Sacramento City Council
October 21, 2025

Urban Geotechnical Evaluations Program

Date February 24, 2012
To Ariya Balakrishnan, DWR
From Ivan Wong, Patricia Thomas, Judith Zachariasen, and Mark Dober Contract DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Project
Subject Development of a 200-year Return Period Seismic Hazard Map for the Urban levee Evaluations Program Region
In 2007, as part of the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS) Project, probabilistic seismic hazard maps for peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) for the return periods of 100, 200, and 500 years were developed for the Delta region (URS/JBA, 2007). At the request of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as part of the Urban Levee Evaluations (ULE) Program, the 200-year return period PGA hazard map for the Delta region has been expanded to the north to include the northern ULE region (Marysville area) resulting in a hazard map for the whole ULE region (Figure 1). The same approach used to develop the Delta probabilistic hazard maps was used in the development of the ULE map.

The hazard for the Delta portion of the map was not recalculated.

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has been performed for the northern ULE region incorporating the latest geologic and seismologic information on seismic sources in northern and central California and recently developed ground motion prediction models. An objective of these analyses is to estimate the PGA that could be exceeded at the specified return period of 200 years. In the PSHA, all available data were used to evaluate and characterize potential seismic sources, the likelihood of earthquakes of various magnitudes occurring on those sources, and the likelihood of the earthquakes producing ground motions over a specified level.

Two important state-of-the-art aspects of this evaluation are: (1) the use of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center’s Next Generation of Attenuation (NGA) ground motion prediction models, and (2) incorporation of recent changes in the U.S.

Geological Survey’s (USGS) characterization of the major faults in northern California including estimates of time-dependent behavior as described in the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities [WGCEP], 2008).

Memorandum

2012_seismicmemorandum Page 2 of 6

APPROACH
The PSHA approach used in this study is based on the model developed principally by Cornell (1968). The occurrence of earthquakes on a fault is assumed to be a Poisson process. The Poisson model is widely used and is a reasonable assumption in regions where data are sufficient to provide only an estimate of average recurrence rate (Cornell, 1968).

The occurrence of ground motions at a site in excess of a specified level is also a Poisson process if (1) the occurrence of earthquakes is a Poisson process, and (2) the probability that any one event will result in ground motions at the site in excess of a specified level is independent of the occurrence of other events.

The Poisson model, which assumes time-independent behavior for seismic sources, was used for all faults and background earthquakes in the hazard analysis except for the major faults characterized in the UCERF study. The major faults were treated in a time-dependent manner (URS/JBA, 2007).

The PSHA methodology allows for the explicit inclusion of the range of possible interpretations in components of the seismic hazard model, including seismic source characterization and ground motion estimation. Uncertainties in models and parameters are incorporated into the PSHA through the use of logic trees. The calculations were made using the computer program HAZ38 developed by Norm Abrahamson. The program has been validated in the PEER Center’s “Validation of PSHA Computer Programs” Project (Thomas et al., 2010).

SEISMIC SOURCE MODEL
Based on our review of published and unpublished data, we have identified the active and potentially active seismogenic faults capable of producing strong ground shaking within the map area. Most of those faults are shown on Figure 1. Each seismic source has been characterized using the latest geologic, seismological, and paleoseismic data and the currently accepted models of fault behavior. We included faults that we judged to be at least potentially active and that would potentially contribute to the probabilistic hazard because of their maximum earthquakes, their rate of activity, and/or proximity to the site. Table 1 lists the parameters for the faults included in the PSHA.

The URS seismic source model uses the source parameters from the 2008 UCERF seismic hazard model (WGCEP, 2008) and URS/JRB (2007) as a starting point. The UCERF model was used in the development of the California portion of the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2008) and URS/JRB (2007) model was developed for the DRMS Phase 1 Project. We have included several faults that are not in the UCERF model and have modified the characterization of some based on local and/or more recent information. We have also explicitly incorporated the uncertainties in each parameter through the use of logic trees.

Memorandum

2012_seismicmemorandum Page 3 of 6
Significant faults that differ in their characterization from that of the UCERF model include the Coast Ranges-Sierran Block (CRSB) boundary zone (Wong et al., 1988), which is located along the western edge of the map area. This thrust fault system bounds the eastern edge of the Coast Ranges and consists of several relatively short low-angle thrust faults that are largely blind. The northern two segments (GV1 and GV2) have the same geometry as the UCERF model faults, but we apply greater uncertainty to the slip rate. For GV1, we include two rupture models, an unsegmented full-fault rupture, yielding a maximum magnitude earthquake of moment magnitude (M) 7.0, and a smaller floating earthquake of M

6.5 (Table 1). The latter model receives 0.8 weight based on the historical and paleoseismic evidence suggesting that faults in this system rupture in moderate magnitude events that stop at structural discontinuities (J. Unruh, personal communication, September 2011). To the south, the CRSB north of the Delta (approximately equivalent to UCERF GV3, 4a, and 4b), differs slightly in its geometry and slip rate from the UCERF model. The model is revised based on the data from O’Connell et al. (2001). Other faults in the CRSB boundary zone south of the Delta include the West Tracy, Vernalis, Midway Black Butte faults. These are relatively far from the map area, and their characterization is the same as that of URS/JRB (2007) (Table 1).

The Northern Midland fault zone is not included in the UCERF model. This source comprises a zone of oblique-reverse faults that are inferred to produce the hilly Quaternary topography in the area and reflect a step-over zone transferring slip from the Southern Midland fault. The slip rate for the Northern Midland fault zone is derived from the Southern Midland fault, based on the assumption that slip is transferred from south to north. The characterization for both sources is from URS/JRB (2007) with a modification to the slip-rate distribution based on Unruh and Hitchcock (2009) (Table 1).

Other faults affecting the western part of the map area include the faults of the San Andreas fault system, including the northern San Andreas fault, the Maacama fault, and the Bartlett Springs fault as well as strike-slip and reverse faults in the Bay Area. As previously mentioned, the major faults characterized by WGCEP (2008) were treated in a timedependent manner as was done in the DRMS Project (URS/JBA, 2007) (Table 1). However, the effect on hazard is minimal in the northern ULE region.

On the eastern side of the map area, the Foothills fault system is the dominant source. This system of small normal and normal-oblique-slip faults, which is included as a fault zone in the UCERF model (WGCEP, 2008), is simplified into two long faults, Foothills fault system North and South (Table 1). The fault location used in the PSHA coincides with the western trace, i.e., the Bear Mountain fault, which exhibits greater evidence that it is the currently active trace. Both sources are modeled with a floating earthquake with a maximum magnitude of M 6.5, corresponding to an approximately 20-km-long rupture. Slip rates are modified from the UCERF rates based on data from Page and Sawyer (2001), which are Memorandum

2012_seismicmemorandum Page 4 of 6
similar to those of Anderson and Ake (2008). Because of their very low slip rates, the impact of the Foothills fault system on hazard at a 200-year return period is insignificant. Other faults east of the map areas include faults in the Sierra Nevada including the Mohawk Valley fault and faults in the Truckee-Tahoe and Lake Almanor region.

Two low slip-rate faults in the center of the map area are included, the Corning fault to the north and the Willows fault, through the center. The Corning fault slip rate is that derived by WLA (1997) from folding of Quaternary strata. This slip rate is applied to the Willows fault, for which no independent slip rate data are available (Table 1).

GROUND MOTION PREDICTION MODELS
To estimate the ground motions in the PSHA, we have used the NGA ground motion prediction models, which are appropriate for northern and central California. The NGA models used in the PSHA with equal weights are those of Chiou and Youngs (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), and Abrahamson and Silva (2008). A stiff soil site condition with a VS30 (average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m) of 335 m/sec was assumed for the hazard map as was done for the Delta maps PGA was calculated at a grid spacing of 2 km (URS/JBA, 2007).

HAZARDS MAPS
Figure 1 shows the 200-year return period PGA hazard map for the ULE region. Similar to the DRMS hazard map for the Delta, the PGA hazard decreases from west to east away from the faults of the San Andreas fault system. Note the map is for an uniform stiff soil and departures from this site condition as well as the associated hazard are expected. To obtain the hazard at the actual ground surface at a location, site response analysis will need to be performed or generic amplification factors will need to be applied. The PGA values range from 0.1 g in the extreme northeast corner of the map area to 0.5 g in the eastern San Francisco Bay area. There was a small difference of less than 10% in the hazard in the boundary area between the existing Delta map (southern half) and the new northern half. At the 200-year return period, the differences were less than 0.05 g. The differences could be due to several factors including the use of an updated PSHA code or slight differences in the NGA models. In the 2007 Delta maps, we used unpublished versions of the NGA models. To avoid a mismatch between the two halves of the map, we adjusted some of the grid values and smoothed the contours. This only affected a small area along the border between the two halves of the map.

REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N.A. and Silva, W.J., 2008, Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGA ground motion relations. Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, p. 67-97.

Memorandum

2012_seismicmemorandum Page 5 of 6
Anderson, L.W. and Ake, J.P., 2008, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Folsom Dam and Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam – Auburn-Folsom South Unit, American River Division, Central Valley Project, California: Seismotectonic Report 2008-3.

Boore, D.M., and Atkinson, G.M., 2008, Ground motion predictive equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s to 10.0s: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, p. 99-138.

Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 2008, NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10s: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, p. 139-171.

Chiou, B.S.J. and Youngs, R.R., 2008, An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra: Earthquake Spectra, v. 24, p. 173-215.

Cornell, C.A., 1968, Engineering seismic risk analysis: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 58, p. 1583-1606.

O’Connell, D.R.H., Unruh, J.R. and Block, L.V., 2001, Source characterization and groundmotion modeling of the 1892 Vacaville-Winters earthquake sequence, California:

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 91, p. 1,471-1,497.

Page, W.D. and Sawyer, T.L., 2001, Use of geomorphic profiling to identify Quaternary faults within the northern and central Sierra Nevada, California: Association of Engineering Geologists Special Volume, “Engineering Geology Practice in Northern California,” Ferriz, H. and Anderson, R. (eds.), p. 275-293.

Petersen, Mark D., Frankel, Arthur D., Harmsen, Stephen C., Mueller, Charles S., Haller, Kathleen M., Wheeler, Russell L., Wesson, Robert L., Zeng, Yuehua, Boyd, Oliver S., Perkins, David M., Luco, Nicolas, Field, Edward H., Wills, Chris J., and Rukstales, Kenneth S., 2008, Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1128, 61 p.

Thomas, P., Wong, I., and Abrahamson, N., 2010, Verification of Probabilistic Seismic Analysis Computer Programs, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report 2010/106, 173 p.

Unruh, J.R. and Hitchcock, C.S., 2009, Characterization of Potential Seismic Sources in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, Final Technical Report, U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, Award Number 08HQGR0055.

Memorandum

2012_seismicmemorandum Page 6 of 6
URS Corporation/Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. (URS/JRB), 2007, Delta risk management study (DRMS) Phase 1, Topical Area Seismology: Technical memorandum prepared for the California Department of Water Resources.

William Lettis and Associates (WLA), 1997, Seismotectonic evaluation: Stony Gorge and East Park Dams, Orland Project; Coast Ranges, California. Final report prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Wong, I.G., Ely, R.W., and Kollman, A.C., 1988, Contemporary seismicity and tectonics of the northern and central Coast Ranges-Sierran block boundary zone, California:

Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, p. 7813-7833.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437/CGS Special Report 203/SCEC Contribution #1138, Version 1.0.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"ñ
T h o r n t o n
T h o r n t o n
A r c h Z o n e
A r c h Z o n e
Montezuma Montezuma
Hills Hills
Zone Zone
S
o
u t h
e r n
M i d l a
n
d
S
o
u t h
e r n
M i d l a
n
d
W e s t T r a c y
W e s t T r a c y
V e r n a l i s
V e r n a l i s
S o u t h S o u t h
N o r t h
N o r t h
Briones Briones
Source Source
Zone Zone
M o u n t
D i a b l o
M o u n t
D i a b l o
G r e e n v i l l e
G r e e n v i l l e
M i d w a y
M i d w a y
Northern Northern
Midland Midland
Zone Zone
G
o
r d
o
n
V a l l e y
G
o
r d
o
n
V a l l e y
M
y s t
e
r i o
u
s
H i l l s
M
y s t
e
r i o
u
s
H i l l s
T r o
u t
C r e e k
T r o
u t
C r e e k
W
r
a
g
g
C
a
n
y o
n
f
a
u l t
W
r
a
g
g
C
a
n
y o
n
f
a
u l t
Cordelia Cordelia
L o s M e d a n o s /
L o s M e d a n o s /
R o e I s l a n d
R o e I s l a n
C
d
o
n
c o
r d
C o
n
c o
r d
P i t s
b
u r g - K i r b
y
P i t s
b
u r g - K i r b
y
H i l l s f a
u l t H i l l s f a
u l t
P o t r e r o
P o t r e r o
H i l l s H i l l s
G
r
e
e
n
V
a l l e
y
G
r
e
e
n
V
a l l e
y
W i l l o w s
W i l l o w s
F o o t h i l l s
F o o t h i l l s
All of the area north of the 0.11 g
contour should be considered
at the same PHA level of 0.11 g

0.11 0.11

0.13 0.2

0.15 0.3

0.25 0.35

0.4 0.4

0.3 5
Yolo
Yuba
Solano
Butte
Sutter
San Joaquin
Colusa
Sacramento
Placer
Contra Costa
Alameda
Glenn
Nevada
Napa
Stanislaus
El Dorado
Solano
Contra Costa
Sierra
Solano
Lodi
Antioch
Concord Stockton
Livermore
Fairfield
Vacaville
Pleasanton
Marysville
San Leandro
Walnut Creek
Citrus Heights
Sacramento
121.5° W
121.5° W
122° W
122° W

39.5° N 39.5° N
39° N 39° N

38.5° N 38.5° N
38° N 38° N
0 5 10 15 20 2.5
Miles
0 9 18 27 36 4.5
Kilometers
¯
PHA HAZARD FOR A 200-YEAR RETURN PERIOD
AND STIFF SOIL BASE CONDITION (VS30 335 M/SEC) FOR

MARYSVILLE, SACRAMENTO, AND

STOCKTON REGIONS
L:\Projects\DWR\GEOTECHNICAL\Urban\GuidanceDoc\ArcMap\GDOCD1F1PGAHAZ200_1.mxd TNC 08.06.2014 SAC Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, GEBCO, NOAA,
National Geographic, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Geonames.org,
and other contributors

URBAN LEVEE EVALUATIONS
Department of Water Resources
Division of Flood Management
Figure
1 Seismic Hazard Map
PHA (g) Contour Line
ULE Study Area
Mapped fault used in
the hazard analysis
Concealed fault or
source zone used in
the hazard analysis
NOTES:

AMPLIFICATION OF THE PHAs

MAY BE REQUIRED BASED
ON SITE-SPECIFIC VS,30.

Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 1 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Coastal Region Faults
San Andreas
(Northern and
Central)

1.0 Unsegmented (0.5) 1906 473 13 ± 3 90 N/A SS 7.9 24 ± 3 Characterization based on WGCEP (2003, 2008). Unsegmented rupture Two Segments scenario is a repeat of the 1906 M 7.9 San Francisco earthquake. (0.15)
Offshore + North
Coast
326 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.7 24 ± 3
Peninsula + Santa
Cruz Mountains
147 14 ± 3 90 N/A SS 7.4 17 ± 4
Three Segments
(0.15)
Offshore + North
Coast
326 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.7 24 ± 3
Peninsula 85 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.2 17 ± 4
Santa Cruz
Mountains
62 15 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.0 17 ± 4
Floating
Earthquake (0.2)
N/A N/A 13 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.9 24 ± 3
Bartlett Springs-Lake
Mountain fault zone

1.0 Unsegmented
(0.2)
160 12 90 N/A SS-N 7.6 0.1 (0.1)
1 (0.1)
4 (0.6)
8 (0.2)
Slip rate of 6±3 is used for entire fault zone for UCERF2 PSHA under the assumption that slip continues from the Concord-Green Valley fault system (WGCEP, 2008). However, geologic data suggest lower slip rates than this. We use a lower mean slip rate and a greater uncertainty than WGCEP (2008).

The surface expression of the Bartlett Springs fault zone indicates that faults are not well integrated, so we consider a throughgoing rupture unlikely.

This fault zone includes the Etsel Ridge fault as a strand. There are no data constraining slip rate in this section. Geomorphic expression indicates little or no Holocene activity, but landslide activity could conceal some scarps (Bryant, 2000e).

Taylor and Swan (1986) determined a minimum slip rate of 1-2 mm/yr for one strand of this fault near Lake Pillsbury.

Segmented
(0.8)
Lake Mountain 29 12 90 N/A SS-N 6.7 2 (0.2)
4 (0.6)
6 (0.2)
Round Valley 60 12 90 N/A SS-N 7.1 0.01 (0.2)
1 (0.2)
4 (0.5)
8 (0.1)
Bartlett Springs 80 12 90 N/A SS-N 7.2 1 (0.2)
4 (0.6)
8 (0.2)
Briones (zone) 1.0 N/A N/A 23 15 3 90 N/A SS 6.5 0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

2.0 (0.2)
Characterization from Unruh (2006).

Calaveras 1.0 Unsegmented
(0.05)
Northern + Central +
Southern Calaveras
123 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.9 4 (0.2)
6 (0.4)
15 (0.3)
20 (0.1)
Characterization of WGCEP (2003) modified by recent paleoseismic data of Kelson (written communication, 2006).

Two Segments
(0.05)
Northern Calaveras 45 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.8 6 ± 2
South + Central
Calaveras
78 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.4 15 ± 3
Three Segments
(0.3)
Northern Calaveras 45 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.8 6 ± 2
Central Calaveras 59 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.2 15 ± 3
Southern Calaveras 19 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 5.8 15 ± 3
Segment + Floating
Earthquake (0.5)
Northern Calaveras 45 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.8 6 ± 2
Floating Earthquake
on Central + South
Calaveras
N/A 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.2 15 ± 3
Floating
Earthquake (0.1)
N/A N/A 11 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.2 4 (0.2)
6 (0.4)
15 (0.3)
20 (0.1)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 2 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Collayomi 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 29 10 90 N/A SS 6.5 0.6 0.3 Characterization based on WGCEP (2008) Concord – Green
Valley

1.0 Unsegmented
(0.35)
N/A 56 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.7 5 ± 3 Characterization based on WGCEP (2003, 2008).

Three Segments
(0.1)
Concord 20 16 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.25 4 ± 2
Southern Green
Valley
22 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.25 5 ± 3
Northern Green
Valley
14 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.0 5 ± 3
Two Segments
(0.15)
Concord 20 16 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.25 4 ± 2
Green Valley 36 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.5 5 ± 3
Two Segments
(0.15)
Concord + Southern
Green Valley
42 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.6 5 ± 3
Northern Green
Valley
14 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.0 5 ± 3
Floating
Earthquake (0.25)
N/A N/A 14 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.2 5 ± 3
Cordelia 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 19 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.6 0.05 (0.4)

0.6 (0.5)

1.0 (0.1)
Characterization based on paleoseismic data from Harlan Tait & Associates (1994).

Cull CanyonLafayette-Reliz Valley

1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 25 12 3 90 N/A SS 6.6 0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

3.0 (0.2)
Characterization from Unruh and Kelson (2002) and Unruh (2006).

Greenville 1.0 Unsegmented (0.4) N/A 58 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.9 2 (0.2) 4 (0.6)
6 (0.2)
Characterization based on paleoseismic data from Sawyer and Unruh (2002) and T.L. Sawyer (personal communication, 2006).

Floating (0.6) N/A N/A 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.5 2 (0.2)
4 (0.6)
6 (0.2)
Hayward – Rodgers
Creek

1.0 Unsegmented
(0.05)
Hayward + Rodgers
Creek
151 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.3 9 ± 2 Characterization based on WGCEP (2003) model.

Two Segment (A)
(0.1)
North Hayward +
Rodgers Creek
98 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.1 9 ± 2
Southern Hayward 53 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.7 9 ± 2
Two Segment (B)
(0.3)
Rodgers Creek 63 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.0 9 ± 2
Hayward 88 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.9 9 ± 2
Three Segment
(0.5)
Rodgers Creek 63 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.0 9 ± 2
North Hayward 35 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.5 9 ± 2
Southern Hayward 53 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.7 9 ± 2
Floating
Earthquake (0.05)
N/A N/A 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.9 9 ± 2
Hunting CreekBerryessa

1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 60 12 90 N/A SS 7.0 3 (0.2)
6 (0.6)
9 (0.2)
Characterization based on WGCEP (2008)
Las Trampas 0.5 Unsegmented N/A 12 12 3 45
60 75
SW R 6.2 0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

3.0 (0.2)
Characterization from Unruh and Kelson (2002) and Unruh (personal communication, 2006).

Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 3 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Los Medanos Fold
and Thrust Belt

1.0 Unsegmented (0.2) N/A 15 12 ± 2 30 (0.2)
45 (0.2)
60 (0.6)
NE R 6.5 0.3 (0.3)

0.5 (0.4)

0.7 (0.3)
Characterization based on Unruh and Hector (1999) and the Thrust Fault Subgroup of the 1999 Working Group. Roe thrust: fault tip inferred to lie between 0 km and 1 km depth based on analysis of gas well data.

Segmented (0.8) Roe Island 5 4 ± 2 30 (0.2)
45 (0.2)
60 (0.6)
NE R 5.8 0.3 (0.3)

0.5 (0.4)

0.7 (0.3)
Roe thrust: fault tip inferred to lie between 0 km and 1 km depth based on analysis of gas well data.

Los Medanos 10 8 ± 2 30 (0.2)
45 (0.6)
60 (0.2)
NE R 6.0 0.3 (0.3)

0.5 (0.4)

0.7 (0.3)
Los Medanos thrust: fault tip inferred to lie between 1 km and 2 km depth based on analysis of gas well data and construction of geologic cross sections.

Maacama 1.0 Unsegmented (0.5) N/A 171 12 90 N/A SS 7.6 5 (0.2) 9 (0.6)
13 (0.2)
WGCEP (2008) assigns a slip rate of 9 ± 2 mm/yr to the whole fault system, assuming continuity of slip with the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault. Detailed geologic and geodetic studies allow for a higher slip rate, so we have increased the uncertainty for the whole fault zone relative to the California PSHA.

Total slip rate includes 4-8 mm/yr of aseismic creep, recorded in Ukiah and Willitts (e.g. Galehouse, 1995; Galehouse, 2002). Geodetic slip rate is about 14 mm/yr (Freymueller et al., 1999). Geologic slip rate is 9-13 mm/yr (Sickler et al., 2005). 4-5 Holocene surface-rupturing earthquakes have been documented near Willits (Prentice and Fenton, 2005).

WGCEP (2008) assigns slip rate of 9± 2 mm/yr, based on assumption of similarity with Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault. Mapping by Sowers et al. (2010) indicates the southern Maacama may connect with the West Napa fault, with slip from Rodgers Creek gradually being transferred with the others into the northern Maacama fault. Therefore, slip on the southern Maacama may be closer to the West Napa rate than the Rodgers Creek rate. Slip rate distribution reflects both models. Some creep noted in this section but not quantified (Hart and Bryant, 2001).

Segmented
(0.7)
Northern 117 12 90 SS 7.2 8 (0.2)
11 (0.6)
14 (0.2)
Southern 54 12 90 SS 7.0 1 (0.1)
3 (0.2)
6 (0.4)
9 (0.2)
11 (0.1)
Midway/ Black Butte 1.0 Floating
Earthquake (1.0)
N/A 31 14 3 70 10 W RO 6.25 (0.2)

6.5 (0.4)

6.75 (0.4)

0.1 (0.3)

0.5 (0.4)

1.0 (0.3)
The Black Butte fault is a documented late Quaternary-active reverse (oblique?) fault (Sowers et al., 1992) that appears to be related to the late Cenozoic dextral Midway fault by a short left-restraining bend.

Limited data are available on slip rate and rupture behavior. The slip rate estimate is based on uplift of middle to early Pleistocene pediment surface across the Black Butte fault (Sowers et al., 1992) and an inferred H:V ratio for the components of slip of 3:1.

