Calculation No.: NASL Segment AR-14
Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Analysis, Station 3306+10 Design Review and analysis
Required: Yes No
Calculation Type: Scoping Preliminary Final Voided
Superseded by Calculation No.:
ORIGINAL AND REVISED CALCULATIONS/ANALYSIS APPROVAL
Rev. __0__
Printed
Name/Signature/Date
Rev. ___1_
Printed
Name/Signature/Date
Rev. __2__
Printed
Name/Signature/Date
Originator: Ryan Hochstatter
12/18/23
Checked By: Edrei Espinosa
1/4/2024
Approved By: Meredith Beswick
1/5/2024
Other:
AFFECTED DOCUMENTS
Document
Number Document Title Rev. No.
Responsible Project
Manager Initials
1 North Area Streams Levee
System Seismic Performance
Summary Report
0 RECORD OF REVISION
Rev. Reason for Revision
0 Initial Release
1 Updated with Correct Number of Iterations for Landside Global Analysis (from 100 to 500), Correct Waterside Slope (from 3.35H:1V to 3.45H:1V), and 8x8 Blocks for Landside Block Analysis
Originated by: Ryan Hochstatter Date: 12/18/23
Checked by: Edrei Espinosa Date: 1/4/2024
Project No: 24001006.001A Calculation Number: 1
Project Name: North Area Streams Levee System Seismic
Performance Summary Report Revision: 0
Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
No. Title Pages in Attachment
1 Post-Seismic Slope Stability Analysis for Segment AR-14, Figures E1-E4 4
2 Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength (Figure 6-9, ULE Guidance Document) 1
3 Stratigraphy and Material Properties from American River 2015 GER (Segment 14 Transverse Cross Section, SiteSpecific Unit Weights, CL and Slurry Wall Parameters)3 Total Pages 8
Originated by: Ryan Hochstatter Date: 12/18/23
Checked by: Edrei Espinosa Date: 1/4/2024
Project No: 24001006.001A Calculation Number: 1
Project Name: North Area Streams Levee System Seismic
Performance Summary Report Revision: 0
Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Page 3
1 Purpose
The purpose of this calculation is to analyze the post-seismic stability conditions for a cross section taken from analysis segment AR-14, station 3306+10 (boring 2F-97-06). To classify the segment as having Low Seismic Vulnerability, the Factor of Safety against slope stability failure must be greater than 1.3. 2 References
GeoStudio 2023.1.2, Seequent, Bentley Systems
URS (2015a). “ULE Geotechnical Evaluation Report (GER) Volume 1 and 2, American River Study Area, Urban Levee Evaluations Project, Contract 4600008101,” dated January 2015 (Issue date: 01-2015).
URS (2015b). “Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analyses, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Contract 4600008101,” dated April 2015.
3 General
The seismic slope stability analysis was performed using a 2D Geometry model in SLOPE/W Version 2023.1.2. The analysis used the Spencer’s Method approach with 500 maximum iterations per Section
6.5.2 and Section 4.9 of the ULE Guidance Document (2015b). GeoStudio results are included as Figures E1 through E4 in Attachment 1.
The updated liquefaction analysis produces (N1)60 value of 9 for the Likely Liquefiable SP-SM layer. After the fines/classification correction, the (N1)60-cs value becomes 10. Using the Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength (Attachment 2) and the procedure described in Section 6.8.2.1 in the ULE Guidance Document (2015b), the residual undrained strength for the Likely Liquefiable layer was estimated as 235psf.
Stratigraphy, effective friction angle, and cohesion values from the 2015 URS Segment 14 Transverse Cross Section were used for the SM and GP layers. Per Section 5.8 of the ULE Guidance Document (2015b), site-specific field and laboratory results were used to select material properties not listed in the slope stability analysis from the URS American River GER (2015a). The SPT-based liquefaction analysis for Boring ID 2F-97-06 was used to estimate unit weights for the soil layers. The slurry wall unit weight was selected as 100pcf from the American River GER (2015a) material properties for the Reach A existing soil-cement-bentonite wall (GER Table B1-A-1). This table was also used to select the undrained friction angle and cohesion values for the CL layers. The aforementioned sources are included as Attachment 3.
