsible for administering the TIFIA application processes.

They also provide technical assistance and encourage innovative project planning, financing, delivery, and monitoring best practices.

Regional Infrastructure Accelerator (RIA) Program: RIA is a discretionary grant program that aims to assist entities in developing improved infrastructure priorities and financing strategies for the accelerated development of a project eligible for funding under the TIFIA program. Projects are not required to apply for or receive TIFIA credit assistance to be eligible; however, applicants considering the appropriateness of innovative financing methods to accelerate the delivery of eligible projects are strongly encouraged to apply. RIA grants range between $2 and $4 million and have no matching requirement.

Eligibility Requirements: Creditworthiness; Foster partnerships to attract public and private investment; Ability to proceed at an earlier date or reduced lifecycle costs (including debt service costs); Reduces Contribution of Federal Grant Assistance for the Project; and Construction contracting process can commence no more than 90 days from execution of a TIFIA credit instrument.

Project Example - LA Metro Crenshaw 8.5 Mile LRT Corridor: In 2012, the U.S. DOT awarded a $545.9 million TIFIA loan to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), now LA Metro, to help build a new light rail transit line along the Crenshaw corridor. Revenue from a voter-approved local option sales tax was devoted to paying back the TIFIA loan. The loan interest rate was lower (2.43%) than the market rate. The rest of the project funding came from state general obligation bond proceeds and local voter-approved sales tax measures devoted to transportation.

Financing Capacity Required Match Interest Rate Length of Terms Must loan $50 million or
more to a project
67% non-TIFIA (up to 50%
non-TIFIA in some cases)
Equivalent to Treasury
Rates
35 Years (up to 75 years in
some cases)
Figure 3. Infographic displaying the potential lifecycle cost savings of partially financing an infrastructure project.

Source: BAB.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo Outline
29 IBank Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Program California’s State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) is the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank), a state agency that finances economic development and public infrastructure. As a general-purpose conduit bond issuer, IBank issues tax-exempt and/or taxable bonds on behalf of a borrower and then lends those proceeds to that borrower. The bonds are special, limited obligations payable solely by the borrower’s payments.

The borrower provides security to the bondholder and agrees to repay the bonds.

IBank’s ISRF Program is authorized to provide low-cost public financing to state and local government entities directly.

Project Example – City of Encinitas Streetscape Project on Highway 101: In 2022, the City of Encinitas received a $20 million ISRF loan for a segment of the Leucadia Streetscape project on the Coast Highway 101 Corridor. The project includes the construction of roundabouts, new wider sidewalks, buffered bike lanes, increased parking options, additional lighting, and new stormwater infrastructure.

Financing Capacity Required Match Interest Rate Length of Terms $1-65 Million No 4.04% to 4.78% (recent
years) 30 Years
Bonds
General Obligation (GO) Bonds: GO bonds are issued by governmental entities and backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing government, meaning that the government commits to using its taxing power to repay the debt. GO bonds usually have better credit ratings and are less costly to bond issuers than revenue bonds. For this reason, GO bonds typically offer lower interest rates than other forms of debt because they are considered lowrisk investments. The interest rate on GO bonds is determined at the time of issuance and is influenced by factors such as market conditions, the creditworthiness of the issuing government, and the bond's term. Local GO bonds must be approved by two-thirds of voters.

Green Bonds: Green Bonds are a type of GO Bond and are generally issued for projects with positive environmental and social impacts, such as infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions or expand affordable mobility options. Green bonds can be useful to attract environmentally and socially conscious investors.

Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds are typically issued to finance public facilities and are secured by the pledge of defined revenue sources from bond-funded projects, such as tolls, fares, or sales tax. Revenue bonds do not require voter approval, and unlike GO bonds, the government’s full faith and credit or its taxing power is not pledged towards the repayment of revenue bonds. For this reason, revenue bonds generally have higher interest rates due to the risk of lower revenues than projected.

Project Example – Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Oakland Airport Connector (OAC): BART is partially funded through a 0.5% sales tax levied on the counties where the BART service operates: Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco. In 2012, to fund the $485 million OAC project between the Coliseum BART Station and Oakland International Airport, BART leveraged its future sales tax revenues to issue $130.5 million in revenue bonds.