Monterey BayTularcitos

1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 84 14 90 N/A SS 7.1 0.5 0.4 Cao et al. (2003) Mt Diablo 1.0 Unsegmented (0.5) N/A 31 top: 5
(0.5); 1
(0.5)
bottom:
16 30 (0.2)
45 (0.6)
50 (0.2)
NE R 6.7 1 (0.2)
3 (0.6)
5 (0.2)
Characterization from Unruh (2006). Fault tip inferred to approach within 5 km (0.5) to 1 km (0.5) of the surface based on restorable cross section, and on map-scale relationships between surface faults and fold axis.

Segmented (0.5) Mt. Diablo North 12 top: 4
(0.5); 2
(0.5)
bottom:
16 30 (0.2)
45 (0.6)
50 (0.2)
NE R 6.3 1 (0.2)
3 (0.6)
5 (0.2)
North: Fault tip inferred to approach within 4 km (0.5) to 2 km (0.5) of the surface based on model in restorable cross section.

Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 4 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Mt. Diablo South 19 top: 5
(0.5); 1
(0.5)
bottom:
16 30 (0.2)
45 (0.6)
50 (0.2)
NE R 6.6 1 (0.2)
3 (0.6)
5 (0.2)
South: Fault tip inferred to approach within 5 km (0.5) to 1 km (0.5) of the surface based on model in restorable cross section, and map-scale relationships between surface faults and fold axis.

Mt Oso 0.7 Unsegmented
(1.0)
N/A 25 top: 5
bottom:
16 30 (0.3)
45 (0.4)
60 (0.3)
NE R 6.9 0.5 (0.2)

1.5 (0.6)

2.5 (0.2)
Inferred thrust fault occupying the contractional stepover between the Ortigalita and Greenville faults. NE-dipping rupture geometry inferred from the SW-vergence of the Mt. Oso anticline and analogy to Mt.

Diablo thrust (J. Unruh, Wm. Lettis and Associates, Pers. Comm., 2006). Activity based on slip transfer from the northern Ortigalita to the southern Greenville. Fault tip at 5 km depth.

Orestimba 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 60 Tip
1 (0.5)
3 (0.5)
Base
15 3
30 (0.2)
45 (0.6)
60 (0.2)
W R 6.7 0.2 (0.2)

0.4 (0.6)

0.6 (0.2)
Characterization based on Anderson and Piety (2001). Segment of Coast Range/Sierran block boundary(CRSB) (also referred to as the Coast Range/Central Valley fault system.). Anderson and Piety (2001) assign steeper dips (20 to 30°) to the Orestimba fault than considered in the CGS source model (Cao et al., 2003). The Thrust Subgroup of the 1999 Working Group, that provided input to WGCEP (2003), suggested a range of dip between 25° (similar to the Coalinga thrust fault) and 60° (predicted by Coulomb failure criteria).The steepness of the range along these segments from between approximately 36.5°N to 38°N suggests that the dip of the underlying structures is probably at the higher end of this range. Anderson and Piety (2001) provide estimates for the uplift rate along several segments based on the elevation of uplifted early (?) to middle Pleistocene pediment surfaces and late Pleistocene fluvial terraces (Sowars et al., 1992). These uplift rates are converted into slip rates using the range of fault dips assigned to each segment.

Ortigalita 1.0 Segmented (0.3) Northern Ortigalita 40 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.9 0.5 (0.15)

1.0 (0.35)

2.0 (0.35)

2.5 (0.15)
Characterization revised from Cao et al. (2003) using recent mapping and paleoseismic data from Anderson and Piety (2001) to modify the lengths and slip rates for the north and south segments of the fault.

They estimate a slip rate of 1.0-2.0 mm/yr for the northern section based on abundant geomorphic evidence for probable latest Pleistocene and Holocene displacement and, paleoseismic trench investigations that indicate that Quaternary deposits estimated to be between 10 ka and 25 ka, are right laterally offset between about 13 and 25 m by the Cottonwood Arm segment of the Ortigalita fault. They note the southern segment appears much less active and accordingly, they assign a lower slip rate of 0.2 to 1.0 mm/yr to this segment.

Southern Ortigalita 60 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 7.1 0.2 (0.2)

0.6 (0.6)

1.0 (0.2)
Segmented +
Floating
Earthquake (0.7)
Northern Ortigalita 40 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.9 0.5 (0.15)

1.0 (0.35)

2.0 (0.35)

2.5 (0.15)
Floating Earthquake
on Southern
Ortigalita
60 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.6 0.2 (0.2)

0.6 (0.6)

1.0 (0.2)
Pt. Reyes 0.8 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 47 9 3 40 (0.2)
50 (0.6)
60 (0.2)
NE R 7.0 0.05 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

0.5 (0.2)
Characterization based on Cao et al. (2003) and WGCEP (2008).

Quien Sabe 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 23 10 90 N/A SS 6.4 0.1 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

2.0 (0.2)
Cao et al. (2003)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 5 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
San Gregorio 1.0 Unsegmented
(0.35)
Northern + Southern
San Gregorio
176 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.5 1 (01)
3 (0.4)
7 (0.4)
10 (0.1)
Characterization based on WGCEP (2003) model.

Segmented (0.35) Northern San
Gregorio
110 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.2 7 ± 3
Southern San
Gregorio
66 12 ± 2 90 N/A SS 7.0 3 ± 2
Floating
Earthquake (0.3)
N/A N/A 13 ± 2 90 N/A SS 6.9 1 (0.1)
3 (0.4)
7 (0.4)
10 (0.1)
Sargent 0.8 Unsegmented (1.0) Sargent 52 14 ± 3 80 10 SW RO 6.9 1.5 (0.3)

3.0 (0.4)

4.5 (0.3)
Characterization based on WGNCEP (1996). Geodetic measurements indicative of right slip across the southern Sargent fault (Prescott and Burford, 1976), evidence for creep of about 3-4 mm/yr, as well as associated historical microseismicity suggest that the Sargent fault is an independent seismic source. The Sargent fault experienced triggered slip during the 1989 MW 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake (Aydin, 1982). A Probability of Activity of less than 1.0 (0.9) considers that fault slip may occur coseismically as creep or during large magnitude events on the San Andreas fault.

Verona/Williams
Thrust System

1.0 Unsegmented (0.6) N/A 22 top: 3
(0.5); 5
(0.5)
bottom:
19 2
30 (0.1)
45 (0.6)
60 (0.3)
NE R 6.7 0.1 (0.2)

0.7 (0.5)

1.4 (0.3)
In this model, the Verona/Williams fault is the near surface expression of a deeper east-to northeast-dipping blind thrust fault that underlies the Livermore Valley (Unruh and Sawyer, 1997; Sawyer, 1998). This model explains fault and fold deformation in the Livermore Valley (including the Los Positas fault, Livermore thrust and Springtown anticline) as secondary structures that either root into the deeper structure or are secondary structures in the hanging wall of the Verona/Williams thrust. These secondary structures are nonseismogenic and are not treated as independent seismic sources. The slip rate distribution is from Savy and Foxall (2002). Fault tip is estimated to be at a depth of 3 km (0.5) or 5 km (0.5).

Characterization of the fault is based on information summarized in Herd and Brabb (1980), Hart (1980, 1981a,b), Jahns and Harding (1982), and source parameters developed by the Thrust Fault Subgroup of Working Group 1999 (WGCEP (2003) subgroup). The total length of the fault is approximately 7-9 km. Field observations and trenching described by Herd and Brabb (1980) provide evidence for late Quaternary surface-rupturing events on the fault. A 5.65-km-longsegment of the fault is included in an Alquist-Priolo zone (Hart, 1980, 1981a,b). The slip rate distribution is from Savy and Foxall (2002).

Fault tip is estimated to be at a depth of 3 km (0.5) or 5 km (0.5).

Characterization of the fault is based on the following. The total length of the fault is based on mapping by Dibblee (1980,1981). Carpenter et al. (1984) show the fault as a southwest-vergent thrust fault. The CDWR (1979) suggested the fault was active based on displacements observed in Plio-Pleistocene Livermore gravels in the Hetch-Hetchy tunnel and the occurrence of moderate seismicity adjacent to its trace. In the absence of any reported slip rate estimates, a rate of slip comparable to Verona fault is used. Fault tip is estimated to be at a depth of 3 km (0.5) or 5 km (0.5).

Segmented (0.4) Verona 10 top: 3
(0.5); 5
(0.5)
bottom:
11 30 (0.2)
45 (0.4)
60 (0.4)
NE R 6.2 0.1 (0.2)

0.7 (0.5)

1.4 (0.3)
Williams 13 top: 3
(0.5); 5
(0.5)
bottom:
13 30 (0.1)
45 (0.6)
60 (0.3)
NE R 6.3 0.1 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

1.0 (0.2)
Las Positas
P(a) = 0.7

17.5 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.5 0.1 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

1.0 (0.2)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 6 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Characterization is based on information summarized by Carpenter et al. (1980,1984) as follows. The total length of ~17.5 km is based on geologic mapping and air photo interpretation. Movement on both southern and northern fault traces extends up into Holocene deposits:
faulting may have occurred as recently as 500 to 1,000 years ago. The average slip rate for the north branch of the Las Positas fault zone is 0.4 mm/yr; the range of rates obtained from observed vertical offset and inferred horizontal-to-vertical ratios and age estimates is 0.02 to 0.9 mm/yr.

West Napa 1.0 Unsegmented
(0.15)
St. Helena/Dry Creek
+ West Napa
52 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.9 1.0 (0.3)

2.0 (0.3)

3.0 (0.3)

4.0 (0.1)
Characterization is based on recent compilation and mapping of the West Napa fault by Hanson and Wesling (2006 and 2007) and Clahan et al. (2005) conducted in support of the USGS Quaternary fault database for Northern California (Graymer et al., 2006). The slip rate for the West Napa is not well constrained, but was previously considered to be on the order of 1 mm/yr (1 ± 1 mm/yr, Cao et al., 2003). Several recent studies and observations suggest
the slip rate is higher. These include: 1) more detailed mapping of the fault zone (Hanson and Wesling, 2006, 2007) that shows that the fault is better expressed geomorphically than had been recognized previously with evidence for recent (< 600 to 700 years B. P.) displacement; 2) comparison of slip budgets between the regions north and south of Carquinez Strait suggests that a significant amount of slip is being transferred from the North Calaveras fault to the West Napa fault via the Cull Canyon/Laffette/Reliz Valley fault zone; and 3) a recent analysis of GPS data with the preferred model indicating a rate of 4 ± 3 mm/yr (d’Alessio et al., 2005).

Floating
Earthquake (0.35)
N/A N/A 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.5 0.5 (0.1)

1.0 (0.3)

2.0 (0.3)

3.0 (0.2)
4/0 (0.1)
Segmented (0.15) St. Helena/Dry Creek 24 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.6 1.0 (0.5)

2.0 (0.2)

3.0 (0.1)
West Napa 38 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.8 1.0 (0.5)

2.0 (0.2)

3.0 (0.1)
Segmented +
Floating
Earthquake (0.35)
Floating Earthquake
on West Napa
N/A 15 3 90 N/A SS 6.4 1.0 (0.5)

2.0 (0.2)

3.0 (0.1)
St. Helena/Dry Creek N/A 15 3 90 N/A SS 6.4 1.0 (0.5)

2.0 (0.2)

3.0 (0.1)
Wragg Canyon 0.7 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 17 15 ± 3 90 N/A SS 6.5 0.1 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

0.5 (0.2)
Fault mapped by Sims et al. (1973) along Wragg Canyon; O’Connell et al. (2001) inferred that small earthquakes with strike-slip focal mechanisms are associated with the fault.

Zayente-Vergeles 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 58 11 70 10 SW R 6.9 0.1 0.1 Cao et al. (2003); Dip information from USGS Quaternary Database Sacramento Valley -San Joaquin Valley faults
Battle Creek fault
zone

1.0 Unsegmented
(1.0)
N/A 30 17± 3 75 S N 6.8 0.1 (0.2)

0.5 (0.6)

0.9 (0.2)
Slip rate and length from WGCEP (2008)
Corning fault 1.0 Unsegmented - full
(0.1)
N/A 70 19± 3 70 E R 7.1 0.01 (0.2)

0.04 (0.6)

0.08 (0.2)
Slip rate, based on folding of Quaternary formations, estimated to be a minimum of 0.02-0.04 mm/yr (WLA, 1997). Holocene displacement unknown. We use a range centered around the calculated late Quaternary rate but allow for no Holocene displacement. WLA (1997) propose that the fault is divided into 3 segments, each associated with an anticline. We consider a segmented model in which these structural segments constitute rupture segments. We also have two unsegmented models: rupture of the entire fault, with a low weight based on the long length for a reverse rupture, and a floating earthquake of M 6.7.

Floating (0.5) N/A N/A 6.7
Segmented (0.4) Northern 15 6.5
Central 25 6.7
Southern 30 6.8
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 7 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
CRSB North of Delta
(approximately
equivalent to WGCEP
[2008] Great Valley 3,
4a, 4b)

1.0 Multisegment (0.1) Mysterious Ridge 35 top: 7
bottom:
14 25 ± 5 W R 6.7 1.0 (0.7)

3.5 (0.3)
Characterization revised from Working Group on California Earthquake Potential (1996) using data from O’Connell et al. (2001). Fault tip of Mysterious Ridge, Trout Creek, and Gordon Valley at depths of 7, 9, and 8 km, respectively. Segment lengths have an uncertainty of 5 km.

Trout Creek +
Gordon Valley
38 top: 8
bottom:
14 25 ± 10 W R 6.8 0.5 (0.3)

1.25 (0.6)

2.0 (0.1)
Segmented (0.9) Mysterious Ridge
(GV 3)
35 top: 7
bottom:
14 25 ± 5 W R 6.7 1.0 (0.7)

3.5 (0.3)
Trout Creek (GV4a) 20 top: 9
bottom:
14 20 ± 5 W R 6.5 0.5 (0.3)

1.25 (0.6)

2.0 (0.1)
Gordon Valley (GV
4b)
18 top: 8
bottom:
14 30 ± 5 W R 6.4 0.5 (0.3)

1.25 (0.6)

2.0 (0.1)
Foothills fault system
(North)

0.6 Segmented (1.0)
East segment (0.9)
20 12 75 (0.5)
85 (0.5)
W N 6.5 0.002 (0.2)

0.02 (0.6)

0.06 (0.2)
WGCEP (2002, 2008) use the WGNCEP (1996) characterization of the Foothills fault as a zone of distributed faulting with a slip rate of 0.05 ±

0.03 and an Mmax of 6.5. We adopt the Mmax value but modify the slip rate to reflect values provided by Page and Sawyer (2001). Slip rates used in this study are similar to those used by Anderson and Ake West segment (0.1) (2008).
20 12 75 (0.5)
85 (0.5)
W N 6.5 0.002 (0.2)

0.02 (0.6)

0.06 (0.2)
Foothills fault system
(South)

0.7 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A N/A 12 75 (0.5)
85 (0.5)
W N 6.5 0.002 (0.2)

0.02 (0.6)

0.06 (0.2)
Great Valley 1 1.0 Unsegmented - full
(0.2)
N/A 44 top: 7
bottom:
10 15 W R 7.0 0.01 (0.2)

0.1 (0.6)

0.2 (0.2)
Characterization modified from WGCEP (2008) to have slightly greater uncertainty in slip rate. Two rupture models are included. The full rupture of the segment, as modeled by the WGCEP (2008) and a floating earthquake model with M 6.5. The latter is preferred because detailed studies of the Great Valley fault in this area suggest the fault is broken into smaller structural segments and the historical earthquake record indicates that this fault ruptures in small individual events, not in large events that break across structural discontinuities (J. Unruh, pers. comm., Sept. 2011).

Floating (0.8) N/A 44 top: 7
bottom:
10 15 W R 6.5 0.01 (0.2)

0.1 (0.6)

0.2 (0.2)
Great Valley 2 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 22 top: 7
bottom:
10 15 W R 6.5 0.01 (0.2)

0.1 (0.6)

0.2 (0.2)
Characterization modified from WGCEP (2008) to have slightly greater uncertainty in slip rate.

Montezuma Hills
(zone)

0.5 Floating
Earthquake (1.0)
N/A N/A 14 5 70 W RO 6.0 (0.3)

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.05 (0.3)

0.25 (0.4)

0.5 (0.3)
The Montezuma Hills source zone is considered as a possible independent source of seismicity based on the following: 1) the topographic and structural gradient of the hills is to the northeast, which is contrary to what would be expected if the hills were being uplifted in the hanging wall of the Midland fault; 2) the topography dies out west of the subsurface trace of the Midland fault, rather than extending up to the fault; 3) the Montezuma hills are spatially associated with the Antioch and Sherman Island faults, as well as some anomalous topography near the town of Oakley south of the Sacramento River.

Alternatively, the uplift of this region is secondary tectonic deformation related to movement in the hanging wall of the Midland fault or transfer of slip from the Vernalis/West Tracy faults to the Pittsburg/Kirby Hills fault zone. Preferred orientation of modeled fault planes within zone (N20°W).

Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 8 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Northern Midland
(zone)

1.0 Floating
Earthquake (1.0)
N/A N/A top: 1.5
bottom:
15 70 W RO 6.0 (0.3)

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.2 (0.2)

0.4 (0.5)

0.6 (0.2)

1.0 (0.1)
Preferred orientation of modeled fault planes within zone (N30°W).

North of Rio Vista, published data from gas exploration indicate that the Midland fault breaks into a zone of right-stepping en echelon fault traces. Anomalous, apparently uplifted Quaternary topography that appears to be associated with the stepover regions may be related to recent movement on a system of underlying oblique reverse faults in this zone. Tips of faults are inferred by CDOG (1982) to extend above the base of the Tertiary Markley Formation to depths of about 1.5 km, and possibly shallower. Minimum fault depth not constrained by data in CDOG (1982). Slip rate is assumed to be the same as the Southern Midland fault.

Pittsburgh-Kirby Hills 1.0 Unsegmented (0.4) N/A 24 20 ± 5 80 ± 10 E SS 6.7 0.3 (0.4)

0.5 (0.4)

0.7 (0.2)
Characterization from the Thrust Fault Subgroup of the 1999 Working Group.

Floating
Earthquake (0.6)
N/A N/A 20 ± 5 80 ± 10 E SS 6.3 0.3 (0.4)

0.5 (0.4)

0.7 (0.2)
Potrero Hills 0.7 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 9 6 ± 2 40 ± 10 SW R 5.75 (0.3)

6.0 (0.6)

6.25 (0.1)

0.1 (0.2)

0.3 (0.6)

0.6 (0.2)
Characterization based on Unruh and Hector (1999). Fault tip inferred to lie between 0 km and 1 km depth based on analysis of gas well data and construction of geologic cross sections. The fault is assigned a Probability of Activity of (0.7) based on geomorphic and physiographic evidence that slip is being transferred from the active Pittsburg Kirby Hills fault to Wragg Canyon and Hunting Creek-Berryessa fault zones to the north via the Potrero Hills fault.

Southern Midland 0.8 Unsegmented (0.1) N/A 26 top: 1.5
bottom:
15 ± 5
70 W RO 6.6 0.2 (0.2)

0.4 (0.5)

0.6 (0.2)

1.0 (0.1)
Activity and rate is inferred from displacement of late Tertiary (and possibly early Pleistocene) strata in seismic reflection profiles (WeberBand, 1994) and displacement of basal peat (Holocene) inferred from analysis of Atwater (1982) data (URS/JRB, 2008) and examined in Unruh and Hitchcock (2009). Unruh and Hitchcock preferred slip rate is 0.4±0.2 mm/yr. URS/JRB (2008) considered a rate of 1.0 mm/yr with

0.3 weight to allow for possible dextral slip. Unruh and Hitchcock (2009) consider dextral slip to be minor, so we include the 1.0 mm/yr rate with lower weight. Tip of fault is inferred by CDOG (1982) to extend above the base of the Tertiary Markley Formation to depths of about 1.5 km, and possibly shallower. Minimum fault depth not constrained by data in CDOG (1982).

Floating
Earthquake (0.9)
N/A N/A top: 1.5
bottom:
15 ± 5
70 W RO 6.0 (0.3)

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.2 (0.2)

0.4 (0.5)

0.6 (0.2)

1.0 (0.1)
Thornton Arch (zone) 0.2 Floating
Earthquake (1.0)
N/A N/A 14 5 70 S (E-W
strike)
RO 6.0 (0.3)

6.25 (0.4)

6.5 (0.3)

0.05 (0.3)

0.10.4)

0.15 (0.3)
Possible localization of Quaternary uplift suggesting the presence of active blind fault(s) is inferred based on the deflection of the Mokelumne River north around an arch mapped in the subsurface from oil and gas exploration data (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1982).

EW strike - based on the orientation of the mapped arch.

Vernalis 0.8 Floating
Earthquake (1.0)
N/A 46 14 3 70 10 W RO 6.25 (0.2)

6.5 (0.4)

6.75 (0.4)

0.07 (0.3)

0.25 (0.4)

0.5 (0.3)
Quaternary activity of the Vernalis fault is inferred from the distribution of older Quaternary deposits (CDMG 1:25,000 San Jose quadrangle) that indicate differential uplift across the fault. Sterling (1992) describes stratigraphic and structural relationships imaged by seismic reflection data indicating “movement as recently as late Pliocene.” The slip rate is estimated to be comparable to the estimated rate for the West Tracy fault.

Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 9 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
West Tracy 0.9 Floating
Earthquake (1.0)
N/A 30 14 3 70 10 W RO 6.25 (0.2)

6.5 (0.4)

6.75 (0.4)

0.07 (0.3)

0.25 (0.4)

0.5 (0.3)
Quaternary activity of the West Tracy fault is inferred from the distribution of older Quaternary deposits (CDMG 1:25,000 San Jose quadrangle) that indicate differential uplift across the fault. Very limited data is available to estimate the rate of slip and recent fault behavior. The rate of reverse-oblique slip is inferred to be approximately half the rate estimated for the Midway/Black Butte fault zone. A lower bound of 0.07 mm/yr on the slip rate is estimated based on total vertical separation of about 800 ft (244 m) of a basal Miocene unconformity across the fault as reported by Sterling (1992), and an assumed duration of deformation (active during the past ~3.5 Ma).

Willows fault 0.8 Floating
(1.0)
N/A (fault length ca.
200 km)
19± 3 75 E R 6.5 (0.6)

7.1 (0.4)

0.01 (0.2)

0.04 (0.6)

0.08 (0.2)
Jennings and Bryant (2010) call the Willows fault pre-Quaternary.

However, Wong (1992) considers it active based on its association with historical seismicity. No information is known about its slip rate, so we apply the slip rate of the adjacent Corning fault. Maximum magnitudes are also not known. The entire fault is very long, and we do not consider a full-length rupture possible. We consider two end-member floating earthquakes, with magnitudes based on the range of magnitudes used for the Corning fault.

Sierra Faults
Almanor fault 1.0 Unsegmented
(1.0)
N/A 40 13 90 (0.5)
70 (0.5)
W N-SS 6.8 1.1 (0.2)

2.2 (0.6)

3.3 (0.2)
Characterization based on Qfault description (Bryant, 2000), which cites Kelson et al. (1995) for slip rate.

Butt Creek (aka Butt
Valley) fault

1.0 Unsegmented
(1.0)
N/A 50 13 90 SS-N 6.9 0.1 (0.2)

0.15 (0.6)

0.25 (0.2)
Fault included in Quaternary fault database as Late Quaternary. Length from database. Slip rate from Mejia et al. (2005) and Page et al. (1997) and are determined from vertical separation of Plio-Pleistocene basalts and assumptions about vertical to horizontal slip ratios. Fault zone includes Canterbury, Muleshoe Mine, Ponderosa Flat, Rock Lake, and Stover Mountain faults. Studies of the Butt Valley fault for PG&E showed a slip rate of 0.09-0.13 mm/yr for the Muleshoe Mine fault and

0.12-0.23 mm/yr for the Rock Lake fault (Page et al., 1997). Given the distance of the faults, we treat the entire zone as a single source with a slip rate based on these two values.