Originated by: Ryan Hochstatter Date: 12/18/23
Checked by: Edrei Espinosa Date: 1/4/2024
Project No: 24001006.001A Calculation Number: 1
Project Name: North Area Streams Levee System Seismic
Performance Summary Report Revision: 0
Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Page 4
Table 3.1 – Material Properties
Material Unit Weight
(pcf) Ф’ (dgs) C’ (psf)
1 – SM 125 32 0
2 – SM 120 32 0
3 – SP-SM
(Likely
Liquefiable)
125 0
235
(residual
undrained
strength)
4 – GP 130 35 0
5 – CL 125 7 960
6 – CL Cap 125 7 960
7 – Cutoff Wall 100 0 500
Table 3.2
Post-Seismic Slope Stability Factors of Safety
Segment
ID
Analysis
Station
Landside
Global
FOS
Landside
Block
FOS
Waterside
Global
FOS
Waterside
Block
FOS
Factor of
Safety
Required
AR-14 3306+10 3.33 2.69 2.32 2.05 > 1.3
Originated by: Ryan Hochstatter Date: 12/18/23
Checked by: Edrei Espinosa Date: 1/4/2024
Project No: 24001006.001A Calculation Number: 1
Project Name: North Area Streams Levee System Seismic
Performance Summary Report Revision: 0
Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Page 5
4 Stability Analysis (All 4 Slope Analyses)
Table 4.1: Review of Analysis Inputs
Geometries: Notes: Checked by: Initials: Date:
Embankment crest elevation 53.1ft Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Embankment toe elevation 43.3ft Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Piezometric surface Elevation 21.9ft Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Landside slope 3H:1V Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024
Waterside slope 3.45H:1V Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024
Topography matches cross section Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Stratigraphy matches cross section Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Model extents match cross section Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Slope Analysis Inputs: Notes: Checked by: Initials: Date:
Correct analysis type (entry exit & block) Both for waterside and landside Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Specific analysis inputs (convergence, tolerance) 500 maximum iterations Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Correct slip surface routine Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Minimum slip surface appropriate Yes, 8x8 blocks with 12 points Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Assigned units match units in the model (ft, psf) Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/2/2024 Correct material assigned to each region Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/2/2024 Correct saturated unit weight, cohesion, and phi
assigned to each material Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/2/2024 Enough radius increments and number of
increments over the range Yes, 8x8 blocks with 12 points Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Critical slip surface not bound by range Yes Edrei Espinosa EE 1/4/2024 Originated by: Ryan Hochstatter Date: 12/18/23
Checked by: Edrei Espinosa Date: 1/4/2024
Project No: 24001006.001A Calculation Number: 1Project Name: North Area Streams Levee System Seismic Performance Summary Report Revision: 0 Calculation Title: Post-Seismic Stability Page 6
Table 4.2 - Summary of Stability Results
Run
# Listing of Stability Analysis Type / File Name Analyst Summary of Findings Reviewer Initials Date Initials Date 1 Post-Seismic Landside Global Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Circular Stability Analysis R1.gsz
RH 1/2/23 Factor of Safety = 3.33 MB 1/5/24
1 Post-Seismic Landside Block Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Wedge Optimized Stability Analysis R1.gsz
RH 1/2/23 Factor of Safety = 2.65 MB 1/5/24
1 Post-Seismic Waterside Global Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Circular Stability Analysis R1.gsz
RH 1/2/23 Factor of Safety = 2.32 MB 1/5/24
1 Post-Seismic Waterside Global Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Wedge Optimized Stability Analysis R1.gsz
RH 1/2/23 Factor of Safety = 2.05 MB 1/5/24
2 Post-Seismic Landside Global Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Circular Stability Analysis R2.gsz
RH 1/5/23 Factor of Safety = 3.33 MB 1/5/24
2 Post-Seismic Landside Block Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Wedge Optimized Stability Analysis R2.gsz
RH 1/5/23 Factor of Safety = 2.69 MB 1/5/24
2 Post-Seismic Waterside Global Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Circular Stability Analysis R2.gsz
RH 1/5/23 Factor of Safety = 2.32 MB 1/5/24
2 Post-Seismic Waterside Global Stability Analysis / AR14 Landside Wedge Optimized Stability Analysis R2.gsz
RH 1/5/23 Factor of Safety = 2.05 MB 1/5/24
Seed-Harder Plot for Residual Strength Figure
6-9 URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
50 For the ULE Program
1. Use the lower 1/3 line for
Sur selection
2. At or below (N1)60-cs = 4,
use Sur = 50 psf
50 Equivalent Clean Sand Blowcount, (N1)60-cs-Sur
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management
Notes:
SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 1. Refer to the Verification and Read Me tabs for further notes and instructions on using this spreadsheet.