In 2022, BART issued $700 million in Green Bonds to help fund track replacement, tunnel repair, station improvements, and train control system upgrades.

Financing Capacity Required Match Interest Rate Length of Terms Varies No Varies Varies
Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo Outline
30 Value Capture
Value capture is a variety of mechanisms that help capitalize on the value created by infrastructure investments, such as increases in property values and economic activity. Value capture mechanisms can sometimes be used to accelerate project delivery by providing revenue for a project before or during construction, leveraging future revenues to receive upfront financing, generating a sustained revenue source for future operations and maintenance, or creating a cost-sharing mechanism with developers and owners who stand to benefit from the transportation investment.

Once again, this funding strategy does not recommend any specific value capture mechanism and only provides options to the City. There are a wide variety of considerations that impact the feasibility of a value capture mechanism and whether it is a right fit for the project area, such as:
- Understand the state-enabling legislation for
value capture mechanisms, which influences
the process of establishing value capture
mechanisms and how funds are collected.
- Value capture is more likely to succeed when
considered early in the planning process.
- Community and business support is critical to
the success of most value capture
mechanisms.
- The location and the geographic boundary of
value capture mechanisms will impact revenue
generation potential.
- Most value capture techniques depend on
value creation through real estate
development.
- Consider whether value capture techniques
could assist financing or plug a funding gap.

There are many different value capture mechanisms and significant variations in how they are implemented.

FHWA’s Center for Innovative Finance Support provides resources and case studies on all forms of value capture in the U.S. However, most value capture mechanisms are not well suited for the Truxel Bridge project. The following two value capture mechanisms were selected based on their potential for generating future revenues that could potentially offset long-term debt obligations.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
A TIF district is a geographic area administered by a special authority in which incremental property tax value increases from infrastructure investment are captured to fund or finance the infrastructure investment. Under a payas-you-go approach, the project is funded only when the TIF revenue is generated, which may result in slower implementation. Under a pay-as-you-use approach, the implementing agency issues bonds to fund capital costs and immediately launch new investments. However, TIF revenues need to be relatively stable to repay the bonds. A local government may create a district with the sole purpose of funding a project. In California, there are two primary TIF mechanisms:

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD): EIFDs can help fund capital projects, including roadways and bridges. Revenues raised from EIFDs can be used to pay debt service on bonds and loans. EIFDs can issue bonds without a public vote if the entity's formation complies with enhanced transparency requirements. To establish an EIFD, an Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) must be developed and followed by three hearings. There is potential for a protest election, so it is only recommended that EIFDs be formed if most landowners and residents support it.

Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA): CRIAs are intended to provide a source of tax increment funding for infrastructure and housing in disadvantaged communities and, therefore, may only be formed in geographic areas that meet specific criteria. Areas deemed “Disadvantaged Communities” per SB 535 also qualify, including the River District. However, CRIAs are less common than EIFDs and have a lot of affordable housing production requirements, making it a less optimal TIF mechanism for a project like the Truxel Bridge.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo Outline
31 Special Assessment Districts (SADs)/Benefit Assessment Districts (BADs) SADs/BADs are commonly used to finance the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, or maintenance of public improvements. SADs/BADs establish a fee paid by property owners within a designated boundary whose properties are expected to benefit and increase in value due to an infrastructure investment. SADs/BADs have the potential to generate substantial revenues to fund and finance projects. Governments can spend assessment funds as they are collected (pay-as-you-go) or use assessment-backed bonds to fund the project (pay-as-you-use). However, SADs can be politically challenging to implement and cannot be formed if a majority of landowners vote against the formation of one.