Dog Valley fault 1.0 Independent (0.5) N/A 23 (0.6) 90 15 N/A SS-N 6.4 (0.2) 0.01 (0.2) The northeast-striking zone of late Cenozoic faults and lineaments may have been the source for three ~ M 6 events (1914, 1948, and 1966), but the evidence is ambiguous (Hawkins et al., 1986). Secondary ground cracking associated with the 1966 ML 6.0 earthquake damaged both Prosser and Boca dams, but enigmatically Hawkins et al. (1986) did not find compelling geologic evidence for Quaternary offset from their mapping and trenching. Based on mapping for the Martis Dam project, we see suggestive geomorphic evidence for mid to late Quaternary activity, particularly along the northeastern portion. Thus, we consider two alternative rupture lengths. The shorter length extends as far southwest as about Highway 89. Here the fault becomes broken up and difficult to trace as it intersects another zone of north to northweststriking lineaments and faults. Our longer scenario includes this broad discontinuous zone of lineaments southwest of Highway 89. Although the geomorphic expression of the fault zone (particularly along the northeastern portion) suggests mid to late Quaternary offsets, the age of offset features and sediments along the fault are poorly constrained and so rates of Quaternary activity are largely unknown. Vetter and Hawkins (2000) assumed rates of 0.05 to 0.5 mm/yr. Our maximum rate is estimated from the apparent sinistral offset of a fault bounded

6.7 (0.6) 0.15 (0.7)

7.0 (0.2) 1.3 (0.1)
28 (0.4) 90 15 N/A SS-N 6.5 (0.2) 0.01 (0.2)

6.8 (0.6) 0.15 (0.7)

7.1 (0.2) 1.3 (0.1)
Zone (0.5) N/A 15 90 15 N/A SS-N 6.2 (0.2)

6.5 (0.6)

6.8 (0.2)

0.01 (0.2)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 10 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
ridge of Jurassic metavolcanic, metasedimentary and granitic rocks (unit Jmv on Grose 2000a) at the northeastern end of the Dog Valley fault zone. Here, as mapped by Grose (2000a), the Dog Valley fault zone offsets a steeply east- dipping fault contact (between Jmv and Tba, Mafic Andesite flows of Bald Mountain) and ridgetops of the Verdi Range to the south from the Bald Mountain Range to the north about 3.6 to 4.0 km. Assuming this occurred during the current tectonic regime and the opening of the adjacent Boca and Verdi basins (Henry and Perkins, 2001) since 3 Ma yields a long term slip rate of about 1.3 mm/yr. Given the relatively poor Quaternary geomorphic expression of the Dog Valley fault zone, we give a low weight to this extreme longterm late Cenozoic rate. Although definitive evidence for late Quaternary
Honey Lake fault zone 1.0 Unsegmented (1.0) N/A 93 75 15 SW RL-N 7.0 (0.2) Slip Rate (0.7) This major system of normal and dextral faults strikes northwest from Warm Springs Mountain, Nevada to north of Honey Lake, California.

Age constraints for recurrence intervals are limited and so we favor using slip rates to characterize rates of activity. Paleoseismic data is from detailed mapping and a natural exposure (Wills, 1990; Wills and Borchardt, 1993), detailed trench studies have not been conducted.

Based on evidence for 4 events occurring since 6 ka, with the youngest event offsetting a soil estimated to be 200 to 400 years old, Wills and Borchardt (1993) reported a preferred recurrence interval of 1.5 ky, which we adopt here. We consider double and half this for our maximum and minimum values. Wills (1990) estimated a range of slip rates of 1.1 to 2.6 mm/yr based on 16 ± 2 m of dextral offset of a fluvial channel estimated to be deposited 7.0 to 12.5 ka, whereas Wills and Borchardt (1993) prefer a horizontal sip rate of 2 mm/yr, which we adopted here with a maximum and minimum values based on rounded values from the range of Wills (1990).

7.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3)

7.6 (0.2) 2.0 (0.4)

3.0 (0.3)
Recurrence
Interval (0.3):
750 (0.3)
1,500 (0.4)
3,000 (0.3)
Indian Valley fault 1.0 Unsegmented
(1.0)
N/A 15 13 70 W N-SS 6.4 0.05 (0.3)

0.1 (0.4)

0.15 (0.3)
No slip rate data are available for this fault. Diller (1908) defined the faults as normal; some component of strike-slip is assumed based on similarity to other faults in the area. Assigned Holocene age in Quaternary fault database. We assume similarity to the nearby Muleshoe Mine fault (in the Butt Valley fault zone) and Walker Spring fault.

Mohawk Valley fault
zone

1.0 Unsegmented (0.5): 85 50 (0.2) E RL 7.0 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) Slip on this northwest-striking zone of faults near the southern end of the Tahoe-Medicine Lake trough (Page et al., 1993) appears to be partitioned, with dextral slip dominating (~5:1 h to v) on the eastern section (A025a), whereas southwestern and northwestern sections (A025b and A025c, respectively) show dominantly normal slip with a smaller dextral component. Based on this difference in sense of slip, the apparent higher rates of activity on Section A025a, and the 2 to 3-km distance between the sections, we considered a segmented model (i.e., independent rupture between sections). However, we equally favored an unsegmented model because detailed mapping of the entire zone and trenching of the southwestern (A025b) section (Sawyer et al., 1995; Sawyer and Briggs, 2001) and the eastern (A025a) section (Sawyer et al., 2002; in prep.) suggest: (1) all sections were repeatedly active 70 (0.6) N 7.3 (0.6) 1.5 (0.6)
90 (0.2) 7.6 (0.2) 3.0 (0.2)
Segmented (0.5): Eastern section
(A025a)
82 (0.8) 70 (0.6)
80 (0.2)
90 (0.2)
E RL 7.0 (0.2)

7.3 (0.6)

7.6 (0.2)
Slip Rate (0.4):

0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

2.0 (0.2)
Recurrence
Interval (0.6):
3300 (0.3)
5200 (0.4)
7000 (0.3)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 11 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
100 (0.2) 70 (0.6)
80 (0.2)
90 (0.2)
E RL 7.1 (0.2)

7.4 (0.6)

7.7 (0.2)
Slip Rate (0.4):

0.5 (0.2)

1.0 (0.6)

2.0 (0.2)
Recurrence
Interval (0.6):
3300 (0.3)
5200 (0.4)
7000 (0.3)
during the late Quaternary with a likely late Holocene youngest event; (2) the subparallel sections are close together and seem to be converging toward the northwest; and (3) all sections are dynamically compatible, similar to the Independence and Owens Valley faults as evaluated and discussed by Wesnousky and Jones (1994). In both the unsegmented model and the segmented model for the Eastern section, the fault includes the 18-km-long Eastern Truckee fault zone (A005b), which is also considered an independent source (with the probability of activity down-weighted to 0.9 to avoid double counting). Assuming that vertical separation of as much as 1,180 m of the Lovejoy Basalt occurred during the current tectonic setting (past 3-5 Ma), the long term vertical slip rate is 0.24 to 0.39 mm/yr (Sawyer et al., 1995). Sawyer and Briggs (2001) interpreted 6 or 7 late Quaternary events to have occurred on section A025b at the Calpine trench site. Displacements per event are inferred to be at least 2 to 3 m. Unfortunately, absolute ages were problematic and generally lacking, and trenches did not transect the principal trace so the record is likely a minimum. An ongoing study that included 11 trenches at a site near the southern end of section A025a revealed evidence for at least 4 surface-faulting events, and 3 of these occurred between 1,960 to 2,150 cal B.P. and 12,250 to 12,700 cal B.P. (Sawyer et al., in prep.) They estimate an average recurrence interval of 5,250 ± 150 years, but estimates of individual intervals vary from 3,300 to 7,000 years. A net slip rate of 0.33 ± 0.15 mm/yr is estimated for this site near the south end of A025a, but this is likely a minimum for the section overall. Based on these data, we have favored using recurrence intervals over slip rates for section A025a, but only use slip rates on sections A025b and A025c (Figures 3b and 3c) due to the lack of good recurrence data for these sections. We have assumed rates for the unsegmented model that are slightly less than the Honey and Pyramid Lake fault zones based on 1 to 3 fewer Holocene events. For the segmented normal sections (A025b and A025c) we assumed a minimum slip rate of 0.1 mm/yr assuming 6 events with 2 m each occurred since 130 ka. Our preferred rates for these sections is based on long term vertical rates and assumes some minor dextral component. Our maximum rate for these sections is double the preferred rate. Our preferred slip rate for the segmented eastern section (A025a) assumes double the rate of the normal section based on the occurrence of 2 more Holocene events. Maximum rate is assumed double the preferred value.

Our minimum is based on minimum estimates of 0.18 mm/yr at the trench site near the southern end of section A025a.

Southwestern section
(A025b)
39 50 (0.2)
60 (0.2)
70 (0.6)
E N 6.6 (0.2)

6.9 (0.6)

7.2 (0.2)

0.1 (0.2)

0.5 (0.6)

1.0 (0.2)
Northwestern section
(A025c)
46 50 (0.2)
60 (0.2)
70 (0.6)
E N 6.7 (0.2)

7.0 (0.6)

7.3 (0.2)

0.1 (0.2)

0.5 (0.6)

1.0 (0.2)
Truckee fault zone 1.0 Zone (1.0) N/A 18 (0.5) 60 (0.3) 75 (0.4)
80 (0.3)
E N 6.2 (0.2)

6.5 (0.6)

6.8 (0.2)

0.15 (0.7)

1.3 (0.1)

1.4 (0.2)
This broad, newly-recognized zone of discontinuous, northwest-striking Quaternary faults accommodates down-to-the-east displacement along the southern portion of the Tahoe-Medicine Lake trough, between the Mohawk Valley fault zone to the northwest and faults of the Tahoe basin to the south. It was first termed the Sierra Nevada fault zone by Olig et al. (2005), but is referred to here as the Truckee fault zone to avoid confusion with the Tahoe-Sierra front fault zone. The Truckee fault zone includes northwest-striking faults and lineaments near Independence Lake, lineaments near Kyburz flat, faults and lineaments west of Prosser Reservoir, faults along the west side of Martis Valley and faults near Donner Lake. Several of these faults show evidence for 30 (0.5) 60 (0.3)
75 (0.4)
80 (0.3)
E N 6.5 (0.2)

6.8 (0.6)

7.1 (0.2)

0.01 (0.3)

0.5 (0.5)

1.4 (0.2)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 12 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
offsetting Donner and Tioga-age geomorphic features (URS/USBR, 2005). However, apparent large gaps in late Quaternary faulting suggests that all the faults in this 30-km-long zone may not rupture coseismically, but rather ruptures may be just above the threshold for surface-faulting within an incipient zone. Therefore, we considered two alternative maximum rupture lengths, equally weighted. The shorter length of 18 km is consistent with a preferred maximum magnitude of M 6.5, which is allowed to “float” over the zone. A maximum rupture length of 18 km is the approximate total length of faults along the west side of Martis Valley and faults and lineaments west of Prosser Reservoir. Preferred slip rate is based on: 10 m of estimated vertical offset on a Tioga(?)-age moraine assumed to be deposited 10 to 25.5 ka (Bursik and Gillespie, 1993; Yount and LaPointe, 1997); and 90 to 140 m of estimated vertical offset on Donner-age moraines, assumed to be deposited > 131 ka. Maximum rate is based on estimates of 50 to 80 m of vertical offsets on Tahoe(?)-age moraines, assumed to be deposited 56 to 118 ka (Bursik and Gillespie, 1993; Yount and LaPointe, 1997).

Minimum rate assumes that a least 1 to 2 m of slip occurred during the late Quaternary (< 130 ka).

Eastern Truckee fault
zone

0.9 Unsegmented (1.0) 18 70 (0.2) E SS 6.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) This zone of discontinuous, northwest-striking faults accommodates overall dextral displacement along the southern portion of the TahoeMedicine Lake trough, between the Mohawk Valley fault zone to the northwest and faults of the Tahoe basin to the south. A paleoseismic investigation by Melody (2007) at Hobart Meadows showed the fault to have latest Quaternary activity and is likely Holocene active. We assign a preferred maximum magnitude of M 6.5 based on the 18 km maximum rupture length, which is the approximate total length of faults from Kyburz Flat to Alder Hill. The probability of activity is an effective weight (to avoid double counting) and reflects the segmentation model of the Mohawk Valley fault zone (MVFZ), where ruptures along the MVFZ can include the Eastern Truckee fault zone (ETFZ). The preferred slip rate is based on the 1.6 km right-lateral offset of Sagehen Creek and uses the 2.4 Ma date of the Alder Hill basalt as the constraining age. The minimum rate assumes that the 5 km right-lateral deflection has accrued since the 10.4 Ma Miocene andesites east of the Little Truckee River were extruded. The maximum rate assumes that the 5 km deflection of the Little Truckee River accumulated after the 2.4 Ma Alder Hill basalts were erupted. 90 (0.6) N/A 6.5 (0.6) 0.7 (0.6)
70 (0.2) W 6.8 (0.2) 2.1 (0.2)
Unnamed fault zone in
Truckee River
Canyon (northwest
Reno fault zone of
dePolo, 1998)

1.0 Zone (1.0) N/A 14 90 ± 20 N/A N 6.1 (0.2) 0.004 (0.2) This broad series of short discontinuous faults is modeled as an eastwest trending zone in the Truckee Meadows structural trough along the Truckee River Canyon between Verdi and Reno. Very little is known about rates of activity. Our preferred rate is based on the reconnaissance rate of dePolo (1998), our maximum rate assumes a rate similar to the minimum for the Mt. Rose fault zone (1647), whereas our minimum assumes 2 m of slip occurred since mid Quaternary time (~500 ka).

6.4 (0.6) 0.01 (0.6)

6.7 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)
Table 1. Bay Area Time-Independent Seismic Source Parameters W:\X_WCFS\PROJECTS\ULE HAZARD MAPS\TBL 1.DOCX\31-JAN-12\\OAK 13 Fault Name Probability
of Activity1 Rupture Scenario2
Segment Name
Rupture
Length3
(km)
Depth4
(km)
Dip5
(degrees)
Direction of
Dip6
Sense of
Slip7
Magnitude8
(M)
Slip Rate9
(mm/yr)
Notes
Tahoe basin faults
(except East Tahoe
fault)

1.0 Independent (0.4) Tahoe-Sierra frontal
fault zone (#215)
30 60 ± 15 E N 6.5 (0.2)

6.8 (0.6)

7.1 (0.2)

0.01 (0.3)

0.5 (0.5)

1.4 (0.2)
Recent and ongoing bathymetry, high-resolution seismic, drilling and preliminary onshore mapping studies indicate that, except for the East Tahoe fault (#1651), faults in the Tahoe basin are much more active than previously thought and may have a combined rate of activity similar to the Carson Range fault system (e.g., Schweickert et al., 1999, 2004; Gardner et al., 2000; Kent et al., 2000; Seitz and Kent, 2004).

The West-Tahoe Dollar Point fault zone (#216), North Tahoe (#1649), and Incline Village (#1650) faults appear to be the main, youngest, and most active faults of the basin, with the Tahoe-Sierra frontal fault zone accommodating more distributed extension within the footwall of #216 along the western basin margin. Based on the available data, we include 3 possible rupture scenarios: (1) the two endmember scenarios of the faults are all linked and rupture coseismically, (2) the faults are not linked and rupture independently, and (3) an intermediate scenario of all the faults are linked except #215. We acknowledge other intermediate scenarios are possible but for simplicity only include this one as it seems the most plausible for the maximum and smaller partial rupture scenarios are accounted for by the characteristic and exponential recurrence models. Kent et al. (2005) and Seitz and Kent (2004) estimate fairly consistent average late Quaternary vertical slip rates of

0.2 to 0.55 mm/yr across each of the 3 main faults based on : (1) 10 m of offset on #216 of a 19 ka shoreline; (2) similar offsets on #1649; (3) 29 m of offset of a 60-ka shoreline; and (4) ongoing trenching and seismic studies of #1650 (G. Seitz and G. Kent, UCSD, personal comm., 7-20-04). The latter revealed evidence for 3 large (2 to 2.7 m of vertical offset each) surface-faulting events and probably 2 events are Holocene based on soil development (radiocarbon ages are pending).

Slip rates for #215 are assumed similar to the Truckee fault zone (#A005), which is consistent with 10 to 20 m of offset on Tioga and Tahoe-age moraines, respectively (Schweickert et al., 2000b).

West Tahoe-Dollar
Point fault zone
(#216)
50 65 ± 15 E N 6.7 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)

7.0 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6)

7.3 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2)
North Tahoe fault
(#1649)
26 45 (0.2) SE N 6.4 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)
70 (0.6) 6.7 (0.6) 0.4 (0.6)
85 (0.2) 7.0 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2)
Incline Village fault
(#1650)
29 65 ± 15 E N 6.5 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)

6.8 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

7.1 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2)
All linked (0.2) N/A 56 60 ± 15 6.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2)

7.1 (0.6) 2.0 (0.6)

7.4 (0.2) 4.0 (0.2)
Linked Model 2:

Inner basin faults
linked; TahoeSierra FFZ
independent
Inner basin faults 56 65 ± 15 E N 6.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2)

7.1 (0.6) 1.5 (0.6)

7.4 (0.2) 4.5 (0.2)
Tahoe Sierra FFZ 40 60 ± 15 E N 6.6 (0.2) 0.01 (0.2)

6.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

7.2 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2)
Linked Model 3:

West and North
Tahoe linked;
others independent
West and North
Tahoe
56 65 ± 15 E N 6.8 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2)

7.1 (0.6) 1.0 (0.6)

7.4 (0.2) 3.0 (0.2
Tahoe Sierra FFZ 40 60 ± 15 E N 6.6 (0.2) 0.01 (0.2)

6.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

7.2 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2)
Incline Village fault
(#1650)
29 65 ± 15 E N 6.5 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)

6.8 (0.6) 0.5 (0.6)

7.1 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2)
Walker Spring fault 1.0 Unsegmented
(1.0)
N/A 21 13 90 N/A SS-N 6.5 0.05 (0.3)

0.1 (0.4)

0.15 (0.3)
Page et al. (1997) estimated slip rates based on vertical separation of Plio-Pleistocene basalts and assumptions about vertical to horizontal slip ratios and determined a value of 0.07-0.1 mm/yr.
1 Probability of Activity: Independent seismic source (M 6.0) and repeated displacements in late-Quaternary or historical activity (1.0); Late Pleistocene or inferred association with historical seismicity (0.7); activity inferred from fault geometry considered likely to move under current tectonic regime (0.5).
2 Weight in parentheses assigned according to likelihood of occurrence of rupture scenario. 3 Rupture length in kilometers.
4 Seismogenic depth. Unless otherwise noted, depth to top of fault is 0, and value reflects depth to base of rupture plane. Unless otherwise stated, weights are 0.4 for the best estimate and 0.3 for the upper and lower bound estimates. 5 Inclination of fault plane, measured from the horizontal. Dips are not varied unless otherwise stated. Weights are 0.4 for the best estimate and 0.3 for the upper and lower bound estimates. 6 Direction of inclination of the fault plane. N/A infers a vertical fault plane. 7 SS – strike-slip; R – reverse; OR – oblique-reverse.
8 Unless otherwise stated, uncertainties in the best estimate magnitude are 0.3 magnitude unit. Weights are 0.2, 0.6, and 0.2 unless otherwise stated. A single magnitude value is weighted 1.0. 9 Slip rate based on paleoseismic data. Unless otherwise stated, weights in parentheses are 0.2, 0.6, and 0.2. 24001006.001A/SAC24R164096_R1 Page D-1 February 12, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder (Revised September 10, 2024)

APPENDIX D

UPDATED SPT-BASED LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS FOR TARGETED SEGMENTS _____________________________________________________________________ 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:

48.1 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 16.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.4 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 16.7 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.4 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, Cs
Stick 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 8 SC 115 58 58 58 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.14 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 8 13 12 1.1 14 0.310 11.4 0.129 2.40 No No Yes SC - Yes No 2.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 23 CL 125 308 308 308 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 37 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 23 36 35 1.2 43 1.745 56.5 0.120 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 21 CL 125 558 558 558 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 21 33 35 1.2 39 1.130 100.5 0.117 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 17 ML 125 808 808 808 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 17 27 59 35 1.2 32 0.597 143.4 0.115 3.00 No No No ML Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 21 CL 125 1058 1058 1058 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 22 31 35 1.2 37 0.761 185.3 0.114 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 10 CL 125 1308 1308 1308 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.15 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 11 14 35 1.3 17 0.169 226.0 0.112 1.50 No No Yes CL - No No 1.50 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 11 CL 125 1558 1558 1558 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.16 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 13 14 35 1.3 18 0.169 253.4 0.106 1.60 No No Yes CL - No No 1.60 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 12 CL 125 1808 1808 1808 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 14 15 35 1.3 19 0.170 280.7 0.101 1.68 No No Yes CL - No No 1.68 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 16.5 16 CL 125 2058 2058 2058 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.22 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 19 19 35 1.2 23 0.233 302.7 0.096 2.44 No No No CL - No No 2.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 18.5 11 MH 125 2308 2308 2308 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 12 35 1.3 16 0.130 322.9 0.091 1.43 No No Yes MH - No No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 20.5 11 ML 125 2558 2558 2558 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 14 12 92 35 1.3 15 0.122 341.8 0.087 1.40 No No Yes ML 32 8 Yes Yes No 1.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 23.5 12 ML 125 2933 2933 2933 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 9.0 0.96 15 12 35 1.3 16 0.122 364.6 0.081 1.51 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 28.5 12 SM 125 3558 3558 3558 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 15 11 12 1.1 13 0.090 402.6 0.074 1.22 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 33.5 8 SM 115 4133 4001 4001 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 10 7 49 35 1.4 10 0.072 437.1 0.071 1.01 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.01 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 38.5 10 CL 125 4758 4314 4314 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 13.6 0.99 13 9 35 1.3 12 0.080 470.0 0.071 1.13 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 58.5 100 SM 130 7358 5666 5666 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 59 1.30 1.00 7 19.7 1.00 131 78 12 1.1 82 14.686 587.3 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 63.5 100 ML 125 7983 5979 5979 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 21.2 1.00 131 76 87 35 1.2 88 22.714 612.5 0.067 3.00 No Yes No ML 36 8 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 18 68.5 100 CL 125 8608 6292 6292 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 22.7 1.00 131 74 35 1.2 86 19.059 637.1 0.066 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 73.5 59 CL 125 9233 6605 6605 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 24.2 1.00 77 43 35 1.2 50 1.284 661.8 0.065 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Sample is at bottom of 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: North Area Streams Levee System
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
American River (North Bank): AR-12 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3106+13
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
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
12/20/2023
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-04
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
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/2F-97-04_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

47.2 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 37.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 30.2 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield
USCS 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, CE
Drilling MethodBorehole Diameter (inches)Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code(S, SW, SCAL, MCAL)N1 for Sampler
Correction Only(for SW sampler)Sampler Correction, Cs
(for SW Sampler only)
Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs
Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet)Rod Length (m)Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60
N1,60
Fines Content (%)Fines Content for Analysis (%)Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS
Cyclic 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 22 CL 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 21 33 35 1.2 39 2.062 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 30 SM 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 48 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 28 45 12 1.1 48 2.475 56.5 0.118 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 18 SM 125 563 563 563 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 17 27 12 1.1 29 0.510 100.5 0.116 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 16 SM 125 813 813 813 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 15 24 12 1.1 26 0.363 143.4 0.115 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 12 CL 125 1063 1063 1063 1.4 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 16 1.19 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 12 17 35 1.2 21 0.230 185.3 0.113 2.03 No No Yes CL - No No 2.03 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 19 MH 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 23 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 20 25 35 1.2 30 0.432 226.0 0.112 3.00 No No No MH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 14 ML 125 1563 1563 1563 1.1 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 16 1.20 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 15 17 35 1.2 21 0.218 253.4 0.105 2.07 No No Yes ML - No No 2.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 13 ML 125 1813 1813 1813 1.1 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 14 1.17 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 14 15 89 35 1.3 19 0.177 280.7 0.101 1.76 No No Yes ML 36 9 No No No 1.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 18 9 MH 125 2250 2250 2250 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 10 10 35 1.3 13 0.105 317.8 0.092 1.14 Yes No Yes MH - No No 1.14 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 21.5 10 MH 125 2688 2688 2688 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 9 1.11 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 12 10 35 1.3 13 0.103 349.4 0.085 1.22 Yes No Yes MH - No No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25 12 ML 125 3125 3125 3125 0.8 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 14 12 35 1.3 15 0.111 376.0 0.078 1.42 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.42 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28.5 18 ML 125 3563 3563 3563 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 22 16 35 1.2 20 0.162 402.6 0.073 2.21 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32 11 ML 125 4000 4000 3885 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 13 10 62 35 1.3 13 0.088 427.2 0.071 1.23 Yes Yes Yes ML 19 3 Yes Yes Yes 1.23 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 14 35.5 14 SP-SM 125 4438 4438 4104 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 17 12 8 1.1 12 0.085 450.2 0.071 1.19 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.19 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 39 29 SP-SM 130 4893 4799 4341 0.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 19 1.28 1.00 7 13.7 0.99 36 23 6 6 1.0 24 0.201 473.3 0.071 2.84 No Yes No SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 2.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