References: 2. The "N60" values shown in this spreadsheet include corrections for hammer efficiency, borehole diameter, sampler type, and rod length (i.e., N60=NfieldCECBCSCR). These "N60" values are
1. Cetin, K.O., et al, 2004. Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1313-1340. and Discussions and Closures (May, 2006) not directly comparable to the "N60(ASTM)" values shown on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles), which are only corrected for hammer efficiency (i.e., N60(ASTM)=N
2. URS Corporation 2012. Guidance Document for Geotechnical Analysis , Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program Rev. 12. 3. As applicable, blow counts for Standard and Modified California samples may be presented below. Please note that on boring logs and stick figures (on cross-sections and profiles),
3. Seed, R.B., et al, 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering : A Unified and Consistent Framework . 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queens Mary, Long Beach, Ca. "N60(ASTM)" values are not shown for Standard and Modified California samples.
4. Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (1999). (used only for guidance on MCAL and SCAL sampler correction) Cell color definitions:
Analysis By: Date:
Check By: Date:
53.2 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:
Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 21.9 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.3 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.3 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) NfieldUSCS ClassificationUnit Weight (pcf)Total Overburden Pressure, σv (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, σv' (psf)Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, σv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN
Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CEDrilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CBSampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, CsStick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CRN60N1,60Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, C finesN1,60,CSCyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf)
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRFactor of Safety, FSL
FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No)Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No)N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS ClassificationLiquid Limit, LL (%)
(Enter number only)Plasticity Index, PI (%)(Enter number only)Water Content, w (%)(Enter number only)NP from Atterberg Limits test (Yes/Blank)Is PI<10, LL<35, w>0.8LL?Liquefaction Susceptibility Based on Soil Type (Yes/No)Final Assessment(Yes/No) (Based on Columns AE, AF,AG, and AN)Factor of Safety, FSL Comment(Likely Liquefiablefor FSL≤1;Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25)
1 0.5 14 SC 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 22 1.27 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 14 22 12 1.1 24 0.636 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 13 SM 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.25 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 13 20 32 32 1.2 25 0.438 56.5 0.118 3.00 No No No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 7 SM 115 543 543 543 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 7 11 12 1.1 12 0.147 100.5 0.120 1.22 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 29 SM 125 793 793 793 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 46 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 29 46 12 1.1 49 2.098 143.4 0.118 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 19 SM 125 1043 1043 1043 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 20 28 12 1.1 30 0.459 185.3 0.116 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 22 SC 125 1293 1293 1293 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 24 30 12 1.1 32 0.520 226.0 0.114 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 10 SM 125 1543 1543 1543 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 11 1.14 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 11 13 12 1.1 14 0.128 253.4 0.107 1.20 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.20 