Recommendations/Takeaways:
- If the City wants to explore financing a portion of the Truxel Bridge project, further analysis is required. A Project Financing Plan would include a more in-depth evaluation of the available financing options, regulatory framework, the City’s debt capacity, estimated short- and long-term debt service, revenue streams to pay long-term debt service (such as value capture mechanisms), and other important considerations for determining if project financing is feasible for the Truxel Bridge project. - Utilize technical expertise at the Build America Bureau (BAB), FHWA’s Center for Innovative Finance Support, and California’s IBank. Technical assistance could also be available in the form of discretionary grants, such as BAB’s Regional Infrastructure Accelerator (RIA) Program.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo Outline
32 Alternative Project Delivery Models
A project’s delivery model determines the procurement strategy and contractual arrangement through which an infrastructure project is designed, constructed, and delivered to the owner. The choice of project delivery method can significantly influence the project's cost, schedule, ownership, and risk allocation.

This memo does not recommend any specific delivery method, nor does it include an in-depth analysis of which is most likely to reduce costs and expedite delivery for the Truxel Bridge project. Past data may reveal trends in cost and time savings across many infrastructure projects, but not all alternative project delivery projects result in significant costs or time savings, and unique risks are involved with each delivery method.

We recommend that the City pursue a structured approach and consult with internal project delivery resources to determine if there is an optimal delivery method for the Truxel Bridge project. Factors to consider include but are not limited to design complexity, preferred risk allocation, desired level of innovation, in-house experience/comfort, and preferred level of oversight and control. In addition, each state has laws that determine what delivery methods are allowed and/or the regulatory framework project owners need to navigate.

Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
The DBB project delivery method is used for most infrastructure projects in California, and all agencies and municipalities responsible for infrastructure are experienced in delivering DBB projects. DBB’s popularity is due to the project owner’s ability to perform close oversight and quality control over each phase of project delivery and, for most projects, provides a predictable project delivery timeline (assuming the availability of funding).

However, DBB puts most of the risk on the project owner, and it can be a much slower delivery method as projects get larger and more complex because of the distinct separation between the design and construction phases.

Separating design and construction phases may also result in less innovative design and construction practices and may not allow the contractor adequate input on design. DBB is a reliable delivery method for more straightforward projects that do not call for much innovation or creativity.

Figure 4. Structure of different delivery models. Source: FHWA.

Truxel Bridge Feasibility Study
Funding Strategy Memo Outline
33 Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)
The CM/GC project delivery method is an integrated team approach to the planning, design, and construction of the project. Owners, designers, and contractors work collaboratively to develop the project scope, optimize the design, improve quality, manage costs, and share risks. With this method, the project owner can maintain control of the design process, provide constructability reviews by the actual contractors, and potentially secure state and federal construction dollars earlier in the process.

After completing the preliminary design, the project owner procures a final designer and Construction Manager (CM) separately. The CM is selected based on qualifications, experience delivering similar projects, and its strategic approach to risk, schedule, and pricing. The successful CM applies its professional construction management capabilities throughout the design and pre-construction phases. The CM provides expertise and assistance in constructability, pricing, scheduling, staging, phasing, means and methods, efficiencies, material procurement, risk identification and mitigation, early work packages, and partner concerns. The project owner may also hire an independent cost estimator (ICE) to provide checks and balances for the CM-provided construction costs, production rates, material supplier/subcontractor costs, and phasing/schedule. The CM is not authorized to proceed with construction unless the agency agrees that the price and schedule provided are fair, reasonable, and defensible.

With CM/GC, a project owner can custom-build its entire team, including its subcontractors, to properly fit the project’s specific needs and objectives. A unique partnership is formed with the project owner, CM, subcontractors, ICE, and the design and inspection professionals.

Design-Build (DB)
The DB project delivery method procures one entity, the design-builder, to perform engineering and construction under a single contract. The design-builder is usually a joint project team between a general contractor and a designer. The DB procurement process is typically two-phased: 1) qualifications and 2) “best value” design and construction. The first phase considers the qualifications of the design-builder and the history of the designbuilder working together. The second phase is a “best value” competition, considering the proposed schedule, design, and cost estimate. The selected design-builder is contractually obligated to meet project performance requirements.

The project owner has reduced oversight and control with DB, but more risk is transferred to the design-builder. The contractor is responsible for the design and any flaws in the design and for completing the project within the contracted price, regardless of cost increases.

Figure 5. Risk allocation comparison between project delivery models. Source: FHWA.

Sacramento City CouncilFebruary 18, 2025

Sacramento City Council
February 18, 2025