Z. Zafir
PROJECT NUMBER: Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Task Area: North Area Streams Levee System
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
12/20/2023
1/2/2024
R. Hochstatter
American River (North Bank): AR-12
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report 24001006.001A
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
2F-96-10
Crest
Station:

Conclusions and Comments
Drilled Sept. 1996
Liquefaction Assessment
Less Likely Liquefiable
From 2F-96-10
Avg. Winter WSE
3126+49
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 12/2F-96-10_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 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:

34.5 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 13.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 21.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 17.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: 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, Cs
Stick 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 3.5 7 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 7 11 12 1.1 12 0.153 76.0 0.123 1.25 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.25 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 8 ML 120 763 763 763 1.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.14 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 8 12 35 1.3 16 0.174 135.2 0.115 1.51 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 9 SC-SM 115 1108 1108 1108 1.3 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.14 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 9 12 38 35 1.3 16 0.160 188.9 0.111 1.44 No No Yes SC-SM 28 7 Yes Yes No 1.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 21 ML 125 1483 1483 1483 1.2 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 23 26 35 1.2 32 0.490 237.0 0.104 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 8 ML 125 1858 1858 1858 1.0 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 9 9 35 1.3 12 0.106 279.5 0.098 1.08 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.08 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 11 ML 125 2233 2233 2139 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 12 35 1.3 15 0.129 317.6 0.097 1.34 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.34 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 7 21.5 11 ML 125 2608 2576 2327 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 13 11 35 1.3 15 0.119 355.0 0.099 1.20 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.20 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 8 24.5 10 SC-SM 125 2983 2764 2515 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.11 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 12 10 43 35 1.3 13 0.105 392.1 0.101 1.04 Yes Yes Yes SC-SM 24 5 Yes Yes Yes 1.04 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 9 27.5 27 ML 125 3358 2952 2702 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 33 27 35 1.2 32 0.431 428.1 0.103 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 30.5 38 CL 125 3733 3140 2890 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 46 37 35 1.2 44 1.005 461.5 0.104 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 35.5 23 SP-SM 125 4358 3453 3203 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.25 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 28 22 8 8 1.1 23 0.197 511.0 0.104 1.90 No Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 40.5 67 ML 125 4983 3766 3516 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 49 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 83 61 35 1.2 71 7.090 550.7 0.102 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 45.5 100 ML 125 5608 4079 3829 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 70 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 124 87 56 35 1.2 101 67.232 585.5 0.099 3.00 No Yes No ML 23 3 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 50.5 100 SM 130 6258 4417 4167 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 67 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 125 84 46 35 1.2 97 49.822 616.6 0.096 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).
15 55.5 66 ML 125 6883 4730 4480 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 43 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 82 54 35 1.2 63 3.651 644.2 0.093 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-04A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-99-04A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (North Bank): AR-12
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3151+12
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
Results of Analysis
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 12/2F-99-04A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 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:

53.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 21.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.2 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.8 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.2 Energy Ratio = 83 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, Cs
Stick 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)
S04 5.5 22 ML 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 26 42 52 35 1.2 50 2.288 122.1 0.115 3.00 No No No ML 16 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S06 10.5 20 ML 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 24 29 35 1.2 35 0.643 226.0 0.112 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S08 15.5 12 SM 125 1938 1938 1938 1.0 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 15 16 42 35 1.3 19 0.178 292.6 0.098 1.81 No No Yes SM 20 - Yes No 1.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S10 20.5 12 SM 125 2563 2563 2563 0.9 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 16 14 30 30 1.2 17 0.140 341.8 0.087 1.61 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.61 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S12 25.5 13 ML 125 3188 3188 3188 0.8 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 18 14 57 35 1.3 18 0.136 379.8 0.077 1.76 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S14 30.5 17 SM 125 3813 3813 3813 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 12 1.19 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 23 17 12 1.1 18 0.136 417.3 0.071 1.91 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S16 35.5 15 SM 125 4438 4166 4166 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 10 1.16 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 21 14 30 30 1.2 18 0.126 450.2 0.070 1.79 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S18 40.5 43 GM 130 5088 4504 4504 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 60 40 12 1.1 43 0.801 483.0 0.070 3.00 No Yes No GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S22 50 150 GP 130 6323 5146 5146 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 94 1.30 1.00 7 17.1 1.00 211 131 5 1.0 134 758.159 540.2 0.068 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S23 55.5 86 CL 125 7010 5491 5491 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 52 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 121 73 35 1.2 85 18.387 571.1 0.068 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S25 60.5 60 SM 130 7660 5829 5829 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 85 50 12 1.1 53 1.569 597.7 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled May 2008
WCNBAR_003B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
N/A, used Avg. Winter WSE
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
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
American River (North Bank): AR-14
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3306+35
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
Results of Analysis
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/WCNBAR_003B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
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, Cs
Stick 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): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3307+50
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
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
12/20/2023
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-06
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
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/2F-97-06_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
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:

55.8 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 46.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 24.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.8 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, Cs
Stick 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 1.5 17 CL 125 188 188 188 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 2.3 0.75 18 29 35 1.2 35 1.109 32.2 0.112 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 3.5 13 SM 125 438 438 438 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 21 1.27 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 14 22 38 35 1.2 27 0.486 74.2 0.110 3.00 No No No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 17 SM 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 18 29 12 1.1 31 0.579 115.0 0.109 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 7.5 14 SM 125 938 938 938 1.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.28 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 16 23 12 1.1 25 0.326 154.9 0.107 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 9.5 13 SM 125 1188 1188 1188 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 17 1.23 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 15 20 12 1.1 22 0.239 193.6 0.106 2.26 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.26 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 11.5 19 SM 125 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 5.3 0.85 23 28 12 1.1 29 0.410 225.7 0.102 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 13.5 14 SM 125 1688 1688 1688 1.1 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 5.9 0.88 18 19 12 1.1 21 0.205 251.7 0.097 2.11 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 15.5 20 ML 125 1938 1938 1938 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 26 26 35 1.2 32 0.449 276.0 0.093 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 17.5 16 ML 125 2188 2188 2188 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 21 20 35 1.2 25 0.257 294.9 0.088 2.93 No No No ML - Yes No 2.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 21 3 SC 115 2590 2590 2590 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 8.2 0.94 4 4 48 35 1.6 6 0.059 325.5 0.082 0.72 Yes No Yes SC 30 11 No No No 0.72 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 24.5 2 SP-SM 115 2993 2993 2993 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 3 2 8 1.2 3 0.045 349.8 0.076 0.59 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28 6 SP-SM 115 3395 3395 3395 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 8 6 8 1.1 7 0.060 374.1 0.072 0.84 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32 9 SM 125 3895 3895 3883 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 13 9 17 17 1.2 11 0.075 400.4 0.067 1.12 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.12 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 14 35 31 GP 130 4285 4285 4085 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 21 1.30 0.65 7 12.5 0.99 29 19 20 20 1.1 22 0.176 419.0 0.067 2.64 No Yes Yes GP Yes Yes Yes No 2.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 38 53 GP 130 4675 4675 4288 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 35 1.30 0.65 7 13.4 0.99 49 32 5 1.0 33 0.393 437.5 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 41.5 50 GP 130 5130 5130 4525 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 31 1.30 0.65 7 14.5 0.99 46 29 5 1.0 30 0.305 458.6 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 45.5 38 GP 130 5650 5650 4795 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 23 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 35 21 5 1.0 22 0.164 481.3 0.065 2.51 No Yes Yes GP - Yes No 2.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 49 71 SP 130 6105 5918 5032 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 41 1.30 0.65 7 16.8 1.00 66 38 4 0 1.0 38 0.567 500.7 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 19 52.5 58 SP 130 6560 6154 5268 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 33 1.30 0.65 7 17.8 1.00 54 31 3 0 1.0 31 0.316 519.7 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 20 59 52 SP 130 7405 6594 5708 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 29 1.30 0.65 7 19.8 1.00 49 27 5 1.0 28 0.241 553.5 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 21 63 62 SP 130 7925 6864 5978 0.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 33 1.30 1.00 7 21.0 1.00 89 48 3 0 1.0 48 1.115 573.0 0.062 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. 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): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3360+71
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-97-14
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
12/20/2023
Drilled Aug. 1997
2F-97-14
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
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/2F-97-14_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
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:

47.6 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 12.6 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 35.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 25.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 22.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: 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, Cs
Stick 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 3.5 11 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 18 1.19 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 10 17 12 1.1 18 0.245 72.0 0.116 2.11 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 4 SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 4 6 12 1.1 7 0.091 128.0 0.111 0.82 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 8 SP-SM 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 8 11 8 8 1.1 12 0.118 178.5 0.106 1.11 Yes No Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 13 SM 125 1468 1468 1468 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 15 1.19 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 14 16 12 1.1 18 0.171 223.7 0.099 1.73 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 15 SM 125 1843 1843 1843 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 16 1.20 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 17 18 12 1.1 19 0.175 263.4 0.093 1.88 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.88 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 31 GP-GM 130 2233 2233 2233 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 36 34 12 12 1.1 36 0.603 299.1 0.087 3.00 No No No GP-GM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 21.5 119 GP-GM 130 2623 2623 2623 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 104 1.30 0.65 7 8.4 0.95 91 80 8 1.0 83 18.994 334.3 0.083 3.00 No No No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 25.5 100 GP-GM 130 3143 3143 2924 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 80 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 78 62 6 6 1.0 64 4.576 380.8 0.085 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 30.5 205 GP 130 3793 3793 3262 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 149 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 163 118 5 1.0 121 311.049 435.5 0.087 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 35.5 19 SM 125 4418 4386 3575 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 23 16 12 1.1 17 0.127 483.1 0.088 1.45 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.45 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 40.5 33 SM 130 5068 4724 3913 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 41 27 31 31 1.2 31 0.361 520.9 0.087 3.00 No Yes No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 45.5 22 ML 125 5693 5037 4226 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 27 17 35 1.2 21 0.166 553.4 0.085 1.95 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 50.5 50 SM 130 6343 5375 4564 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 62 38 35 35 1.2 45 0.960 583.0 0.083 3.00 No Yes No SM 40 10 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 55.5 81 ML 125 6968 5688 4877 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 48 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 101 60 35 1.2 70 6.154 609.3 0.081 3.00 No Yes No ML - 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): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3397+21
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-99-09A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-09A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
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/2F-99-09A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
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:

48.4 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 18.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 30.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 27.4 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 21.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: 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, Cs
Stick 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 3.5 4 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 4 6 12 1.1 7 0.107 72.0 0.116 0.92 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 6 SP-SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 6 9 8 1.1 10 0.113 128.0 0.111 1.02 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.02 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 5 SP 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 5 7 5 1.1 7 0.084 178.5 0.106 0.79 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 4 SM 115 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 4 5 15 15 1.2 6 0.071 223.7 0.101 0.70 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.70 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 40 GP-GM 130 1828 1828 1828 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 42 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 45 47 8 1.0 49 1.674 263.4 0.094 3.00 No No No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 20.5 178 GP 130 2478 2478 2478 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 160 1.30 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 136 122 5 1.0 125 452.676 322.3 0.085 3.00 No No No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 25.5 150 GP 130 3128 3128 2846 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 120 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 117 94 5 1.0 96 50.044 380.8 0.087 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 8 30.5 163 GP 130 3778 3746 3184 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 119 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 129 95 5 1.0 97 51.233 435.5 0.089 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 35.5 22 CL 125 4403 4059 3497 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 27 19 35 1.2 23 0.204 483.1 0.090 2.27 No Yes No CL - No No 2.27 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 40.5 12 CL 125 5028 4372 3810 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 15 10 93 35 1.3 13 0.092 520.9 0.089 1.04 Yes Yes Yes CL 48 25 No No No 1.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 45.5 11 SM 125 5653 4685 4123 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 14 9 34 34 1.3 12 0.082 553.4 0.087 0.94 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.94 Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 12 50.5 24 SP-SM 130 6303 5023 4461 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 30 19 7 7 1.0 20 0.144 583.0 0.085 1.70 No Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.70 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): AR-14 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3449+67
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From 2F-99-11A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-11A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
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/2F-99-11A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 1/5/2024
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:

25.4 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -17.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 42.4 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 10.3 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: 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, Cs
Stick 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 0.75 10 ML 120 90 90 90 1.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 16 1.17 0.65 7 2.1 0.75 6 10 35 1.3 13 0.255 11.3 0.082 3.00 No No Yes ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 7 ML 115 636 636 636 1.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 11 1.12 0.65 7 3.5 0.75 4 7 35 1.4 10 0.115 116.1 0.119 0.97 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.97 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 10.5 14 ML 125 1261 1261 1248 1.3 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 18 1.22 0.65 7 5.0 0.84 10 12 35 1.3 15 0.149 205.5 0.107 1.39 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 4 15.5 11 ML 120 1861 1861 1536 1.0 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 11 1.14 0.65 7 6.6 0.90 8 8 35 1.3 11 0.103 279.5 0.118 0.87 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.87 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 5 20.5 9 ML 120 2461 2461 1824 0.9 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 8 1.10 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 7 6 35 1.4 9 0.081 342.2 0.122 0.66 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.66 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 6 25.5 22 CH 125 3086 3086 2137 0.8 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 18 1.25 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 17 14 35 1.3 18 0.150 404.3 0.123 1.22 Yes Yes Yes CH - No No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 7 30.5 120 ML 125 3711 3711 2450 0.7 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 88 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 95 70 35 1.2 81 17.579 461.5 0.122 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 8 35.5 100 SM 130 4361 4361 2788 0.7 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 68 1.30 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 80 54 12 1.1 57 2.791 511.0 0.119 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 9 40.5 100 SP-SM 130 5011 5011 3126 0.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 63 1.30 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 81 51 8 1.0 53 1.923 550.7 0.114 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 10 45.5 76 SP-SM 130 5661 5468 3464 0.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 46 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 61 37 8 1.0 39 0.645 585.5 0.110 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 11 50.5 100 SP 130 6311 5806 3802 0.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 59 1.30 0.65 7 17.2 1.00 81 48 5 1.0 49 1.330 616.6 0.105 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled September 1993
K95_BE20
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Regional Groundwater Map
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
NEMDC East: NMDE-2
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3008+90
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) NEMDC East Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3008+90_NEMDC East - K95_BE-20_ 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:

19.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -21.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 40.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 3.9 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.8 Location = Landside 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, Cs
Stick 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 5.5 36 ML 125 688 688 587 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 58 1.30 0.80 7 3.5 0.75 28 45 35 1.2 53 3.187 108.7 0.120 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 2 10.5 13 SM 125 1313 1313 900 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.21 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 14 18 12 1.1 19 0.215 199.7 0.144 1.49 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.49 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 3 15.5 18 SP 125 1938 1938 1213 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 18 1.26 0.80 7 6.6 0.90 17 17 3 0 1.0 17 0.173 283.1 0.152 1.14 Yes Yes Yes SP - Yes Yes 1.14 Less Likely Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 4 20.5 27 SC 130 2588 2588 1551 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 33 29 12 1.1 31 0.460 358.3 0.150 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. No indication of fines content on log.
5 25.5 80 ML 125 3213 3213 1864 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 63 1.30 0.80 7 9.6 0.96 81 64 35 1.2 75 11.230 417.6 0.146 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 6 30.5 45 ML 125 3838 3838 2177 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 58 42 35 1.2 49 1.615 465.9 0.139 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 7 35.5 100 SM 130 4488 4488 2515 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 67 1.30 0.80 7 12.6 0.99 104 69 12 1.1 73 9.251 503.1 0.130 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 8 40.5 95 ML 125 5113 5081 2828 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 60 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 124 78 35 1.2 90 32.393 530.5 0.122 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 9 45.5 90 SM 130 5763 5419 3166 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 55 1.30 0.80 7 15.7 0.99 94 57 12 1.1 60 3.373 562.0 0.115 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East: NMDE-3 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3038+75
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
From K02-B3
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside Field
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled may 2007
K02-B3
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) NEMDC East Liquefaction Spreadsheets/Segment 3/3038+75_NEMDC East - 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:

44.2 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -14.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 58.6 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 29.1 Energy Ratio = 77 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, Cs
Stick 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 3 14 CL 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 15 25 68 35 1.2 30 0.621 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No CL 35 26 16 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 15 CL 125 1000 1000 1000 1.4 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 21 1.30 0.80 7 4.3 0.80 14 20 35 1.2 24 0.312 174.9 0.114 2.74 No No No CL - No No 2.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 4 SC 115 1288 1288 1288 1.2 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 5 6 12 1.1 7 0.079 226.0 0.114 0.69 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.69 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 4 SC 115 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 5 6 47 35 1.4 8 0.082 260.2 0.107 0.76 Yes No Yes SC 26 14 12 No No No 0.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 6 SC 115 1863 1863 1863 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 8 8 12 1.1 9 0.084 292.6 0.102 0.82 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 2 CL 115 2150 2150 2150 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 3 3 35 1.8 5 0.057 317.8 0.096 0.59 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 9 CL 125 2775 2775 2775 0.8 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 8 1.12 0.80 7 8.8 0.95 10 9 35 1.3 12 0.089 360.8 0.085 1.05 Yes No Yes CL 35 21 22 No No No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 12 SC 125 3400 3400 3400 0.8 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 17 13 37 35 1.3 17 0.125 398.8 0.076 1.64 No No Yes SC 24 12 14 No No No 1.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 5 SC 115 3688 3688 3600 0.7 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 7 5 12 1.2 6 0.055 417.3 0.075 0.73 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 0.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
14 35.5 24 SC 125 4313 4313 3913 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 MCAL 16 1.24 0.80 7 12.6 0.99 24 17 12 1.1 18 0.131 450.2 0.075 1.75 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
16 40.5 17 SC 125 4938 4938 4226 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 22 14 12 1.1 15 0.103 483.0 0.074 1.39 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
18 45.5 56 SP-SC 130 5588 5588 4564 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 71 43 8 1.0 45 0.923 513.7 0.073 3.00 No Yes No SP-SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 20 50.5 92 CL 125 6213 6213 4877 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 MCAL 52 1.30 0.80 7 17.2 1.00 94 53 35 1.2 63 3.528 543.0 0.072 3.00 No Yes No CL 29 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 22 55.5 44 SP 130 6863 6863 5215 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 56 30 5 1.0 31 0.329 571.1 0.071 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 24 60.5 57 SP-SM 130 7513 7394 5553 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 73 38 8 1.0 40 0.604 597.7 0.070 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 65.5 87 ML 125 8138 7707 5866 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 44 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 112 57 93 35 1.2 67 4.490 622.4 0.069 3.00 No Yes No ML 35 9 31 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. LL≥35 29 70.5 27 SM 130 8788 8045 6204 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 23.3 1.00 35 17 45 35 1.2 21 0.150 647.0 0.068 2.21 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 31 75.5 192 CL 125 9413 8358 6517 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 94 1.30 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 246 120 93 35 1.2 139 ###### 671.6 0.067 3.00 No Yes No CL 31 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled may 2007
WRARFC_002B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Regional Groundwater Map
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
NEMDC East: NMDE-3
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3051+36
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) NEMDC East Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3051+36_NEMDC East - WRARFC_002 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:

28.3 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -13.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 41.3 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.7 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 12.6 Energy Ratio = 74 Mw = 6.8 Location = WatersideEnter: 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, Cs
Stick 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)
S1 0.5 27 CL 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 43 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 26 41 35 1.2 49 4.145 11.3 0.118 3.00 No No No CL 34 22 4 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S3 3 35 SC 130 388 388 388 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 33 53 43 35 1.2 63 7.091 65.6 0.110 3.00 No No No SC - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S5 7.5 24 SC 125 950 950 950 1.5 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 24 35 30 30 1.2 40 1.048 153.7 0.105 3.00 No No No SC 14 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S7 12.5 53 CL 125 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 60 1.30 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 58 66 53 35 1.2 77 14.043 237.0 0.098 3.00 No No No CL 12 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S9 17.5 23 SC 125 2200 2200 1897 1.0 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 27 26 39 35 1.2 31 0.424 305.2 0.105 3.00 No Yes No SC 37 16 24 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20%.

S11 22.5 28 CL 125 2825 2825 2210 0.8 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 8.7 0.95 34 28 56 35 1.2 34 0.519 367.5 0.108 3.00 No Yes No CL 42 18 31 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S13 27.5 29 CH 125 3450 3450 2523 0.8 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 36 27 35 1.2 33 0.449 428.1 0.110 3.00 No Yes No CH 60 34 52 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S15 32.5 32 SM 130 4100 4100 2861 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 11.7 0.98 40 28 48 35 1.2 34 0.459 482.4 0.110 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S17 37.5 59 ML 125 4725 4725 3174 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 13.3 0.99 74 48 78 35 1.2 57 2.544 527.5 0.108 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S19 42.5 45 ML 125 5350 5275 3487 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 14.8 0.99 57 35 35 1.2 42 0.797 565.1 0.105 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S21 47.5 100 SM 130 6000 5613 3825 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 60 1.30 1.00 7 16.3 1.00 126 75 12 1.1 80 13.604 598.4 0.102 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S23 52.5 150 SC 130 6650 5951 4163 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 87 1.30 1.00 7 17.8 1.00 190 110 12 1.1 116 203.309 627.6 0.098 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 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: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East: NMDE-3 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3080+63
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Regional Groundwater Map
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
12/20/2023
Drilled September 2010
WRARFC_045B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) NEMDC East Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3080+63_NEMDC East - WRARFC_045 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:

45.1 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -0.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 45.9 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 19.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 25.3 Energy Ratio = 88 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, Cs
Stick 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 21 SC 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 3.181 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 3 21 SC 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 1.934 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 28 SC 130 700 700 700 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 45 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 35 57 39 35 1.2 66 7.992 122.1 0.113 3.00 No No No SC 27 13 14 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 8 21 SC 125 1013 1013 1013 1.4 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 28 40 32 32 1.2 46 1.600 174.9 0.112 3.00 No No No SC 35 25 17 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10.5 11 SC 125 1325 1325 1325 1.2 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 14 1.22 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 16 19 12 1.1 21 0.217 226.0 0.111 1.96 No No Yes SC - Yes No 1.96 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 13 11 SC 125 1638 1638 1638 1.1 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 12 1.20 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 16 18 12 1.1 19 0.186 260.2 0.103 1.80 No No Yes SC - Yes No 1.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 15.5 8 SC 125 1950 1950 1950 1.0 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 8 1.14 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 12 12 42 35 1.3 16 0.135 292.6 0.098 1.38 No No Yes SC - No No 1.38 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 18 10 CL 125 2263 2263 2263 0.9 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.16 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 16 15 62 35 1.3 18 0.158 317.8 0.091 1.73 No No Yes CL 39 27 17 No No No 1.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 20.5 13 CL 125 2575 2575 2575 0.9 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 11 1.20 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 21 18 65 35 1.2 22 0.206 341.8 0.086 2.39 No No Yes CL 15 - No No 2.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25.5 15 SC 125 3200 3200 3184 0.8 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 12 1.22 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 24 19 12 1.1 21 0.171 379.8 0.078 2.21 No Yes Yes SC - Yes No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 13 30.5 13 SC 125 3825 3825 3497 0.7 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 19 13 46 35 1.3 17 0.127 417.3 0.078 1.64 No Yes Yes SC 45 19 36 No No No 1.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20%. 15 35.5 32 SC 130 4475 4475 3835 0.7 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 46 31 12 1.1 33 0.408 450.2 0.076 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 17 40.5 34 ML 125 5100 5100 4148 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 49 31 69 35 1.2 37 0.540 483.0 0.076 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 19 45.5 38 SM 130 5750 5750 4486 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 55 33 12 1.1 35 0.449 513.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 21 50.5 48 ML 125 6375 6088 4799 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 70 40 35 1.2 48 1.145 543.0 0.074 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 23 55.5 32 ML 125 7000 6401 5112 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 47 26 90 35 1.2 32 0.338 571.1 0.073 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 25 60.5 30 ML 125 7625 6714 5425 0.5 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.28 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 44 24 35 1.2 29 0.276 597.7 0.072 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 65.5 39 ML 125 8250 7027 5738 0.5 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 57 30 68 35 1.2 37 0.474 622.4 0.070 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 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: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East: NMDE-3 Results of Analysis
SAFCA: North Area Streams Levee System - Seismic Performance Summary Report R. Hochstatter
Z. Zafir
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3167+60
PROJECT NUMBER: 24001006.001A
Regional Groundwater Map
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
12/20/2023
Drilled November 2007
WRARFC_031B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
1/2/2024
https://kleinfelder1.sharepoint.com/sites/SAFCASacramentoAreaFloodControlAgency/Shared Documents/ULDC-FEMA/02b Existing Reports/ULE Liquefaction XLS - Copy to Analyze with Mag 6.8/(NASL) NEMDC East Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3167+60_NEMDC East - WRARFC_031 24001006.001A/SAC24R164096_R1 Page E-1 February 12, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder (Revised September 10, 2024)

APPENDIX E
POST-SEISMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR SEGMENT AR-14
_____________________________________________________________________ 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 1

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: 1
Project 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, Cs
Stick 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,
σ
'
p (ksf)
Effective Overburden Pressure,
σ
'vo (ksf)
OCR
Test Type (Triaxial - TX, Direct Simple
Shear - DSS, Drained Direct Shear - DDS)
C' (psf) φ' (degrees)
C'/
σ'vmc
C' (psf) φ' (degrees)
C (psf) φ (degrees) φ' from N (deg)
3 φ' 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
/
σ
'v0
Drained Cohesion, C' (psf)
Drained Friction Angle,
φ' (deg)
Undrained Cohesion, C (psf)
Undrained Friction Angle, φ (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 ≤100 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) - Estimated values of OCR values should be estimated based on the following priority of data as available: ˜ 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
24001006.001A/SAC24R164096_R1 Page E-2 February 12, 2024 © 2024 Kleinfelder (Revised September 10, 2024)

APPENDIX F

ORIGINAL URS LIQUEFACTION SPREADSHEET ANALYSES
_____________________________________________________________________ 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)=NfieldCE).