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 5 SM 115 1773 1773 1773 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 6 6 12 1.1 7 0.072 280.7 0.103 0.70 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.70 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 16.5 5 SM 115 2003 2003 2003 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 6 6 41 35 1.4 9 0.078 302.7 0.098 0.79 Yes No Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 18.5 8 SM 115 2233 2233 2233 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 10 9 12 1.1 10 0.086 322.9 0.094 0.91 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 20.5 8 SM 115 2463 2463 2463 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 10 9 12 1.1 10 0.081 341.8 0.090 0.90 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 23.5 10 SM 125 2838 2838 2838 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.12 1.00 7 9.0 0.96 13 11 12 1.1 12 0.089 364.6 0.084 1.07 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 28.5 10 SM 125 3463 3463 3463 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 13 10 12 1.1 11 0.079 402.6 0.076 1.05 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 33.5 10 SP-SM 125 4088 3952 3952 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 13 9 8 1.1 10 0.071 437.1 0.072 0.99 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.99 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 38.5 10 SP-SM 125 4713 4265 4265 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 13.6 0.99 13 9 10 10 1.1 10 0.069 470.0 0.072 0.96 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.96 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 16 58.5 36 SM 130 7313 5617 5617 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 19.7 1.00 47 28 13 13 1.1 30 0.298 587.3 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:
PROJECT NAME:
Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: American River
LEVEE SEGMENT:
Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank) Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
E. Julian
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3307+50
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
NA, used Avg. Winter WSE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Crest
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
4/24/2014
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-06
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/1/2014
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/Segment 14/2F-97-06_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction PROJECT: DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Prepared By: Date: 5/11/2012 SUBJECT: Marysville Parameter Selection for Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis Checked By: Date: 5/11/2012 CONTRACT NO. 4600008101
REACH: A
STATION: 1034+72
EXPLORATION(S): 2F-99-05 (crest), 2F-96-24 (crest), 2F-00-5W (LS Toe), 2F-00-01 (LS Toe); WCSBAR_002M* (Crest, Sta. 1044+59) *nearby boring considered for properties, not shown in cross section Vane
Shear
Perm.
Test SPT
Depth to Top of Layer (feet)
Depth to Bottom of Layer (feet)
Elevation of Top of Layer (NAVD 88, feet)
Elevation of Bottom of Layer (NAVD 88,
feet)
Layer Thickness (feet) N *[N60 (ASTM) not available] N1 atm 1, 2
Vane Shear [su(psf)]
Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)
Torvane (ksf)
Water Content (%)
Total Unit Weight (pcf)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
LL (%)
PI (%)
LI
% Passing #200 Sieve
Permeability (kv) cm/sec
Maximum Past Pressure,
V
'
p (ksf)
Effective Overburden Pressure,
ʍ
'vo (ksf)
OCR
Test Type (Triaxial - TX, Direct Simple
Shear - DSS, Drained Direct Shear - DDS)
C' (psf) I' (degrees)
C'/
V'vmc
C' (psf) I' (degrees)
C (psf) I (degrees) I' from N (deg)
3 I' from CPT (deg)
4 Max past pressure from CPT (ksf)5
OCR from CPT
5 Undrained shear strength
from CPT, s
u (ksf)
5 Max past pressure from Vane Shear (ksf)
OCR from Vane Shear
Soil Group Categorization
(see Section 5)
C' (psf)
(see Section 5)
kv (cm/sec)
(see Section 4)
Kozeny- Carman-(kv) cm/sec
(see Section 4)
OCR
Maximum past pressure (ksf)
Undrained shear strength, s
u (ksf)
s
u
/
V
'v0
Drained Cohesion, C' (psf)
Drained Friction Angle,
I' (deg)
Undrained Cohesion, C (psf)