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:

49.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 12.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 37.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.3 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.7 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 1.5 3 CL 115 173 173 173 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 2.3 0.75 3 5 35 1.5 7 0.153 34.1 0.129 1.19 Yes No Yes CL - No No 1.19 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 4.5 9 CL 125 548 548 548 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.16 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 9 14 35 1.3 18 0.249 100.5 0.119 2.09 No No Yes CL - No No 2.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 7.5 13 CL 125 923 923 923 1.5 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 19 1.24 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 13 20 35 1.2 24 0.347 164.5 0.116 2.99 No No No CL - No No 2.99 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 6 CL 120 1283 1283 1283 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 7 8 69 35 1.4 11 0.118 226.0 0.115 1.03 Yes No Yes CL 31 10 No No No 1.03 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13.5 9 CL 125 1658 1658 1658 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 5.9 0.88 10 11 35 1.3 15 0.145 267.0 0.105 1.38 No No Yes CL - No No 1.38 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 16.5 9 CL 125 2033 2033 2033 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 11 11 35 1.3 14 0.128 302.7 0.097 1.32 No No Yes CL - No No 1.32 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 19.5 4 CL 120 2393 2393 2393 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 7.8 0.93 5 4 85 35 1.5 7 0.072 333.0 0.090 0.80 Yes No Yes CL 38 17 No No No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 22.5 10 CL 125 2768 2768 2768 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 8.7 0.95 12 11 35 1.3 14 0.117 357.0 0.084 1.40 No No Yes CL - No No 1.40 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 25.5 61 SM 130 3158 3158 3158 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 49 1.30 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 77 61 12 1.1 65 5.213 379.8 0.078 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 28.5 28 ML 125 3533 3533 3533 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 36 27 51 35 1.2 32 0.440 402.6 0.074 3.00 No No No ML 35 10 19 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 31.5 100 SM 130 3923 3923 3923 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 71 1.30 1.00 7 11.4 0.98 129 92 12 1.1 97 53.779 423.9 0.070 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 34.5 51 SP 130 4313 4313 4140 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 12.3 0.98 66 45 5 1.0 46 1.172 443.6 0.070 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 37.5 100 MH 125 4688 4656 4327 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 66 1.30 1.00 7 13.3 0.99 130 85 35 1.2 99 60.317 463.4 0.070 3.00 No Yes No MH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 14 40.5 34 SP 130 5078 4859 4530 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 44 28 5 1.0 29 0.323 483.0 0.069 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 43.5 100 ML 125 5453 5047 4718 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 63 1.30 1.00 7 15.1 0.99 130 82 69 35 1.2 95 45.801 501.6 0.069 3.00 No Yes No ML 38 5 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 46.5 40 MH 125 5828 5235 4906 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 16.0 1.00 52 32 35 1.2 39 0.639 519.7 0.069 3.00 No Yes No MH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 17 49.5 20 SP 125 6203 5423 5094 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.18 1.00 7 16.9 1.00 26 16 5 1.0 16 0.120 537.3 0.069 1.75 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 1.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 52.5 48 MH 125 6578 5610 5281 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 17.8 1.00 63 38 35 1.2 45 0.978 554.4 0.068 3.00 No Yes No MH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 55.5 22 MH 125 6953 5798 5469 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 29 17 35 1.2 21 0.166 571.1 0.068 2.45 No Yes Yes MH - No No 2.45 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 75.5 31 SM 130 9553 7150 6821 0.5 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 16 1.24 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 39 20 48 35 1.2 25 0.212 671.6 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SM 26 3 19 Judgment Needed Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). Borehole diameter not noted on log. Assumed 4" diameter (air-rotary).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled July 2000
2F-00-105
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-00-105
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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3101+00
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-00-105_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

67.5 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 34.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 33.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 36.3 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.3 Energy Ratio = 80 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 0.5 16 SM 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 17 27 12 1.1 29 1.028 10.8 0.112 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2 17 SM 125 250 250 250 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 2.4 0.75 18 29 12 1.1 31 0.798 42.8 0.111 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 3.5 11 SM 125 438 438 438 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 18 1.22 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 12 18 12 1.1 20 0.309 74.2 0.110 2.80 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 5 13 SM 125 625 625 625 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 21 1.26 1.00 7 3.4 0.75 14 22 12 1.1 23 0.365 104.9 0.109 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 6.5 16 SM 125 813 813 813 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 17 27 12 1.1 29 0.503 135.1 0.108 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 8 20 SM 125 1000 1000 1000 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 22 32 12 1.1 34 0.686 164.7 0.107 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 9.5 12 GM 130 1195 1195 1195 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.21 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 14 18 12 1.1 19 0.224 193.6 0.105 2.13 No No Yes GM - Yes No 2.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 11 4 SM 115 1368 1368 1368 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.2 0.85 5 6 12 1.2 7 0.083 219.2 0.104 0.80 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 12.5 4 SM 115 1540 1540 1540 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 5 6 12 1.2 6 0.079 238.7 0.101 0.78 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 14 4 SP-SM 115 1713 1713 1713 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 6.1 0.89 5 5 8 1.1 6 0.074 258.2 0.098 0.75 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 15.5 5 SM 115 1885 1885 1885 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 6 7 12 1.1 7 0.080 276.0 0.095 0.84 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 10 SM 125 3760 3760 3760 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.11 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 14 10 12 1.1 11 0.087 391.1 0.068 1.29 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.29 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 35.5 21 CL 125 4385 4229 4120 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.23 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 29 20 35 1.2 24 0.233 422.1 0.067 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 14 40.5 56 SM 130 5035 4567 4458 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 37 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 78 51 12 1.1 55 2.170 452.8 0.066 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 45.5 19 SP-SM 125 5660 4880 4771 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.19 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 26 17 8 1.1 18 0.136 481.3 0.066 2.07 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 2.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. Bottom of boring.

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: 3535+92
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-00-133
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 June 2000
2F-00-133
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/1/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-00-133_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

46.7 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 6.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 40.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 28.9 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 8.5 10 SM 125 1063 1063 1063 1.4 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 14 1.16 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 11 15 12 1.1 16 0.177 185.3 0.113 1.56 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.56 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Drilling method and borehole diameter for Samples 1-15 not noted on log. Assumed 6" diameter.
2 11.5 12 SM 125 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 14 1.18 1.00 7 5.3 0.85 13 16 12 1.1 17 0.181 239.7 0.108 1.67 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.67 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 14.5 9 ML 125 1813 1813 1813 1.1 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 11 11 35 1.3 14 0.137 280.7 0.101 1.36 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.36 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 17.5 16 ML 125 2188 2188 2188 1.0 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 15 1.21 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 19 18 35 1.2 23 0.244 312.8 0.093 2.63 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.63 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 20.5 7 ML 125 2563 2563 2563 0.9 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 9 8 35 1.4 10 0.093 341.8 0.087 1.07 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 23.5 13 ML 125 2938 2938 2938 0.8 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 9.0 0.96 16 13 35 1.3 17 0.147 364.6 0.081 1.82 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.82 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 26.5 10 SM 125 3313 3313 3313 0.8 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 9.9 0.97 13 10 12 1.1 11 0.089 387.4 0.076 1.17 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.17 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 29.5 27 SM 130 3703 3703 3662 0.7 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 10.8 0.97 35 25 12 1.1 27 0.295 410.2 0.073 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 32.5 11 SM 125 4078 4078 3850 0.7 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 11.7 0.98 14 10 12 1.1 11 0.086 430.5 0.073 1.18 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.18 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 10 36 10 SM 125 4515 4515 4069 0.7 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 12.8 0.99 13 9 12 1.1 10 0.077 453.5 0.072 1.06 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.06 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 11 38.5 12 SM 125 4828 4828 4225 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 13.6 0.99 16 10 12 1.1 11 0.085 470.0 0.072 1.18 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.18 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 12 41.5 10 SM 125 5203 5109 4413 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 14.5 0.99 13 8 12 1.1 9 0.072 489.3 0.072 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL=1.0. 13 44.5 9 SP-SM 125 5578 5297 4601 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 15.4 0.99 12 7 8 1.1 8 0.065 507.6 0.072 0.91 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 0.91 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 14 47.5 18 SP-SM 125 5953 5485 4789 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 16.3 1.00 24 14 8 1.1 15 0.110 525.6 0.071 1.54 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.54 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 50.5 23 SP-SM 130 6343 5687 4992 0.6 1.3 NA 6 1.05 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 30 18 8 1.1 19 0.144 543.0 0.071 2.04 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 2.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 64.5 30 ML 125 8093 6564 5868 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 17 1.24 1.00 7 21.5 1.00 37 21 35 1.2 25 0.225 617.4 0.068 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Borehole diameter not noted on log.

Assumed 4" diameter (mud-rotary). Below liquefaction
assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Jan. 2003
2F-03-19
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-03-19
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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3176+96
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-03-19_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

40.1 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 15.2 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 24.9 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.2 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 24.9 Energy Ratio = 78 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 2.5 15 GM 130 325 325 325 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 15 25 12 1.1 26 0.542 56.5 0.113 3.00 No No No GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Borehole diameter not noted on log. Assumed 6" for HSA and 4" for mud-rotary.
2 5.5 14 GM 130 715 715 715 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 22 1.28 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 14 23 12 1.1 25 0.383 122.1 0.111 3.00 No No No GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 49 GW 130 1040 1040 1040 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 68 1.30 0.65 7 4.3 0.80 35 48 4 0 1.0 48 1.993 174.9 0.109 3.00 No No No GW - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 5 ML 99 1286 1286 1286 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 6 7 88 35 1.4 10 0.108 226.0 0.114 0.95 Yes No Yes ML 40 14 35 No No No 0.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 15.5 8 SM 115 1861 1861 1861 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.11 0.65 7 6.6 0.90 6 7 12 1.1 8 0.081 292.6 0.102 0.79 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 18 3 CL-ML 115 2149 2149 2149 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 4 4 35 1.6 6 0.069 317.8 0.096 0.72 Yes No Yes CL-ML - Yes No 0.72 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 20.5 11 SP 115 2436 2436 2436 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 10 1.14 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 9 8 5 1.1 9 0.083 341.8 0.091 0.91 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 25.5 43 CH 125 3061 3022 3022 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 57 46 35 1.2 54 2.357 379.8 0.082 3.00 No Yes No CH 52 33 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 15 28 120 ML 125 3374 3179 3179 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 95 1.30 0.65 7 10.4 0.97 103 82 76 35 1.2 95 50.723 398.8 0.082 3.00 No Yes No ML 36 10 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 30.5 28 SP-SM 110 3648 3297 3297 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 37 29 8 1.0 30 0.387 417.3 0.082 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM 22 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 19 33 86 CL 125 3961 3454 3454 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 65 1.30 0.65 7 11.9 0.98 75 57 35 1.2 67 5.847 433.8 0.082 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 35.5 21 SM 125 4273 3610 3610 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.24 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 28 21 37 35 1.2 26 0.265 450.2 0.081 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 21 38 200 SM 130 4598 3779 3779 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 145 1.30 0.65 7 13.4 0.99 176 128 12 1.1 134 915.236 466.7 0.080 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 22 40.5 35 SC 130 4923 3948 3948 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 47 34 12 1.1 36 0.556 483.0 0.080 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. No fines content data noted on log. 23 43 72 SC 130 5248 4117 4117 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 50 1.30 0.65 7 14.9 0.99 60 42 12 1.1 45 1.066 498.5 0.079 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. No fines content data noted on log. 24 45.5 21 SC 125 5561 4274 4274 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.21 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 27 19 12 1.1 20 0.165 513.7 0.078 2.11 No Yes Yes SC - Yes No 2.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. No fines content data noted on log. 26 50.5 44 SM 130 6211 4612 4612 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 29 1.30 0.65 7 17.2 1.00 37 24 38 35 1.2 30 0.331 543.0 0.077 3.00 No Yes No SM 24 4 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 28 53 24 SM 130 6536 4781 4781 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.23 1.00 7 18.0 1.00 31 20 12 1.1 22 0.181 557.2 0.076 2.39 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 2.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 29 55.5 64 SC 130 6861 4950 4950 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 41 1.30 0.65 7 18.7 1.00 54 34 12 1.1 37 0.548 571.1 0.075 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 31 58 46 CL 125 7173 5106 5106 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 60 37 35 1.2 44 0.975 584.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 33 60.5 96 SM 130 7498 5275 5275 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 59 1.30 0.65 7 20.3 1.00 81 50 12 1.1 53 1.833 597.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SM - 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
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3013+21
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
N/A, 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 is on levee access road about 37' from levee centerline and about 3' below levee crest)
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Dec. 2008
2F-08-02
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-08-02_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

44.3 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 2.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 42.3 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.8 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 28.6 Energy Ratio = 78 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 2.5 9 ML 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.17 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 9 15 35 1.3 19 0.305 56.5 0.118 2.59 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Borehole diameter not noted on log. Assumed 6" for HSA and 4" for mud-rotary.
2 5.5 23 ML 114 655 655 655 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 37 1.30 0.65 7 3.5 0.75 15 24 85 35 1.2 30 0.573 122.1 0.121 3.00 No No No ML 16 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 5 CL-ML 120 955 955 955 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 5 8 35 1.4 11 0.124 174.9 0.119 1.04 Yes No Yes CL-ML - Yes No 1.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 9 ML 120 1555 1555 1555 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 10 1.13 0.65 7 5.8 0.87 7 8 56 35 1.4 11 0.109 260.2 0.109 1.00 Yes No Yes ML Yes Yes Yes No 1.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 9 CL-ML 125 1867 1867 1867 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 11 11 35 1.3 15 0.140 292.6 0.102 1.37 No No Yes CL-ML - Yes No 1.37 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 11 ML 125 2492 2492 2492 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 10 1.14 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 9 8 35 1.4 11 0.098 341.8 0.089 1.10 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.10 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 7 ML 125 2805 2805 2805 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 9 8 86 35 1.4 11 0.091 360.8 0.084 1.09 Yes No Yes ML Yes Yes Yes No 1.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 8 ML 105 3068 3068 3068 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 6 1.10 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 7 6 35 1.5 8 0.074 379.8 0.080 0.92 Yes No Yes ML 26 - Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 8 ML 125 3381 3381 3381 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 11 8 35 1.4 11 0.090 398.8 0.077 1.17 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.17 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 33 11 ML 109 3927 3927 3649 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.12 0.65 7 11.9 0.98 10 7 77 35 1.4 10 0.078 433.8 0.077 1.01 Yes Yes Yes ML 22 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.01 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. Lab data is from adjacent Shelby sample and indicates non-plastic.
14 35.5 7 ML 125 4239 4239 3805 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 9 6 35 1.4 9 0.075 450.2 0.077 0.98 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.98 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. Lab testing on adjacent sample indicates non-plastic.
15 37.5 11 SM 115 4469 4469 3911 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 7 1.11 0.65 7 13.3 0.99 10 6 48 35 1.4 9 0.074 463.4 0.077 0.96 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.96 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 17 40.5 4 CL 120 4829 4829 4083 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 5 3 35 1.6 6 0.057 483.0 0.077 0.74 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

NA 43.5 8 CL 120 5189 5114 4256 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 5 1.10 0.65 7 15.1 0.99 7 4 35 1.6 7 0.060 501.6 0.077 0.78 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. No sample recovery.
18 45 7 CL 125 5377 5208 4350 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 15.5 0.99 9 6 35 1.5 8 0.067 510.7 0.076 0.88 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.88 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 47.5 11 CL 125 5689 5365 4507 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 7 1.10 0.65 7 16.3 1.00 9 6 57 35 1.4 8 0.067 525.6 0.076 0.88 Yes Yes Yes CL 25 10 No No No 0.88 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 50 12 SC 125 6002 5521 4663 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 17.1 1.00 16 9 12 1.1 10 0.078 540.2 0.075 1.04 Yes Yes Yes SC - Yes Yes 1.04 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. No fines content data noted on log.

NA 52.5 21 CL 125 6314 5678 4820 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 12 1.18 0.65 7 17.8 1.00 18 11 35 1.3 14 0.099 554.4 0.075 1.32 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.32 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. No sample recovery.
23 55 9 SM 125 6627 5834 4976 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 18.6 1.00 12 7 12 1.1 8 0.063 568.4 0.074 0.85 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.85 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 25 57.5 81 SM 130 6952 6003 5145 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 47 1.30 0.65 7 19.4 1.00 68 39 12 1.1 42 0.811 582.0 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Material is classified as SP-SM on log but 14% fines indicates SM material.
27 60 20 SM 125 7264 6160 5302 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 20.1 1.00 26 15 14 14 1.1 16 0.118 595.3 0.073 1.62 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.62 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 28 63 32 SC 125 7639 6347 5489 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 18 1.28 0.65 7 21.0 1.00 27 15 12 1.1 16 0.118 610.0 0.072 1.63 No Yes Yes SC - Yes No 1.63 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 30 65.5 43 SC 130 7964 6516 5658 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 56 31 12 1.1 33 0.405 622.4 0.071 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. No fines content data noted on log.

Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Nov. 2008
2F-08-08
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-08-08
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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3034+63
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-08-08_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

44.6 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 16.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 28.6 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 16.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 28.6 Energy Ratio = 78 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 1.5 6 CL 120 180 180 180 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.11 1.00 7 2.3 0.75 6 10 35 1.3 13 0.234 34.1 0.123 1.90 No No Yes CL - No No 1.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Borehole diameter not noted on log. Assumed 6" for HSA and 4" for mud rotary.
2 3 14 SM 115 353 353 353 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 22 1.28 0.65 7 2.7 0.75 9 15 41 35 1.3 19 0.300 67.6 0.125 2.41 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.41 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 8 ML 119 651 651 651 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.15 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 8 13 77 35 1.3 17 0.216 122.1 0.122 1.77 No No Yes ML 17 Yes Yes Yes No 1.77 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10.5 9 ML 120 1251 1251 1251 1.3 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 11 1.15 0.65 7 5.0 0.84 7 8 35 1.3 11 0.122 226.0 0.117 1.04 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 13 4 ML 112 1531 1531 1531 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 5 5 59 35 1.5 8 0.089 260.2 0.110 0.81 Yes No Yes ML 23 Yes Yes Yes No 0.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 18 7 CL-ML 120 2131 2131 2131 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 7 1.10 0.65 7 7.3 0.92 6 6 35 1.5 8 0.082 317.8 0.097 0.85 Yes No Yes CL-ML - Yes No 0.85 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 20.5 4 ML 120 2431 2431 2431 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 5 5 35 1.5 7 0.073 341.8 0.091 0.80 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 23 7 CL-ML 120 2731 2731 2731 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 6 1.10 0.65 7 8.8 0.95 6 5 35 1.5 8 0.073 360.8 0.086 0.85 Yes No Yes CL-ML - Yes No 0.85 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 25.5 3 ML 115 3019 3019 3019 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 4 3 35 1.7 5 0.061 379.8 0.082 0.75 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 30.5 28 SM 125 3644 3523 3523 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 21 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 23 17 12 1.1 19 0.159 417.3 0.077 2.06 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 2.06 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 33 21 SM 125 3956 3679 3679 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 27 20 37 35 1.2 24 0.237 433.8 0.077 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 35.5 28 SC 125 4269 3836 3836 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 20 1.30 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 23 17 12 1.1 18 0.149 450.2 0.076 1.95 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Boring log indicates variable clay content of 40-60%.
18 38 10 SC 125 4581 3992 3992 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 13.4 0.99 13 9 12 1.1 10 0.080 466.7 0.076 1.05 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 1.05 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Boring log indicates variable clay content of 40-60%.

NA 40.5 15 SC 125 4894 4149 4149 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 10 1.15 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 13 9 12 1.1 10 0.077 483.0 0.076 1.02 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 1.02 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Boring log indicates variable clay content of 40-60%.
19 43 18 CL 125 5206 4305 4305 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.18 1.00 7 14.9 0.99 23 16 35 1.3 20 0.162 498.5 0.075 2.15 No Yes Yes CL - No No 2.15 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 45.5 96 CL 125 5519 4462 4462 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 64 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 81 54 64 35 1.2 63 4.210 513.7 0.075 3.00 No Yes No CL 31 14 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 21 48 31 CL 125 5831 4618 4618 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 16.5 1.00 40 26 35 1.2 32 0.392 528.5 0.074 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 22 50.5 101 CL 125 6144 4775 4775 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 65 1.30 0.65 7 17.2 1.00 85 55 35 1.2 65 4.513 543.0 0.074 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 24 53 38 SM 130 6469 4944 4944 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 18.0 1.00 49 31 40 35 1.2 37 0.587 557.2 0.073 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

NA 55.5 25 SM 125 6781 5100 5100 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 16 1.23 0.65 7 18.7 1.00 21 13 12 1.1 14 0.103 571.1 0.073 1.42 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.42 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 25 58 26 SC 130 7106 5269 5269 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.24 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 34 21 12 1.1 22 0.186 584.7 0.072 2.58 No Yes Yes SC - Yes No 2.58 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 26 60.5 60 SM 130 7431 5438 5438 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 36 1.30 0.65 7 20.3 1.00 51 31 12 1.1 33 0.402 597.7 0.071 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 27 65.5 120 CL-ML 125 8056 5751 5751 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 71 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 156 92 35 1.2 107 100.549 622.4 0.070 3.00 No Yes No CL-ML - 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
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3044+66
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
NA - 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
2/26/2014
Drilled Nov. 2008
2F-08-11
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-08-11_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

27.5 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 14.6 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 12.9 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 12.0 Energy Ratio = 78 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 2 5.5 6 ML 120 660 660 660 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.11 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 6 10 35 1.3 13 0.163 116.1 0.114 1.43 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

Borehole diameter not noted on log. Assumed 6" for HSA and 4" for mud-rotary.
3 8 8 ML 120 960 960 960 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 12 1.14 0.65 7 4.3 0.80 6 8 35 1.4 11 0.127 162.8 0.110 1.15 Yes No Yes ML Yes Yes Yes No 1.15 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 13 3 ML 115 1535 1529 1475 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 4 4 87 35 1.6 6 0.080 244.5 0.108 0.74 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.74 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. Lab testing on adjacent sample indicates non-plastic.
7 15.5 4 ML 114 1820 1658 1604 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 4 1.10 0.65 7 6.6 0.90 3 4 68 35 1.6 6 0.074 279.5 0.113 0.65 Yes Yes Yes ML 35 - Yes Yes 0.65 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. Lab testing on adjacent sample indicates non-plastic.
11 20.5 4 ML 120 2420 1946 1892 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 5 5 84 35 1.5 8 0.082 342.2 0.118 0.70 Yes Yes Yes ML Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.70 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. Lab testing indicates non-plastic.