Undrained Friction Angle, I(deg)
Total unit weight (pcf)
Horizontal (kh) cm/sec
kv/kh
Vertical (kv) cm/sec
Horizontal (kh) ft/day
Vertical (kv) ft/day
(1) SP Embankment 0 10 42 32 10 4 (2-8) 7-- NP -- 2, 5 30 5 0 1.E-02 0 32 130 1.E-02 1 1.E-02 34 34 (2) SM Foundation 10 18 32 24 8 7 (3-11) 9-- NP -- 17 32 5 0 1.E-04 0 32 130 4.E-04 0.25 1.E-04 1.11 0.28 (3) CL Foundation 18 22 24 19 4 6 (4-7) 5 1.75* 17* 28* 13* 0.154 1 1.E-06 5.0 8.5 2.1 0.80 100 30 960 7 120 4.E-06 0.25 1.E-06 0.0113 0.0028 (4) SP-SM Foundation 22 66-78 19 -25 to -37 44-56 10 (7-66) 6-- NP -- 7, 6, 8
5, 10
16 86
29 5 0 2.E-03 0 32 130 1.E-03 0.25 3.E-04 2.8 0.71
(5) GP-GM Foundation 66-78 103 -25 to -37 -62 25-36 7, 15, 84 See Com- ments 5 0 3.E-03 0 35 130 3.E-03 1 3.E-03 8.5 8.5 (6) Existing Slurry Wall Existing Crest Wall 0 79 41 -37.5 79(2' wide) 0.7 100 28 180 3 100 1.E-06 1 1.E-06 0.003 0.003
41.6 (NAVD 88, feet) Notes: - Cells shaded gray have been intentionally left blank. Sources: Soil Group Categorization Notes:
29.0 (NAVD 88, feet) - Ranges and outliers shown where appropriate. 1Youd, T.L. et al. 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation 1. Non-free-draining Group 1
12.6 (feet) (VWLPDWHGYDOXHVRI2&5YDOXHVVKRXOGEHHVWLPDWHGEDVHGRQWKHIROORZLQJSULRULW\RIGDWDDVDYDLODEOH of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2. Non-free-draining Group 2
7.0 (NAVD 88, feet) 1. Consolidation test results, 2. Field vane test results and 3. CPT test results. 2Burmister, D. M., 1948, The importance and practical use of relative density in soil mechanics: Proceedings ASTM 3. Non-free-draining Group 3
37.3 (NAVD 88, feet) - SPT data should not be used to estimate OCR and effective strength parameters for cohesive soils. 3Federal Highway Administration. 2002, "Evaluation of soil and rock properties." Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, FHWA-IF-02-034 4. Non-free-draining Group 4 4Mayne, P. 2007. Cone Penetration Testing State-of-Practice. NCHRP. Project 20-05 5. Free-draining WSE during exploration based on 2F-96-24 and 2F-00-5W 5Lunne, T. et al. 1997. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice - Embankment hydraulic conductivities determined according to Guidance Document. - Loose sand layer. Use 32 degrees based on SPT and Guidance Document Section 5.8.2.
Levee HeightWSE During Exploration
- Foundation hydraulic conductivities were selected per the Guidance Document, assuming natural foundation based on segment history.-Site specific strength test data limited to SPT. OCR based on LI. Strength values estimated per Guidance Document. - Foundation hydraulic conductivities determined according to Guidance Document. - Loose sand layer. Use 32 degrees based on SPT and Guidance Document Section 5.8.2.Deep Gravel layer.In-Situ constant head permeability tests performed on screened gravel unit of 4 piezometers within Reach A (2F-00-5W through 8W) found Kh to range from 2.3E-03 to 3.7E-03 cm/sec. Hydraulic conductivity values selected based on field test.Existing Soil-Cement-Bentonite wall, assumed properties Levee Crest ElevationLandside Toe Elevation
- Foundation hydraulic conductivities determined according to Guidance Document. - Loose sand layer. Use 32 degrees based on SPT and Guidance Document Section 5.8.2.
COMMENTS
Material Description
(Layer Number)
Zone
Soil Layer Details
Field Test Data Laboratory Test Data Strength and Permeability Related Interpretation SPT Strength Index Index Tests Consolidation Tests Drained Shear Test ICU Selected Strength Parameters
for Slope Stability Analysis
Selected Hydraulic Conductivity
Values for Seepage Analysis
200-year Analysis WSE
Table B1-A-1 Material Properties for Seepage and Stability Analysis Study Area: American River Graham Bradner
CPT Vane Shear
Values Considered In
Selection
of Strength Parameters
Guidance Document
E. Singleton/R. Jaeger
Appendix E.
ULDC and FEMA Levee
Inspection - MBK
Water Resources Flood Control Water Rights
WALTER BOUREZ, III, P.E. FOUNDERS:
DON TRIEU, P.E.
DARREN CORDOVA, P.E. ANGUS NORMAN MURRAY
NATHAN HERSHEY, P.E., P.L.S. 1913-1985
LEE G. BERGFELD, P.E. JOSEPH I. BURNS
BEN TUSTISON, P.E. 1926-2021
THOMAS ENGLER, P.E., CFM DONALD E. KIENLEN, P.E.
MICHAEL MONCRIEF, P.E. 1930-2023
NICOLE ORTEGA-JEWELL, PMP
KYLE KNUTSON, P.E.