NA 23 6 ML 119 2718 2088 2034 1.0 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 6 1.10 0.65 7 8.8 0.95 5 5 35 1.5 7 0.077 373.8 0.119 0.64 Yes Yes Yes ML 29 Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.64 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. No sample recovery, lab data is from adjacent Shelby sample and indicates non-plastic.
13 28 3 ML 115 3293 2351 2297 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 4 3 87 35 1.6 6 0.067 433.8 0.123 0.55 Yes Yes Yes ML 37 12 No No No 0.55 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 14 30.5 8 CL 120 3593 2495 2441 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 7 1.10 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 7 6 35 1.4 8 0.081 461.5 0.123 0.66 Yes Yes Yes CL 43 20 No No No 0.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 33 14 CL 125 3905 2651 2597 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 18 16 35 1.3 19 0.181 487.4 0.122 1.48 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.48 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 17 35.5 22 CL 125 4218 2808 2754 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 19 1.28 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 18 15 35 1.3 19 0.178 511.0 0.121 1.48 No Yes Yes CL 32 19 No No No 1.48 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 38 12 CL 125 4530 2964 2910 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 13.4 0.99 15 13 35 1.3 16 0.138 531.5 0.119 1.16 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.16 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

NA 40.5 13 CL 125 4843 3121 3067 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 10 1.15 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 11 9 35 1.3 12 0.097 550.7 0.117 0.83 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 0.83 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. No sample recovery.
22 45.5 13 SC 125 5468 3434 3380 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 17 13 12 1.1 14 0.112 585.5 0.113 0.99 Yes Yes Yes SC - Yes Yes 0.99 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. No fines content data noted on log. 24 48 18 SM 125 5780 3590 3536 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 13 1.20 0.65 7 16.5 1.00 15 11 48 35 1.3 15 0.116 601.6 0.111 1.05 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.05 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 27 50.5 10 SM 125 6093 3747 3693 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 13 9 12 1.1 11 0.084 616.6 0.109 0.77 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.77 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).
28 53 200 ML 125 6405 3903 3849 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 SCAL 143 1.30 0.65 7 18.0 1.00 169 121 35 1.2 139 ###### 630.4 0.106 3.00 No Yes No ML Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled May 2009
2F-09-05
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-09-05
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3023+23
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-09-05_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

44.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 10.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 34.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 18.3 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 25.7 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) S0 0.5 19 ML 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 19 30 35 1.2 36 1.751 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S1 2.5 16 ML 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 16 25 74 35 1.2 30 0.748 56.5 0.118 3.00 No No No ML 29 6 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S2 4.5 10 ML 125 563 563 563 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.18 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 10 16 35 1.3 20 0.283 100.5 0.116 2.44 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S3 6.5 11 ML 125 813 813 813 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 17 1.20 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 11 17 77 35 1.2 21 0.292 143.4 0.115 2.54 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.54 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S4 8.5 8 ML 120 1053 1053 1053 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 11 1.13 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 8 12 35 1.3 15 0.167 185.3 0.114 1.46 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.46 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S5 10.5 8 SP 115 1283 1283 1283 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.12 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 9 11 5 1.0 11 0.121 226.0 0.115 1.06 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 1.06 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S6 12.5 3 ML 115 1513 1513 1513 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 3 4 56 35 1.6 6 0.078 253.4 0.109 0.72 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.72 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S7 14.5 4 ML 120 1753 1753 1753 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 5 5 35 1.5 7 0.082 280.7 0.104 0.79 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.79 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S8 16.5 8 ML 120 1993 1993 1993 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.11 0.65 7 6.9 0.91 6 6 35 1.4 9 0.088 302.7 0.099 0.89 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.89 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S9 18.5 10 ML 120 2233 2233 2233 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 9 1.13 0.65 7 7.5 0.93 8 7 35 1.4 10 0.095 322.9 0.094 1.01 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.01 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S10 20.5 10 ML 120 2473 2473 2473 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 9 1.12 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 8 7 35 1.4 10 0.090 341.8 0.090 1.00 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S11 22.5 9 ML 120 2713 2713 2713 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.11 0.65 7 8.7 0.95 7 6 35 1.4 9 0.081 357.0 0.086 0.95 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S12 24.5 10 ML 120 2953 2953 2953 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.11 0.65 7 9.3 0.96 8 7 60 35 1.4 9 0.082 372.2 0.082 1.00 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S13 26.5 9 ML 120 3193 3193 3145 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 7 1.10 0.65 7 9.9 0.97 7 6 35 1.4 8 0.075 387.4 0.080 0.94 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.94 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0.

S14 28.5 13 ML 125 3443 3443 3270 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 10 1.14 0.65 7 10.5 0.97 11 8 35 1.4 11 0.091 402.6 0.080 1.14 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.14 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S15 30.5 12 ML 125 3693 3693 3395 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 9 1.12 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 10 7 35 1.4 10 0.084 417.3 0.080 1.05 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.05 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S16 32.5 12 SM 115 3923 3923 3501 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 9 1.12 0.65 7 11.7 0.98 10 7 16 16 1.2 8 0.073 430.5 0.080 0.91 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.91 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0.

S17 34.5 12 SP 115 4153 4121 3606 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 8 1.12 0.65 7 12.3 0.98 10 7 5 1.1 7 0.067 443.6 0.080 0.84 Yes Yes Yes SP - Yes Yes 0.84 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0.

S18 36.5 17 SP-SM 125 4403 4247 3731 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 12 1.17 0.65 7 13.0 0.99 14 10 11 11 1.1 11 0.086 456.8 0.080 1.08 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.08 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25.

S19 38.5 16 SP-SM 125 4653 4372 3856 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 11 1.16 0.65 7 13.6 0.99 14 9 8 1.1 10 0.079 470.0 0.079 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL=1.0.

S20 40.5 65 GP 130 4913 4507 3991 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 43 1.30 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 55 37 5 1.0 38 0.629 483.0 0.079 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S21 42.5 69 GP 130 5173 4642 4127 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 45 1.30 0.65 7 14.8 0.99 58 38 5 1.0 39 0.712 495.4 0.078 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S22 44.5 75 SP 130 5433 4777 4262 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 49 1.30 0.65 7 15.4 0.99 64 41 5 1.0 42 0.874 507.6 0.077 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S23 46.5 100 SP 130 5693 4913 4397 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 64 1.30 0.65 7 16.0 1.00 85 54 5 5 1.0 56 2.348 519.7 0.077 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S24 48.5 100 SP 130 5953 5048 4532 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 63 1.30 0.65 7 16.6 1.00 85 53 5 1.0 55 2.210 531.4 0.076 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S25 50.5 89 SP 130 6213 5183 4667 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 55 1.30 0.65 7 17.2 1.00 76 47 5 1.0 48 1.335 543.0 0.076 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S26 52.5 10 GC 130 6473 5318 4803 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 6 1.10 0.65 7 17.8 1.00 9 5 26 26 1.4 7 0.060 554.4 0.075 0.80 Yes Yes Yes GC 36 14 No No No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Fines content >20%, PI>10, LL>35.

S27 54.5 84 ML 125 6723 5443 4928 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 51 1.30 0.65 7 18.4 1.00 72 43 35 1.2 51 1.642 565.6 0.075 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Aug. 2011
2F-11-158
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-11-158
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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3209+08
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-11-158_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

47.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 21.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 26.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 16.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 30.5 Energy Ratio = 89 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3 45 SC 130 390 390 390 1.6 1.5 SFA 6 1.05 SCAL 72 1.30 0.65 7 2.7 0.75 34 55 12 1.1 58 5.505 67.6 0.113 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 16 SM 125 703 703 703 1.6 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 20 32 40 35 1.2 38 1.033 122.1 0.113 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 33 SC-SM 125 1015 1015 1015 1.4 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 SCAL 46 1.30 0.65 7 4.3 0.80 28 39 30 30 1.2 46 1.689 174.9 0.112 3.00 No No No SC-SM 22 6 8 Judgment Needed Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 22 SC-SM 130 1340 1340 1340 1.2 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 30 37 36 35 1.2 44 1.391 226.0 0.110 3.00 No No No SC-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 32 SM 130 1665 1665 1665 1.1 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 SCAL 35 1.30 0.65 7 5.8 0.87 30 33 12 1.1 35 0.660 260.2 0.102 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 24 SM 130 1990 1990 1990 1.0 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 36 36 46 35 1.2 42 1.100 292.6 0.096 3.00 No No No SM 16 2 5 Judgment Needed Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 72 CH 125 2303 2303 2303 0.9 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 S 67 1.30 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 109 102 69 35 1.2 118 306.760 317.8 0.090 3.00 No No No CH 50 34 12 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 100 CL 125 2615 2615 2615 0.9 1.5 H 7.25 1.11 SCAL 87 1.30 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 101 88 35 1.2 102 89.088 341.8 0.085 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 19 CL 125 2928 2928 2928 0.8 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SW 16 1.26 1.26 7 8.8 0.95 34 28 35 1.2 34 0.506 360.8 0.080 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 40 CL 125 3240 3240 3240 0.8 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 31 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 37 29 64 35 1.2 35 0.549 379.8 0.076 3.00 No No No CL 49 25 19 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 22 ML 125 3553 3428 3553 0.8 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 17 1.28 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 32 24 35 1.2 29 0.349 398.8 0.073 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 16 SC 125 3865 3584 3864 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 12 1.19 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 15 11 17 17 1.1 13 0.099 417.3 0.070 1.41 No Yes Yes SC 54 29 36 No Yes No 1.41 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 33 2 SM 115 4153 3716 3996 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 1 1.10 1.00 7 11.9 0.98 3 2 41 35 2.0 4 0.051 433.8 0.071 0.72 Yes Yes Yes SM 47 4 43 No Yes Yes 0.72 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. Lab data is from adjacent Shelby tube sample in same layer.
15 38 7 SM 115 4728 3979 4259 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 5 1.10 0.65 7 13.4 0.99 7 5 12 1.2 6 0.056 466.7 0.071 0.79 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.79 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 16 40.5 21 SM 130 5053 4148 4428 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 15 1.25 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 31 21 12 1.1 23 0.205 483.0 0.071 2.89 No Yes No SM - Yes No 2.89 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 43 17 SM 125 5365 4304 4584 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 12 1.19 0.65 7 14.9 0.99 16 11 16 16 1.1 13 0.093 498.5 0.071 1.32 No Yes Yes SM 44 8 45 No Yes No 1.32 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 45.5 9 ML 125 5678 4461 4741 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 13 9 35 1.3 12 0.087 513.7 0.070 1.24 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 1.24 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 19 48 8 SM 115 5965 4592 4872 0.7 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 5 1.10 0.65 7 16.5 1.00 8 5 12 1.2 6 0.055 528.5 0.071 0.78 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.78 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 20 50.5 8 SC 125 6278 4749 5029 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 12 8 26 26 1.3 10 0.073 543.0 0.070 1.04 Yes Yes Yes SC 40 16 47 No No No 1.04 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Fines content >20%.
21 53 3 ML 115 6565 4880 5160 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 2 1.10 0.65 7 18.0 1.00 3 2 35 2.1 4 0.046 557.2 0.070 0.66 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.66 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 23 58 95 CL 125 7190 5193 5473 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 59 1.30 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 141 87 35 1.2 101 68.700 584.7 0.069 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 24 60.5 100 SM 130 7515 5362 5642 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 61 1.30 0.65 7 20.3 1.00 96 59 44 35 1.2 69 5.941 597.7 0.069 3.00 No Yes No SM 37 2 34 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 25 63 54 SM 130 7840 5531 5811 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 21.0 1.00 80 48 12 1.1 51 1.553 610.0 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 26 65.5 100 SM 130 8165 5700 5980 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 SCAL 59 1.30 0.65 7 21.8 1.00 96 57 17 17 1.1 62 3.457 622.4 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SM 55 23 39 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 27 68 100 SM 130 8490 5869 6149 0.6 1.5 M 4.5 1.00 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 22.6 1.00 148 87 12 1.1 91 31.406 634.7 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - 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
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3085+93
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-11-164
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
2/26/2014
Drilled Nov. 2011
2F-11-164
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-11-164_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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.) = 19.2 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 34.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.4 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.8 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3 16 SM 115 345 345 345 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 26 1.30 0.65 7 2.7 0.75 10 16 38 35 1.2 20 0.342 67.6 0.127 2.68 No No Yes SM 22 2 15 Judgment Needed Yes No 2.68 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 27 SM 125 658 658 658 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 43 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 1.831 122.1 0.121 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 25 SM 125 970 970 970 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 36 1.30 0.65 7 4.3 0.80 17 24 46 35 1.2 30 0.509 174.9 0.117 3.00 No No No SM 13 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 15 ML 125 1283 1283 1283 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 19 1.25 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 17 21 35 1.2 25 0.342 226.0 0.115 2.99 No No No ML - Yes No 2.99 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 11 ML 120 1583 1583 1583 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 SCAL 12 1.16 0.65 7 5.8 0.87 8 9 51 35 1.3 12 0.121 260.2 0.107 1.13 Yes No Yes ML 15 - Yes No 1.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 13 SM 125 1895 1895 1895 1.0 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 15 15 39 35 1.3 19 0.190 292.6 0.100 1.89 No No Yes SM 25 Yes Yes Yes No 1.89 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 5 SM 115 2183 2183 2183 1.0 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 6 6 12 1.2 6 0.071 317.8 0.095 0.75 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.75 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 8 SM 115 2470 2470 2470 0.9 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 9 8 12 1.1 9 0.087 341.8 0.090 0.97 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.97 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 19 SM 125 2783 2783 2783 0.8 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 16 1.22 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 23 19 12 1.1 21 0.196 360.8 0.084 2.33 No No Yes SM 11 - Yes No 2.33 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 8 SM 115 3070 3070 3070 0.8 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 10 8 48 35 1.4 11 0.089 379.8 0.080 1.11 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.11 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 12 SC 115 3358 3358 3358 0.8 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 9 1.12 0.65 7 10.4 0.97 9 7 48 35 1.4 10 0.084 398.8 0.077 1.09 Yes No Yes SC - No No 1.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 9 SM 125 3670 3670 3670 0.7 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 11 8 41 35 1.4 11 0.087 417.3 0.074 1.18 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.18 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 33 14 SM 125 3983 3983 3909 0.7 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 10 1.13 0.65 7 11.9 0.98 11 8 12 1.1 9 0.073 433.8 0.072 1.01 Yes Yes Yes SM 18 - Yes Yes 1.01 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 14 35.5 16 SM 125 4295 4202 4065 0.7 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 20 14 21 21 1.2 16 0.122 450.2 0.072 1.69 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.69 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 38 23 SM 125 4608 4359 4222 0.7 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 16 1.22 0.65 7 13.4 0.99 18 13 12 1.1 14 0.103 466.7 0.072 1.43 No Yes Yes SM 15 - Yes No 1.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 40.5 26 GP-GM 130 4933 4528 4391 0.7 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 17 1.25 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 32 21 10 10 1.1 23 0.201 483.0 0.072 2.81 No Yes Yes GP-GM - Yes No 2.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 43 15 GP-GM 130 5258 4697 4560 0.7 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 14.9 0.99 19 12 8 1.1 13 0.095 498.5 0.071 1.34 No Yes Yes GP-GM - Yes No 1.34 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 45.5 35 GP-GM 130 5583 4866 4729 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 44 28 8 1.0 29 0.319 513.7 0.071 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 19 48 85 GP-GM 130 5908 5035 4898 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 54 1.30 1.00 7 16.5 1.00 106 67 8 1.0 69 6.382 528.5 0.070 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 20 50.5 54 GP-GM 130 6233 5204 5067 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 33 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 67 42 8 1.0 43 0.913 543.0 0.070 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 21 53 45 CL 125 6545 5360 5223 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 18.0 1.00 56 34 35 1.2 41 0.743 557.2 0.069 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 22 55.5 79 CL 125 6858 5517 5380 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 SCAL 48 1.30 0.65 7 18.7 1.00 64 39 35 1.2 46 1.065 571.1 0.069 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 23 58 68 CL 125 7170 5673 5536 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 40 1.30 1.00 7 19.5 1.00 85 50 35 1.2 59 2.905 584.7 0.069 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 24 60.5 80 CL 125 7483 5830 5693 0.6 1.3 M 4.3 1.00 S 47 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 100 59 80 35 1.2 68 5.771 597.7 0.068 3.00 No Yes No CL 37 13 28 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Oct. 2011
2F-11-167
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
NA, used Avg. Summer 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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3296+68
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-11-167_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

47.2 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 37.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 30.2 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 0.5 22 CL 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 21 33 35 1.2 39 2.279 11.4 0.119 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 30 SM 125 313 313 313 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 48 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 28 45 12 1.1 48 2.736 56.5 0.118 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 18 SM 125 563 563 563 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 17 27 12 1.1 29 0.564 100.5 0.116 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 16 SM 125 813 813 813 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 15 24 12 1.1 26 0.401 143.4 0.115 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 12 CL 125 1063 1063 1063 1.4 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 16 1.19 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 12 17 35 1.2 21 0.254 185.3 0.113 2.24 No No Yes CL - No No 2.24 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 19 MH 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 23 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 20 25 35 1.2 30 0.478 226.0 0.112 3.00 No No No MH - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 14 ML 125 1563 1563 1563 1.1 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 16 1.20 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 15 17 35 1.2 21 0.241 253.4 0.105 2.29 No No Yes ML - No No 2.29 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 13 ML 125 1813 1813 1813 1.1 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 14 1.17 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 14 15 89 35 1.3 19 0.195 280.7 0.101 1.94 No No Yes ML 36 9 No No No 1.94 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 18 9 MH 125 2250 2250 2250 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 10 10 35 1.3 13 0.116 317.8 0.092 1.26 No No Yes MH - No No 1.26 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 21.5 10 MH 125 2688 2688 2688 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 9 1.11 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 12 10 35 1.3 13 0.114 349.4 0.085 1.35 No No Yes MH - No No 1.35 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25 12 ML 125 3125 3125 3125 0.8 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 9.4 0.96 14 12 35 1.3 15 0.122 376.0 0.078 1.56 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.56 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28.5 18 ML 125 3563 3563 3563 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 22 16 35 1.2 20 0.179 402.6 0.073 2.44 No No Yes ML - Yes No 2.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32 11 ML 125 4000 4000 3885 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 13 10 62 35 1.3 13 0.097 427.2 0.071 1.36 No Yes Yes ML 19 3 Yes Yes No 1.36 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 35.5 14 SP-SM 125 4438 4438 4104 0.7 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 17 12 8 1.1 12 0.094 450.2 0.071 1.32 No Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.32 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 39 29 SP-SM 130 4893 4799 4341 0.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 19 1.28 1.00 7 13.7 0.99 36 23 6 6 1.0 24 0.222 473.3 0.071 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

T. Kanax
PROJECT NUMBER: Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Task Area: American River
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
2/26/2014
4/8/2014
H. Hayati
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
17326660
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
2F-96-10
Crest
Station:

Conclusions and Comments
Drilled Sept. 1996
Liquefaction Assessment
Less Likely Liquefiable
From 2F-96-10
Avg. Winter WSE
3126+49
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-96-10_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

48.1 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 16.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.4 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 16.7 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.4 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 0.5 8 SC 115 58 58 58 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.14 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 8 13 12 1.1 14 0.342 11.4 0.129 2.64 No No Yes SC - Yes No 2.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 2.5 23 CL 125 308 308 308 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 37 1.30 1.00 7 2.6 0.75 23 36 35 1.2 43 1.929 56.5 0.120 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 4.5 21 CL 125 558 558 558 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 3.2 0.75 21 33 35 1.2 39 1.249 100.5 0.117 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 6.5 17 ML 125 808 808 808 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 17 27 59 35 1.2 32 0.660 143.4 0.115 3.00 No No No ML Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 8.5 21 CL 125 1058 1058 1058 1.4 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 4.4 0.81 22 31 35 1.2 37 0.841 185.3 0.114 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 10.5 10 CL 125 1308 1308 1308 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.15 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 11 14 35 1.3 17 0.187 226.0 0.112 1.66 No No Yes CL - No No 1.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 12.5 11 CL 125 1558 1558 1558 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 12 1.16 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 13 14 35 1.3 18 0.187 253.4 0.106 1.77 No No Yes CL - No No 1.77 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 14.5 12 CL 125 1808 1808 1808 1.1 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 6.2 0.89 14 15 35 1.3 19 0.188 280.7 0.101 1.86 No No Yes CL - No No 1.86 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 16.5 16 CL 125 2058 2058 2058 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.22 1.00 7 6.9 0.91 19 19 35 1.2 23 0.257 302.7 0.096 2.69 No No No CL - No No 2.69 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 18.5 11 MH 125 2308 2308 2308 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 12 35 1.3 16 0.144 322.9 0.091 1.58 No No Yes MH - No No 1.58 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 20.5 11 ML 125 2558 2558 2558 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 14 12 92 35 1.3 15 0.135 341.8 0.087 1.55 No No Yes ML 32 8 Yes Yes No 1.55 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 23.5 12 ML 125 2933 2933 2933 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.14 1.00 7 9.0 0.96 15 12 35 1.3 16 0.134 364.6 0.081 1.66 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 28.5 12 SM 125 3558 3558 3558 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 10.5 0.97 15 11 12 1.1 13 0.100 402.6 0.074 1.36 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.36 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 14 33.5 8 SM 115 4133 4001 4001 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 10 7 49 35 1.4 10 0.080 437.1 0.071 1.13 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.13 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 15 38.5 10 CL 125 4758 4314 4314 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 13.6 0.99 13 9 35 1.3 12 0.089 470.0 0.071 1.26 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.26 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 58.5 100 SM 130 7358 5666 5666 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 59 1.30 1.00 7 19.7 1.00 131 78 12 1.1 82 16.231 587.3 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 63.5 100 ML 125 7983 5979 5979 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 21.2 1.00 131 76 87 35 1.2 88 25.104 612.5 0.067 3.00 No Yes No ML 36 8 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 18 68.5 100 CL 125 8608 6292 6292 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 22.7 1.00 131 74 35 1.2 86 21.064 637.1 0.066 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 19 73.5 59 CL 125 9233 6605 6605 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 24.2 1.00 77 43 35 1.2 50 1.419 661.8 0.065 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Sample is at bottom of 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: 3106+13
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
4/23/2014
Drilled April 1997
2F-97-04
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/1/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-97-04_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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 = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for 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 0.703 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 0.484 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 0.162 100.5 0.120 1.34 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.34 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 2.319 143.4 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 0.507 185.3 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 0.574 226.0 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 0.141 253.4 0.107 1.32 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.32 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 0.080 280.7 0.103 0.78 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.78 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 0.086 302.7 0.098 0.88 Yes No Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 0.88 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 0.095 322.9 0.094 1.01 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.01 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 0.090 341.8 0.090 1.00 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.00 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 0.098 364.6 0.084 1.17 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.17 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 0.087 402.6 0.076 1.15 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.15 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 0.079 437.1 0.072 1.10 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM - Yes Yes 1.10 Less 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 0.076 470.0 0.072 1.06 Yes Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.06 Less 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 0.330 587.3 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-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-97-06_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