ANNE WILLIAMS, P.E.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 22, 2024
TO: File
PREPARED BY: Tom Engler, P.E., MBK Engineers
SUBJECT: SAFCA Dry Creek North Levee
Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification On October 18, 2023, I drove the urban portion of the SAFCA Dry Creek North Levee system.
The purpose of the site visit was to review conditions to support the finding on levee system operation and maintenance (O&M) for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) certification and Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) findings for the SAFCA Dry Creek North Levee. FEMA’s criteria for O&M have been documented in 44 CFR 65.10. The Dry Creek North Levee is in compliance with the draft Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement (OMRR&R) Manual, dated 2023, prepared following conditions of the SAFCAARFCD O&M Agreement (1996). This manual is in circulation for review and approval by USACE. The criteria FEMA uses are more general, relying on compliance with the OMRR&R manual, while the ULDC has specific requirements for both analyses and performance. These requirements are defined in Section 7.0 of the ULDC (DWR, May 2012), and include 20 major criteria in addition to those found in the OMRR&R manual. The following ULDC items were reviewed during this site visit:
7.10 Erosion
7.12 Encroachments
7.15 Animal Burrows
7.16 Levee Vegetation
This memorandum provides findings from record reviews and a physical site visit to review ULDC sections 7.10, 7.12, 7.15 and 7.16 listed above.
MBK Engineers (MBK) performed a review of levee vegetation on October 18, 2023. There is no woody vegetation located on or within 15 feet of the levee landside or waterside levee toes To File January 22, 2024
Dry Creek North Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification Page 2 nor any on the slopes or crown of the levee, which exceeds ULDC requirements for the vegetation management zone (VMZ). The ULDC requirements are consistent with the OMRR&R manual. The VMZ is shown in the graphic below.
Figure 1. Vegetation Management Zone
The following notes were recorded:
The Dry Creek North Levee has a good vegetative cover on both the land and waterside slopes, i.e., herbaceous groundcover per USACE and CVFPB standards. The patrol road is in good condition. The landside toe corridor is free of undesirable vegetation. No areas of erosion or rilling were identified on the levee slopes or within 15 feet of the levee toes. There are no visible signs of burrowing rodent activity and, according to the American River Flood Control District, burrowing rodents are not currently a concern on the Dry Creek North Levee. However, ARFCD actively monitors for signs of rodent activity and will implement their baiting and grouting program if necessary. Based on review of the OMRR&R and observations from this site visit, I have determined the Dry Creek North Levee meets both FEMA and ULDC requirements related to O&M.
Attachment 1 is the 2010 USACE Periodic Inspection (PI) Report (GHT2, 2010). The PI does not identify any critical O&M issues. Attachment 2 is the 2023 USACE Routine Inspection (RI) Report (pending). We understand this inspection was completed in February 2023, and the final report has not been issued yet. If this becomes available, it will be reviewed and attached. No DWR inspections have been performed because this levee segment is not currently part of the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC).
This current levee site visit, along with review of the USACE 2010 PI are the basis for concluding that the urban portion of the SAFCA Dry Creek North Levee meets both FEMA and ULDC requirements for O&M.
Works Cited
(CFR, 2011) United States Code of Federal Regulations 44 CFR Section 65.10 “Mapping of Areas Protected by Levee Systems,” dated 10-1-11 Edition.
To File January 22, 2024
Dry Creek North Levee O&M Review in Support of FEMA and ULDC Certification Page 3 (DWR, 2012) State of California DWR Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC), May 2012. (GHT2, 2010) Dry Creek Right Bank, Unit 8 / California, Periodic Inspection Report No. 1, January 2010.
(SAFCA-USACE, 1996) Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of Specified Levees, North Dry Creek Levee, August 15, 1996.
(USACE, 2023) Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Manual, Dry Creek North Levee Project, dated 2023.
(TBD, XXXX) USACE Routine Inspection (RI) Report, Dry Creek North Right Bank (pending)
___________________________
Tom Engler, P.E.
TE/oh
Attachments:
2010 USACE Periodic Inspection (PI) Report
2023 USACE Routine Inspection (RI) Report (Pending)