55.8 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 9.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 46.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 24.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.8 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 1.5 17 CL 125 188 188 188 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 2.3 0.75 18 29 35 1.2 35 1.226 32.2 0.112 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 3.5 13 SM 125 438 438 438 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 21 1.27 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 14 22 38 35 1.2 27 0.537 74.2 0.110 3.00 No No No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 17 SM 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 18 29 12 1.1 31 0.640 115.0 0.109 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 7.5 14 SM 125 938 938 938 1.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.28 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 16 23 12 1.1 25 0.360 154.9 0.107 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 9.5 13 SM 125 1188 1188 1188 1.3 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 17 1.23 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 15 20 12 1.1 22 0.264 193.6 0.106 2.49 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.49 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 11.5 19 SM 125 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 5.3 0.85 23 28 12 1.1 29 0.453 225.7 0.102 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 13.5 14 SM 125 1688 1688 1688 1.1 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 5.9 0.88 18 19 12 1.1 21 0.227 251.7 0.097 2.34 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.34 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 15.5 20 ML 125 1938 1938 1938 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 26 26 35 1.2 32 0.497 276.0 0.093 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 17.5 16 ML 125 2188 2188 2188 1.0 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 15 1.23 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 21 20 35 1.2 25 0.284 294.9 0.088 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 21 3 SC 115 2590 2590 2590 0.9 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 8.2 0.94 4 4 48 35 1.6 6 0.065 325.5 0.082 0.80 Yes No Yes SC 30 11 No No No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 24.5 2 SP-SM 115 2993 2993 2993 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 3 2 8 1.2 3 0.050 349.8 0.076 0.66 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 28 6 SP-SM 115 3395 3395 3395 0.8 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 8 6 8 1.1 7 0.066 374.1 0.072 0.92 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 13 32 9 SM 125 3895 3895 3883 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 11.6 0.98 13 9 17 17 1.2 11 0.083 400.4 0.067 1.24 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.24 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 14 35 31 GP 130 4285 4285 4085 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 21 1.30 0.65 7 12.5 0.99 29 19 20 20 1.1 22 0.195 419.0 0.067 2.93 No Yes Yes GP Yes Yes Yes No 2.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 38 53 GP 130 4675 4675 4288 0.7 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 35 1.30 0.65 7 13.4 0.99 49 32 5 1.0 33 0.434 437.5 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 41.5 50 GP 130 5130 5130 4525 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 31 1.30 0.65 7 14.5 0.99 46 29 5 1.0 30 0.337 458.6 0.066 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 17 45.5 38 GP 130 5650 5650 4795 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 23 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 35 21 5 1.0 22 0.181 481.3 0.065 2.77 No Yes Yes GP - Yes No 2.77 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 18 49 71 SP 130 6105 5918 5032 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 41 1.30 0.65 7 16.8 1.00 66 38 4 0 1.0 38 0.627 500.7 0.065 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 19 52.5 58 SP 130 6560 6154 5268 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 33 1.30 0.65 7 17.8 1.00 54 31 3 0 1.0 31 0.350 519.7 0.064 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 20 59 52 SP 130 7405 6594 5708 0.6 1.3 H 8 1.15 SCAL 29 1.30 0.65 7 19.8 1.00 49 27 5 1.0 28 0.267 553.5 0.063 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 21 63 62 SP 130 7925 6864 5978 0.5 1.3 H 8 1.15 S 33 1.30 1.00 7 21.0 1.00 89 48 3 0 1.0 48 1.233 573.0 0.062 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. 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: 3360+71
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-97-14
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 Aug. 1997
2F-97-14
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/1/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-97-14_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

30.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 19.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 11.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 16.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 13.9 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 4 ML 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 4 6 35 1.4 9 0.135 76.0 0.123 1.10 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.10 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 24 CL 125 778 778 778 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 23 37 50 35 1.2 44 1.548 135.2 0.113 3.00 No No No CL 33 16 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 17 SC 125 1153 1153 1153 1.3 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 22 1.28 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 18 23 12 1.1 25 0.339 188.9 0.107 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 19 SP-SM 125 1528 1434 1528 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 21 24 9 9 1.1 26 0.336 237.0 0.101 3.00 No No No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 16 SP 125 1903 1622 1800 1.1 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.24 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 18 20 5 1.0 21 0.220 279.5 0.101 2.18 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 2.18 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 6 18.5 30 SC 130 2293 1825 2003 1.0 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 31 1.30 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 35 36 12 1.1 39 0.829 317.6 0.103 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 7 21.5 13 SP-SC 125 2668 2012 2191 1.0 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.17 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 15 15 12 12 1.1 17 0.154 355.0 0.105 1.46 No Yes Yes SP-SC 21 6 Yes Yes No 1.46 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 8 24.5 10 CL 125 3043 2200 2379 1.0 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 12 11 35 1.3 15 0.131 392.1 0.107 1.22 Yes Yes Yes CL - No No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 9 27.5 13 CL 125 3418 2388 2566 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.16 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 16 14 35 1.3 18 0.166 428.1 0.108 1.53 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.53 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 30.5 43 CL 125 3793 2576 2754 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 53 46 35 1.2 55 2.482 461.5 0.109 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 33.5 17 SM 125 4168 2764 2942 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 21 18 44 35 1.2 22 0.212 492.3 0.109 1.95 No Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 36.5 26 ML 125 4543 2951 3130 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 13.0 0.99 32 26 35 1.2 32 0.437 519.3 0.108 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 39.5 100 ML 125 4918 3139 3318 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 80 1.30 1.00 7 13.9 0.99 124 99 35 1.2 114 211.587 543.2 0.106 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 42.5 100 ML 125 5293 3327 3505 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 78 1.30 1.00 7 14.8 0.99 124 96 87 35 1.2 111 166.837 565.1 0.105 3.00 No Yes No ML 26 3 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 45.5 100 CL 125 5668 3515 3693 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 75 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 124 94 35 1.2 109 133.472 585.5 0.103 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 16 50.5 21 SM 125 6293 3828 4006 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 26 19 12 1.1 20 0.173 616.6 0.100 1.73 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.73 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-01A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-01A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3053+49
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-01A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

34.5 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 13.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 21.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 17.5 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 17.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 7 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 7 11 12 1.1 12 0.169 76.0 0.123 1.38 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.38 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 8 ML 120 763 763 763 1.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.14 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 8 12 35 1.3 16 0.192 135.2 0.115 1.67 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.67 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 9 SC-SM 115 1108 1108 1108 1.3 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 12 1.14 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 9 12 38 35 1.3 16 0.177 188.9 0.111 1.60 No No Yes SC-SM 28 7 Yes Yes No 1.60 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 21 ML 125 1483 1483 1483 1.2 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 23 26 35 1.2 32 0.541 237.0 0.104 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 8 ML 125 1858 1858 1858 1.0 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 9 9 35 1.3 12 0.117 279.5 0.098 1.20 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.20 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 11 ML 125 2233 2233 2139 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 12 35 1.3 15 0.142 317.6 0.097 1.47 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.47 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 7 21.5 11 ML 125 2608 2576 2327 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 13 11 35 1.3 15 0.132 355.0 0.099 1.33 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.33 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 8 24.5 10 SC-SM 125 2983 2764 2515 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.11 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 12 10 43 35 1.3 13 0.116 392.1 0.101 1.14 Yes Yes Yes SC-SM 24 5 Yes Yes Yes 1.14 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 9 27.5 27 ML 125 3358 2952 2702 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 33 27 35 1.2 32 0.476 428.1 0.103 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 30.5 38 CL 125 3733 3140 2890 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 46 37 35 1.2 44 1.111 461.5 0.104 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 35.5 23 SP-SM 125 4358 3453 3203 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.25 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 28 22 8 8 1.1 23 0.218 511.0 0.104 2.10 No Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 2.10 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 40.5 67 ML 125 4983 3766 3516 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 49 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 83 61 35 1.2 71 7.836 550.7 0.102 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 45.5 100 ML 125 5608 4079 3829 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 70 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 124 87 56 35 1.2 101 74.305 585.5 0.099 3.00 No Yes No ML 23 3 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 50.5 100 SM 130 6258 4417 4167 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 67 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 125 84 46 35 1.2 97 55.063 616.6 0.096 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: 3151+12
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-04A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
4/24/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-04A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/1/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-04A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

39.3 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 12.3 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 27.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 18.0 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 21.3 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 7 ML 120 420 420 420 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 7 11 35 1.3 14 0.196 76.0 0.118 1.67 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.67 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 3 ML 115 765 765 765 1.6 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 3 5 35 1.5 7 0.100 135.2 0.115 0.87 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.87 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 6 ML 120 1125 1125 1125 1.3 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 6 8 35 1.4 11 0.123 188.9 0.109 1.13 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 5 ML 120 1485 1485 1485 1.2 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 5 6 35 1.4 9 0.096 237.0 0.104 0.93 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 0.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 8 ML 125 1860 1860 1860 1.0 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 9 9 35 1.3 12 0.117 279.5 0.098 1.20 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.20 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 11 SM 125 2235 2235 2235 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 10 1.13 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 13 12 12 1.1 13 0.119 317.6 0.092 1.29 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.29 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 21.5 7 SM 115 2580 2580 2566 0.9 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 8 7 40 35 1.4 10 0.090 355.0 0.090 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL=1.0. 8 24.5 6 SM 115 2925 2925 2724 0.8 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 7 6 12 1.1 7 0.069 392.1 0.094 0.74 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.74 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 9 27.5 19 SM 125 3300 3269 2912 0.8 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 15 1.21 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 23 18 15 15 1.1 20 0.181 428.1 0.096 1.89 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.89 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 30.5 37 GP-GM 130 3690 3472 3115 0.8 1.3 SFA 4 1.00 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 45 34 8 1.0 36 0.589 461.5 0.096 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 35.5 26 GP-GM 130 4340 3810 3453 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 19 1.28 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 21 15 11 11 1.1 16 0.132 511.0 0.096 1.37 No Yes Yes GP-GM - Yes No 1.37 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 40.5 46 SP 130 4990 4148 3791 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 32 1.30 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 37 26 5 1.0 26 0.277 550.7 0.094 2.93 No Yes No SP - Yes No 2.93 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 44.5 77 ML 125 5490 4398 4041 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 52 1.30 0.65 7 15.4 0.99 62 42 93 35 1.2 50 1.539 578.8 0.093 3.00 No Yes No ML 44 13 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaciton. 14 50.5 49 MH 125 6240 4774 4417 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 61 40 98 35 1.2 47 1.220 616.6 0.091 3.00 No Yes No MH 54 21 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 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
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3190+46
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-06A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-06A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-06A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

44.2 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 22.7 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 21.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 20.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 23.6 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 7 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 7 11 12 1.1 12 0.169 76.0 0.123 1.38 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.38 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 5 SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 5 8 12 1.1 9 0.114 135.2 0.118 0.97 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.97 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 5 SM 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 5 7 12 1.1 8 0.097 188.9 0.112 0.86 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.86 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 5 SM 115 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 5 6 12 1.1 7 0.086 237.0 0.107 0.80 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.80 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 3 SM 115 1783 1783 1783 1.1 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 3 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 3 4 43 35 1.6 6 0.072 279.5 0.102 0.71 Yes No Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 0.71 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 5 SM 115 2128 2128 2128 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 6 6 12 1.2 6 0.072 317.6 0.097 0.74 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.74 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 21.5 2 SM 115 2473 2473 2473 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 2 2 19 19 1.5 3 0.054 355.0 0.093 0.58 Yes No Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 0.58 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 24.5 16 SP 125 2848 2660 2791 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 14 1.19 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 19 17 5 1.0 17 0.150 392.1 0.091 1.64 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 1.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 27.5 45 GP 130 3238 2863 2994 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 38 1.30 0.65 7 10.2 0.97 35 30 5 1.0 30 0.399 428.1 0.093 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 30.5 62 GP 130 3628 3066 3197 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 50 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 49 40 5 1.0 41 0.851 461.5 0.094 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 35.5 23 CL-ML 125 4253 3379 3510 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 18 1.26 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 28 22 51 35 1.2 27 0.286 511.0 0.095 3.00 No Yes No CL-ML 24 5 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 40.5 25 ML 125 4878 3692 3823 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.27 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 31 23 99 35 1.2 28 0.304 550.7 0.094 3.00 No Yes No ML 46 16 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 13 45.5 34 ML 125 5503 4005 4136 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 42 30 35 1.2 36 0.544 585.5 0.092 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 50.5 114 ML 125 6128 4318 4449 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 78 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 142 97 68 35 1.2 112 162.062 616.6 0.090 3.00 No Yes No ML 27 3 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 55.5 76 SM 130 6778 4656 4787 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 50 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 95 62 13 13 1.1 66 5.050 644.2 0.087 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).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-08A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-08A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3279+16
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-08A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

47.6 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 12.6 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 35.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 25.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 22.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 11 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 18 1.19 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 10 17 12 1.1 18 0.271 72.0 0.116 2.33 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.33 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 4 SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 4 6 12 1.1 7 0.101 128.0 0.111 0.91 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 8 SP-SM 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 11 1.12 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 8 11 8 8 1.1 12 0.131 178.5 0.106 1.23 Yes No Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.23 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 13 SM 125 1468 1468 1468 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 15 1.19 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 14 16 12 1.1 18 0.189 223.7 0.099 1.91 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 15 SM 125 1843 1843 1843 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 16 1.20 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 17 18 12 1.1 19 0.194 263.4 0.093 2.09 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 31 GP-GM 130 2233 2233 2233 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 36 34 12 12 1.1 36 0.666 299.1 0.087 3.00 No No No GP-GM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 21.5 119 GP-GM 130 2623 2623 2623 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 104 1.30 0.65 7 8.4 0.95 91 80 8 1.0 83 20.992 334.3 0.083 3.00 No No No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 25.5 100 GP-GM 130 3143 3143 2924 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 80 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 78 62 6 6 1.0 64 5.057 380.8 0.085 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 30.5 205 GP 130 3793 3793 3262 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 149 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 163 118 5 1.0 121 343.772 435.5 0.087 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 35.5 19 SM 125 4418 4386 3575 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 23 16 12 1.1 17 0.140 483.1 0.088 1.59 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 40.5 33 SM 130 5068 4724 3913 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 41 27 31 31 1.2 31 0.399 520.9 0.087 3.00 No Yes No SM Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 45.5 22 ML 125 5693 5037 4226 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 14 1.20 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 27 17 35 1.2 21 0.183 553.4 0.085 2.15 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 2.15 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 13 50.5 50 SM 130 6343 5375 4564 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 62 38 35 35 1.2 45 1.061 583.0 0.083 3.00 No Yes No SM 40 10 No Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 14 55.5 81 ML 125 6968 5688 4877 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 48 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 101 60 35 1.2 70 6.801 609.3 0.081 3.00 No Yes No ML - 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
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3397+21
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-09A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-09A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-09A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

48.4 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 18.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 30.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 27.4 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 21.0 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 4 SM 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 4 6 12 1.1 7 0.119 72.0 0.116 1.02 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.02 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 6 SP-SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 6 9 8 1.1 10 0.125 128.0 0.111 1.12 Yes No Yes SP-SM - Yes No 1.12 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 5 SP 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 5 7 5 1.1 7 0.093 178.5 0.106 0.88 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 0.88 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 4 SM 115 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 4 5 15 15 1.2 6 0.079 223.7 0.101 0.78 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 40 GP-GM 130 1828 1828 1828 1.0 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 42 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 45 47 8 1.0 49 1.850 263.4 0.094 3.00 No No No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 20.5 178 GP 130 2478 2478 2478 0.9 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 160 1.30 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 136 122 5 1.0 125 500.300 322.3 0.085 3.00 No No No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 25.5 150 GP 130 3128 3128 2846 0.8 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 120 1.30 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 117 94 5 1.0 96 55.309 380.8 0.087 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 8 30.5 163 GP 130 3778 3746 3184 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 SCAL 119 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 129 95 5 1.0 97 56.623 435.5 0.089 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 9 35.5 22 CL 125 4403 4059 3497 0.7 1.3 Air 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 27 19 35 1.2 23 0.225 483.1 0.090 2.51 No Yes No CL - No No 2.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 40.5 12 CL 125 5028 4372 3810 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 15 10 93 35 1.3 13 0.102 520.9 0.089 1.15 Yes Yes Yes CL 48 25 No No No 1.15 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 11 45.5 11 SM 125 5653 4685 4123 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 14 9 34 34 1.3 12 0.090 553.4 0.087 1.03 Yes Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.03 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 12 50.5 24 SP-SM 130 6303 5023 4461 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 15 1.22 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 30 19 7 7 1.0 20 0.160 583.0 0.085 1.88 No Yes Yes SP-SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.88 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
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3449+67
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-11A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-11A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-11A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

53.7 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 19.2 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 34.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.13 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 27.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 25.8 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3.5 4 ML 115 403 403 403 1.6 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 4 6 35 1.4 9 0.135 72.0 0.116 1.16 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.16 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 6.5 6 SM 115 748 748 748 1.6 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 3.8 0.76 6 9 12 1.1 10 0.128 128.0 0.111 1.15 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 1.15 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 9.5 5 SM 115 1093 1093 1093 1.4 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.7 0.82 5 7 12 1.1 8 0.097 178.5 0.106 0.91 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 12.5 6 SM 115 1438 1438 1438 1.2 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 7 8 12 1.1 9 0.095 223.7 0.101 0.94 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.94 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 15.5 6 SM 115 1783 1783 1783 1.1 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 7 7 12 1.1 8 0.086 263.4 0.096 0.90 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.90 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 18.5 8 SM 115 2128 2128 2128 1.0 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 8 1.10 1.00 7 7.5 0.93 9 9 20 20 1.2 11 0.099 299.1 0.091 1.08 Yes No Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.08 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 21.5 7 SM 115 2473 2473 2473 0.9 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 8.4 0.95 8 7 12 1.1 8 0.080 334.3 0.088 0.91 Yes No Yes SM - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 24.5 59 SM 130 2863 2863 2863 0.8 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 49 1.30 1.00 7 9.3 0.96 71 59 12 1.1 63 4.495 369.3 0.084 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 27 110 GP-GM 130 3188 3188 3113 0.8 1.3 H 4 1.00 SCAL 87 1.30 0.65 7 10.1 0.97 87 69 8 1.0 71 8.348 397.9 0.083 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 10 30 100 GP-GM 130 3578 3578 3315 0.7 1.3 H 4 1.00 SCAL 75 1.30 0.65 7 11.0 0.98 79 59 8 1.0 62 4.012 430.3 0.084 3.00 No Yes No GP-GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 11 35 163 GP 130 4228 4196 3653 0.7 1.3 H 4 1.00 SCAL 113 1.30 0.65 7 12.5 0.99 130 90 5 1.0 92 38.685 479.1 0.085 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 12 40.5 6 ML 120 4888 4513 3970 0.7 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 7 5 66 35 1.5 7 0.065 520.9 0.085 0.76 Yes Yes Yes ML 28 5 Yes Yes Yes 0.76 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 13 45.5 11 SM 125 5513 4826 4283 0.6 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 14 9 12 1.1 10 0.077 553.4 0.084 0.92 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.92 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 14 50.5 20 SM 125 6138 5139 4596 0.6 1.3 H 4 1.00 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 25 16 16 16 1.1 17 0.132 583.0 0.082 1.60 No Yes Yes SM Yes Yes Yes No 1.60 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: 3468+33
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From 2F-99-12A
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
4/24/2014
Drilled Dec. 1998
2F-99-12A
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/1/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/2F-99-12A_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

53.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 21.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 31.2 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.8 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 31.2 Energy Ratio = 83 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) S04 5.5 22 ML 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 26 42 52 35 1.2 50 2.529 122.1 0.115 3.00 No No No ML 16 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S06 10.5 20 ML 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 24 29 35 1.2 35 0.711 226.0 0.112 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S08 15.5 12 SM 125 1938 1938 1938 1.0 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 15 16 42 35 1.3 19 0.197 292.6 0.098 2.01 No No Yes SM 20 - Yes No 2.01 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S10 20.5 12 SM 125 2563 2563 2563 0.9 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 11 1.16 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 16 14 30 30 1.2 17 0.154 341.8 0.087 1.78 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S12 25.5 13 ML 125 3188 3188 3188 0.8 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 10 1.15 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 18 14 57 35 1.3 18 0.150 379.8 0.077 1.94 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.94 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S14 30.5 17 SM 125 3813 3813 3813 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 12 1.19 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 23 17 12 1.1 18 0.151 417.3 0.071 2.12 No No Yes SM - Yes No 2.12 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S16 35.5 15 SM 125 4438 4166 4166 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 10 1.16 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 21 14 30 30 1.2 18 0.139 450.2 0.070 1.98 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.98 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S18 40.5 43 GM 130 5088 4504 4504 0.7 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 29 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 60 40 12 1.1 43 0.886 483.0 0.070 3.00 No Yes No GM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S22 50 150 GP 130 6323 5146 5146 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 94 1.30 1.00 7 17.1 1.00 211 131 5 1.0 134 837.920 540.2 0.068 3.00 No Yes No GP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

S23 55.5 86 CL 125 7010 5491 5491 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 52 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 121 73 35 1.2 85 20.321 571.1 0.068 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S25 60.5 60 SM 130 7660 5829 5829 0.6 1.4 M 5 1.02 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 85 50 12 1.1 53 1.734 597.7 0.067 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Sample is below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled May 2008
WCNBAR_003B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
N/A, used Avg. Winter WSE
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3306+35
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/WCNBAR_003B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

47.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = 14.5 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 32.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 19.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 27.9 Energy Ratio = 81 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3 24 SM 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 38 1.30 0.65 7 2.7 0.75 18 29 30 30 1.2 34 0.929 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 19 SM 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 30 1.30 0.65 7 3.5 0.75 14 23 45 35 1.2 28 0.498 122.1 0.115 3.00 No No No SM 13 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 24 CL 125 1000 1000 1000 1.4 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 34 1.30 0.65 7 4.3 0.80 19 27 78 35 1.2 33 0.646 174.9 0.114 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 24 CL 125 1313 1313 1313 1.2 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 30 1.30 0.65 7 5.0 0.84 20 25 67 35 1.2 30 0.498 226.0 0.112 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 31 ML 125 1625 1625 1625 1.1 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 34 1.30 0.65 7 5.8 0.87 27 30 35 1.2 36 0.735 260.2 0.104 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 36 ML 125 1938 1938 1938 1.0 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 37 1.30 0.65 7 6.6 0.90 33 33 35 1.2 40 0.900 292.6 0.098 3.00 No No No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 7 ML 120 2238 2238 2238 0.9 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 7 1.10 0.65 7 7.3 0.92 7 6 52 35 1.4 9 0.085 317.8 0.092 0.92 Yes No Yes ML 19 - Yes No 0.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 11 ML 125 2550 2550 2550 0.9 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 10 1.16 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 10 9 35 1.3 12 0.106 341.8 0.087 1.22 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 11 ML 125 2863 2863 2863 0.8 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 9 1.15 0.65 7 8.8 0.95 11 9 91 35 1.3 12 0.100 360.8 0.082 1.22 Yes No Yes ML 37 - Yes No 1.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 12 ML 125 3175 3175 3175 0.8 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 10 1.16 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 12 9 35 1.3 12 0.100 379.8 0.078 1.29 No No Yes ML - Yes No 1.29 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 9 SM 115 3463 3463 3457 0.8 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 7 1.11 0.65 7 10.4 0.97 9 7 50 35 1.4 9 0.079 398.8 0.075 1.05 Yes Yes Yes SM 31 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1.05 Less Likely Liquefiable Less Likely Liquefiable. 1.0<FSL<1.25. 12 30.5 7 SM 115 3750 3750 3588 0.7 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 5 1.10 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 7 5 12 1.2 6 0.060 417.3 0.076 0.79 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 0.79 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 13 35.5 10 SM 115 4325 4138 3851 0.7 1.4 H 8 1.15 SCAL 7 1.12 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 10 7 31 31 1.3 9 0.076 450.2 0.076 1.00 Yes Yes Yes SM - Yes Yes 1.00 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL=1.0. 14 40.5 14 SM 125 4950 4451 4164 0.7 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.16 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 22 14 12 1.1 16 0.120 483.0 0.075 1.59 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.59 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 15 45.5 113 GW 130 5600 4789 4502 0.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 73 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 175 113 3 0 1.0 113 171.834 513.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No GW - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. 16 55.5 81 GW-GC 130 6900 5465 5178 0.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 49 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 126 76 9 9 1.0 79 13.197 571.1 0.072 3.00 No Yes No GW-GC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25.

NA 60.5 99 ML 125 7525 5778 5491 0.6 1.4 H 8 1.15 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 154 90 35 1.2 105 88.755 597.7 0.071 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL>1.25. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe). No sample recovery due to gravel in shoe.

Conclusions and Comments
2/26/2014
Drilled Jan. 2011
WRDA_2F-11-07
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
4/8/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326660
From WRDA_2F-11-07
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
American River (North Bank)
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
H. Hayati
T. Kanax
Avg. Winter WSE
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
Station: 3239+97
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
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/AMRVGERCF1TLiqSpd_NB/WRDA_2F-11-07_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

40.5 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -17.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 57.5 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 25.4 Energy Ratio = 74 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) S1 0.5 6 CH 120 60 60 60 1.6 1.2 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.10 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 6 9 35 1.3 12 0.304 11.4 0.124 2.45 No No Yes CH - No No 2.45 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S3 5.5 4 CL 115 635 635 635 1.6 1.2 H 6 1.05 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 4 6 35 1.4 9 0.121 122.1 0.125 0.97 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.97 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S5 10.5 8 CL 125 1260 1260 1260 1.3 1.2 H 6 1.05 S 10 1.12 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 9 11 68 35 1.3 14 0.150 226.0 0.117 1.29 No No Yes CL - No No 1.29 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S7 15.5 5 CL 120 1860 1860 1860 1.0 1.2 H 6 1.05 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 6 6 35 1.4 9 0.088 292.6 0.102 0.86 Yes No Yes CL 34 13 14 No No No 0.86 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S10 23 16 CL 125 2798 2798 2798 0.8 1.2 H 6 1.05 S 14 1.19 1.00 7 8.8 0.95 20 17 75 35 1.2 21 0.196 360.8 0.084 2.34 No No Yes CL - No No 2.34 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S12 27.5 12 CH 125 3360 3360 3228 0.8 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 15 11 35 1.3 15 0.120 395.0 0.080 1.51 No Yes Yes CH 52 37 22 No No No 1.51 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S15 33.5 29 CL 125 4110 4110 3604 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 12.0 0.98 36 25 35 1.2 31 0.381 437.1 0.079 3.00 No Yes No CL 40 28 18 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S17 37.5 32 CL 125 4610 4610 3854 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 13.3 0.99 40 26 35 1.2 32 0.415 463.4 0.078 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S19 42.5 21 CL 125 5235 5235 4167 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 14.8 0.99 26 16 35 1.2 20 0.171 495.4 0.077 2.21 No Yes Yes CL - No No 2.21 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S21 47.5 15 SC 125 5860 5860 4480 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 9 1.12 1.00 7 16.3 1.00 19 11 12 1.1 12 0.091 525.6 0.076 1.19 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 1.19 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not suceptible to liquefaction. Fines content > 20% based on field description.

S23 52.5 13 SC 125 6485 6485 4793 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 17.8 1.00 16 9 12 1.1 10 0.076 554.4 0.075 1.01 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 1.01 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not suceptible to liquefaction. Fines content > 20% based on field description.

S25 57.5 15 CL 125 7110 7110 5106 0.5 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 19.4 1.00 19 10 70 35 1.3 13 0.094 582.0 0.074 1.27 No Yes Yes CL - No No 1.27 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S27 62.5 23 SC 125 7735 7423 5419 0.5 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 12 1.17 1.00 7 20.9 1.00 29 15 23 23 1.2 18 0.130 607.6 0.073 1.78 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.78 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not suceptible to liquefaction. Fines content > 20% based on laboratory test results.

S29 67.5 15 SC 125 8360 7736 5732 0.5 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 22.4 1.00 19 10 12 1.1 11 0.076 632.2 0.072 1.06 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 1.06 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not suceptible to liquefaction. Fines content > 20% based on field description.

S31 72.5 47 SP 130 9010 8074 6070 0.5 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 23 1.30 1.00 7 23.9 1.00 60 30 5 1.0 31 0.330 656.8 0.070 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 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: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
NMDE_A
Station: 2988+59
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
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
4/25/2014
Drilled October 2010
WRARFC_042B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/2988+59_NEMDC East - WRARFC_042B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

25.4 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -17.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 42.4 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 10.3 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 0.75 10 ML 120 90 90 90 1.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 16 1.17 0.65 7 2.1 0.75 6 10 35 1.3 13 0.282 11.3 0.082 3.00 No No Yes ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 7 ML 115 636 636 636 1.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 11 1.12 0.65 7 3.5 0.75 4 7 35 1.4 10 0.127 116.1 0.119 1.07 Yes No Yes ML - Yes No 1.07 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 10.5 14 ML 125 1261 1261 1248 1.3 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 18 1.22 0.65 7 5.0 0.84 10 12 35 1.3 15 0.165 205.5 0.107 1.54 No Yes Yes ML - Yes No 1.54 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 4 15.5 11 ML 120 1861 1861 1536 1.0 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 11 1.14 0.65 7 6.6 0.90 8 8 35 1.3 11 0.114 279.5 0.118 0.96 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.96 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 5 20.5 9 ML 120 2461 2461 1824 0.9 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 8 1.10 0.65 7 8.1 0.94 7 6 35 1.4 9 0.090 342.2 0.122 0.74 Yes Yes Yes ML - Yes Yes 0.74 Likely Liquefiable Likely Liquefiable. FSL<1.0. 6 25.5 22 CH 125 3086 3086 2137 0.8 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 18 1.25 0.65 7 9.6 0.96 17 14 35 1.3 18 0.166 404.3 0.123 1.35 No Yes Yes CH - No No 1.35 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 7 30.5 120 ML 125 3711 3711 2450 0.7 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 88 1.30 0.65 7 11.1 0.98 95 70 35 1.2 81 19.428 461.5 0.122 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 8 35.5 100 SM 130 4361 4361 2788 0.7 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 68 1.30 0.65 7 12.6 0.99 80 54 12 1.1 57 3.085 511.0 0.119 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 9 40.5 100 SP-SM 130 5011 5011 3126 0.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 63 1.30 0.65 7 14.2 0.99 81 51 8 1.0 53 2.125 550.7 0.114 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 10 45.5 76 SP-SM 130 5661 5468 3464 0.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 46 1.30 0.65 7 15.7 0.99 61 37 8 1.0 39 0.712 585.5 0.110 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 11 50.5 100 SP 130 6311 5806 3802 0.6 1.3 NA 4 1.00 SCAL 59 1.30 0.65 7 17.2 1.00 81 48 5 1.0 49 1.470 616.6 0.105 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

Conclusions and Comments
4/25/2014
Drilled September 1993
K95_BE20
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
NEMDC East
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
NMDE_B
Station: 3008+90
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3008+90_NEMDC East - K95_BE-20_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

19.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -21.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 40.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 3.9 Energy Ratio = 75 Mw = 6.5 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 5.5 36 ML 125 688 688 587 1.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 58 1.30 0.80 7 3.5 0.75 28 45 35 1.2 53 3.523 108.7 0.120 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 2 10.5 13 SM 125 1313 1313 900 1.2 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 16 1.21 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 14 18 12 1.1 19 0.238 199.7 0.144 1.65 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 1.65 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 3 15.5 18 SP 125 1938 1938 1213 1.0 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 18 1.26 0.80 7 6.6 0.90 17 17 3 0 1.0 17 0.191 283.1 0.152 1.26 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 1.26 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 4 20.5 27 SC 130 2588 2588 1551 0.9 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 33 29 12 1.1 31 0.509 358.3 0.150 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. No indication of fines content on log. 5 25.5 80 ML 125 3213 3213 1864 0.8 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 63 1.30 0.80 7 9.6 0.96 81 64 35 1.2 75 12.412 417.6 0.146 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 6 30.5 45 ML 125 3838 3838 2177 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 58 42 35 1.2 49 1.785 465.9 0.139 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 7 35.5 100 SM 130 4488 4488 2515 0.7 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 67 1.30 0.80 7 12.6 0.99 104 69 12 1.1 73 10.225 503.1 0.130 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 8 40.5 95 ML 125 5113 5081 2828 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 S 60 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 124 78 35 1.2 90 35.801 530.5 0.122 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 9 45.5 90 SM 130 5763 5419 3166 0.6 1.3 H 6 1.05 MCAL 55 1.30 0.80 7 15.7 0.99 94 57 12 1.1 60 3.727 562.0 0.115 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
S. Orgill
L. Hong
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
NMDE_B
Station: 3038+75
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
From K02-B3
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside Field
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
5/20/2014
Drilled may 2007
K02-B3
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/20/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3038+75_NEMDC East - K02-B3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/2024
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

44.2 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -14.4 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 58.6 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 29.1 Energy Ratio = 77 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3 14 CL 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 15 25 68 35 1.2 30 0.686 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No CL 35 26 16 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 15 CL 125 1000 1000 1000 1.4 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 21 1.30 0.80 7 4.3 0.80 14 20 35 1.2 24 0.345 174.9 0.114 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 4 SC 115 1288 1288 1288 1.2 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 5 6 12 1.1 7 0.087 226.0 0.114 0.76 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 4 SC 115 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 5 1.10 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 5 6 47 35 1.4 8 0.091 260.2 0.107 0.85 Yes No Yes SC 26 14 12 No No No 0.85 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 6 SC 115 1863 1863 1863 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 6 1.10 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 8 8 12 1.1 9 0.093 292.6 0.102 0.91 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.91 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 2 CL 115 2150 2150 2150 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 2 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 3 3 35 1.8 5 0.063 317.8 0.096 0.66 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.66 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 23 9 CL 125 2775 2775 2775 0.8 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 8 1.12 0.80 7 8.8 0.95 10 9 35 1.3 12 0.098 360.8 0.085 1.16 Yes No Yes CL 35 21 22 No No No 1.16 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 28 12 SC 125 3400 3400 3400 0.8 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 10.4 0.97 17 13 37 35 1.3 17 0.138 398.8 0.076 1.81 No No Yes SC 24 12 14 No No No 1.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 12 30.5 5 SC 115 3688 3688 3600 0.7 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 7 5 12 1.2 6 0.061 417.3 0.075 0.81 Yes Yes Yes SC - No No 0.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
14 35.5 24 SC 125 4313 4313 3913 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 MCAL 16 1.24 0.80 7 12.6 0.99 24 17 12 1.1 18 0.145 450.2 0.075 1.94 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.94 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
16 40.5 17 SC 125 4938 4938 4226 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.15 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 22 14 12 1.1 15 0.114 483.0 0.074 1.53 No Yes Yes SC - No No 1.53 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20% in Sample 11, part of same layer.
18 45.5 56 SP-SC 130 5588 5588 4564 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 71 43 8 1.0 45 1.020 513.7 0.073 3.00 No Yes No SP-SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 20 50.5 92 CL 125 6213 6213 4877 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 MCAL 52 1.30 0.80 7 17.2 1.00 94 53 35 1.2 63 3.900 543.0 0.072 3.00 No Yes No CL 29 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 22 55.5 44 SP 130 6863 6863 5215 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 56 30 5 1.0 31 0.363 571.1 0.071 3.00 No Yes No SP - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 24 60.5 57 SP-SM 130 7513 7394 5553 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 73 38 8 1.0 40 0.667 597.7 0.070 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 65.5 87 ML 125 8138 7707 5866 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 44 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 112 57 93 35 1.2 67 4.962 622.4 0.069 3.00 No Yes No ML 35 9 31 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. LL≥35 29 70.5 27 SM 130 8788 8045 6204 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.20 1.00 7 23.3 1.00 35 17 45 35 1.2 21 0.165 647.0 0.068 2.43 No Yes Yes SM - Yes No 2.43 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 31 75.5 192 CL 125 9413 8358 6517 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 94 1.30 1.00 7 24.8 1.00 246 120 93 35 1.2 139 ###### 671.6 0.067 3.00 No Yes No CL 31 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
4/25/2014
Drilled may 2007
WRARFC_002B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
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
NEMDC East
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Winter mean at American River
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
NMDE_B
Station: 3051+36
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3051+36_NEMDC East - WRARFC_002B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

28.3 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -13.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 41.3 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.7 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 12.6 Energy Ratio = 74 Mw = 6.5 Location = WatersideEnter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) S1 0.5 27 CL 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 43 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 26 41 35 1.2 49 4.581 11.3 0.118 3.00 No No No CL 34 22 4 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S3 3 35 SC 130 388 388 388 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 33 53 43 35 1.2 63 7.837 65.6 0.110 3.00 No No No SC - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S5 7.5 24 SC 125 950 950 950 1.5 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 4.1 0.79 24 35 30 30 1.2 40 1.159 153.7 0.105 3.00 No No No SC 14 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S7 12.5 53 CL 125 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 60 1.30 1.00 7 5.6 0.87 58 66 53 35 1.2 77 15.520 237.0 0.098 3.00 No No No CL 12 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S9 17.5 23 SC 125 2200 2200 1897 1.0 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 7.2 0.92 27 26 39 35 1.2 31 0.469 305.2 0.105 3.00 No Yes No SC 37 16 24 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20%.

S11 22.5 28 CL 125 2825 2825 2210 0.8 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 8.7 0.95 34 28 56 35 1.2 34 0.573 367.5 0.108 3.00 No Yes No CL 42 18 31 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S13 27.5 29 CH 125 3450 3450 2523 0.8 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 10.2 0.97 36 27 35 1.2 33 0.496 428.1 0.110 3.00 No Yes No CH 60 34 52 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S15 32.5 32 SM 130 4100 4100 2861 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 11.7 0.98 40 28 48 35 1.2 34 0.507 482.4 0.110 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S17 37.5 59 ML 125 4725 4725 3174 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 38 1.30 1.00 7 13.3 0.99 74 48 78 35 1.2 57 2.812 527.5 0.108 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S19 42.5 45 ML 125 5350 5275 3487 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 14.8 0.99 57 35 35 1.2 42 0.881 565.1 0.105 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S21 47.5 100 SM 130 6000 5613 3825 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 60 1.30 1.00 7 16.3 1.00 126 75 12 1.1 80 15.035 598.4 0.102 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S23 52.5 150 SC 130 6650 5951 4163 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 87 1.30 1.00 7 17.8 1.00 190 110 12 1.1 116 224.699 627.6 0.098 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 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: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
NMDE_C
Station: 3080+63
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Waterside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
Conclusions and Comments
4/25/2014
Drilled September 2010
WRARFC_045B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3080+63_NEMDC East - WRARFC_045B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

45.1 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -0.8 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 45.9 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 19.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 25.3 Energy Ratio = 88 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 0.5 21 SC 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 2.0 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 3.515 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 3 21 SC 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 34 1.30 1.00 7 2.7 0.75 27 43 12 1.1 45 2.137 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 5.5 28 SC 130 700 700 700 1.6 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 45 1.30 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 35 57 39 35 1.2 66 8.833 122.1 0.113 3.00 No No No SC 27 13 14 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 8 21 SC 125 1013 1013 1013 1.4 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 28 40 32 32 1.2 46 1.768 174.9 0.112 3.00 No No No SC 35 25 17 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 10.5 11 SC 125 1325 1325 1325 1.2 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 14 1.22 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 16 19 12 1.1 21 0.240 226.0 0.111 2.16 No No Yes SC - Yes No 2.16 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 13 11 SC 125 1638 1638 1638 1.1 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 12 1.20 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 16 18 12 1.1 19 0.205 260.2 0.103 1.98 No No Yes SC - Yes No 1.98 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 15.5 8 SC 125 1950 1950 1950 1.0 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 8 1.14 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 12 12 42 35 1.3 16 0.149 292.6 0.098 1.53 No No Yes SC - No No 1.53 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 18 10 CL 125 2263 2263 2263 0.9 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 9 1.16 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 16 15 62 35 1.3 18 0.175 317.8 0.091 1.92 No No Yes CL 39 27 17 No No No 1.92 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 9 20.5 13 CL 125 2575 2575 2575 0.9 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 11 1.20 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 21 18 65 35 1.2 22 0.228 341.8 0.086 2.64 No No Yes CL 15 - No No 2.64 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 25.5 15 SC 125 3200 3200 3184 0.8 1.5 H 8 1.15 S 12 1.22 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 24 19 12 1.1 21 0.189 379.8 0.078 2.44 No Yes Yes SC - Yes No 2.44 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 13 30.5 13 SC 125 3825 3825 3497 0.7 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 9 1.15 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 19 13 46 35 1.3 17 0.140 417.3 0.078 1.81 No Yes Yes SC 45 19 36 No No No 1.81 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. FC>20%. 15 35.5 32 SC 130 4475 4475 3835 0.7 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 46 31 12 1.1 33 0.451 450.2 0.076 3.00 No Yes No SC - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 17 40.5 34 ML 125 5100 5100 4148 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 49 31 69 35 1.2 37 0.597 483.0 0.076 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 19 45.5 38 SM 130 5750 5750 4486 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 55 33 12 1.1 35 0.496 513.7 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 21 50.5 48 ML 125 6375 6088 4799 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 28 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 70 40 35 1.2 48 1.266 543.0 0.074 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 23 55.5 32 ML 125 7000 6401 5112 0.6 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 47 26 90 35 1.2 32 0.374 571.1 0.073 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 25 60.5 30 ML 125 7625 6714 5425 0.5 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 16 1.28 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 44 24 35 1.2 29 0.305 597.7 0.072 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 27 65.5 39 ML 125 8250 7027 5738 0.5 1.5 M 4 1.00 S 21 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 57 30 68 35 1.2 37 0.524 622.4 0.070 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 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: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
NMDE_D2
Station: 3167+60
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
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
4/25/2014
Drilled November 2007
WRARFC_031B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/3167+60_NEMDC East - WRARFC_031B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

23.8 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -20.1 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 43.9 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 8.2 Energy Ratio = 74 Mw = 6.5 Location = Landside Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) S1 0.5 26 CL 125 63 63 63 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 MCAL 42 1.30 0.80 7 2.0 0.75 20 32 35 1.2 38 2.040 10.3 0.107 3.00 No No No CL 26 13 11 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S2 2 36 CL 125 250 250 250 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 2.4 0.75 34 55 35 1.2 64 10.085 40.6 0.106 3.00 No No No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S3 3.5 32 CL 125 438 438 438 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 51 1.30 1.00 7 2.9 0.75 30 49 58 35 1.2 57 5.123 70.2 0.104 3.00 No No No CL 10 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S4 5.5 14 SM 125 688 688 688 1.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 22 1.26 1.00 7 3.5 0.75 13 21 14 14 1.1 23 0.349 108.7 0.103 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S6 10.5 12 CL 125 1313 1313 1170 1.2 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 15 1.18 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 13 16 55 35 1.3 20 0.232 199.7 0.111 2.09 No Yes Yes CL 32 21 21 No No No 2.09 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S8 15.5 19 SM 125 1938 1938 1483 1.0 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 19 1.26 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 22 22 46 35 1.2 27 0.372 283.1 0.124 3.00 No Yes No SM 12 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S10 20.5 47 CL 125 2563 2563 1796 0.9 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 42 1.30 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 56 50 73 35 1.2 58 3.702 358.3 0.130 3.00 No Yes No CL 35 15 30 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction.

S12 25.5 150 SM 130 3213 3213 2134 0.8 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 118 1.30 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 183 145 40 35 1.2 167 ###### 417.6 0.127 3.00 No Yes No SM 17 - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S14 30.5 140 ML 125 3838 3838 2447 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 101 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 174 125 56 35 1.2 145 ###### 465.9 0.124 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S16 35.5 60 ML 125 4463 4463 2760 0.7 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 40 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 75 50 85 35 1.2 59 3.502 503.1 0.118 3.00 No Yes No ML 30 3 30 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S18 40.5 100 ML 125 5088 5088 3073 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 63 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 126 79 35 1.2 92 39.476 530.5 0.112 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S20 45.5 150 ML 125 5713 5613 3386 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 90 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 190 113 35 1.2 131 716.393 562.0 0.108 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S22 50.5 89 ML 125 6338 5926 3699 0.6 1.2 M 5.5 1.03 S 52 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 113 65 35 1.2 76 11.813 591.1 0.104 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Below liquefaction assessment zone (>50' below LS toe).

Conclusions and Comments
4/25/2014
Drilled September 2010
WRARFC_047B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
Boring Location
(Crest/Landside/Waterside, and
distance from Crest/Landside
toe/Waterside toe)
Lab Test Results for Fine-Grained Soils
Landside Toe
Boring ID: Likely Liquefiable
NEMDC East
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
ACS_A
Station: 4031+79
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/4031+79_NEMDC East - WRARFC_047B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

43.1 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -31.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 74.1 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 21.1 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 22.0 Energy Ratio = 77 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) S1 3 22 SC 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 35 1.30 0.80 7 2.7 0.75 19 31 28 28 1.2 36 1.081 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No SC 10 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S3 8 5 SC 115 950 950 950 1.5 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 7 1.10 0.80 7 4.3 0.80 5 7 12 1.1 8 0.100 174.9 0.120 0.84 Yes No Yes SC - Yes No 0.84 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S5 13 21 SM 125 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 24 1.30 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 27 31 12 1.1 33 0.560 260.2 0.107 3.00 No No No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S6 15.5 22 SM 125 1888 1888 1888 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 23 1.30 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 29 30 15 15 1.1 33 0.536 292.6 0.101 3.00 No No No SM 21 2 5 Judgment Needed Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S8 20.5 12 SM 125 2513 2513 2513 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 11 1.14 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 14 13 12 1.1 14 0.123 341.8 0.088 1.39 No No Yes SM - Yes No 1.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface.

S10 25.5 16 SP 125 3138 3138 2917 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.18 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 20 16 2 0 1.0 16 0.133 379.8 0.085 1.57 No Yes Yes SP - Yes No 1.57 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S12 30.5 60 SM 130 3788 3788 3255 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 44 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 75 55 45 35 1.2 64 4.861 417.3 0.083 3.00 No Yes No SM 18 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S14 35.5 45 ML 125 4413 4413 3568 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 30 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 57 38 35 1.2 45 1.170 450.2 0.082 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S16 40.5 51 SP-SM 130 5063 5063 3906 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 32 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 65 41 8 8 1.0 42 0.913 483.0 0.080 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25.

S18 45.5 44 MH 125 5688 5688 4219 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 56 33 35 1.2 40 0.726 513.7 0.079 3.00 No Yes No MH 53 21 45 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. Bottom of boring Conclusions and Comments
4/25/2014
Drilled June 2007
WRARFC_004B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
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
NEMDC East
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
ACS_B
Station: 4090+46
DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
Results of Analysis
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/4090+46_NEMDC East - WRARFC_004B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

44.5 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -20.1 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 64.6 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 15.6 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 28.9 Energy Ratio = 77 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3 22 CL 125 375 375 375 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 35 1.30 0.80 7 2.7 0.75 19 31 35 1.2 37 1.184 67.6 0.117 3.00 No No No CL 15 - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 2 5.5 9 CL 120 675 675 675 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 14 1.18 0.80 7 3.5 0.75 8 13 35 1.3 16 0.208 122.1 0.118 1.77 No No Yes CL 27 14 15 No No No 1.77 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 6 CL 120 975 975 975 1.4 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 9 1.11 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 7 10 35 1.3 13 0.150 174.9 0.117 1.29 No No Yes CL - No No 1.29 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 3 CL 115 1263 1263 1263 1.3 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 4 1.10 1.00 7 5.0 0.84 4 5 35 1.5 7 0.088 226.0 0.116 0.76 Yes No Yes CL - No No 0.76 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 8 CL 125 1575 1575 1575 1.1 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 9 1.13 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 10 12 35 1.3 15 0.149 260.2 0.107 1.39 No No Yes CL - No No 1.39 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 7 18 7 SC 115 2150 2150 2150 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 7.3 0.92 10 9 48 35 1.3 12 0.111 317.8 0.096 1.16 Yes No Yes SC 26 12 15 No No No 1.16 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 15 CL 125 2463 2463 2463 0.9 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 14 1.21 0.80 7 8.1 0.94 17 15 57 35 1.3 19 0.176 341.8 0.090 1.95 No No Yes CL 22 - No No 1.95 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 10 25.5 10 SP 125 3088 3088 3088 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 8 1.11 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 12 10 5 5 1.0 10 0.088 379.8 0.080 1.10 Yes No Yes SP - Yes No 1.10 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 11 30.5 59 ML 125 3713 3713 3615 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 43 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 74 54 51 35 1.2 64 4.574 417.3 0.075 3.00 No Yes No ML 47 19 28 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction, LL≥35,PI≥10. 12 35.5 30 SP-SM 130 4363 4363 3953 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 20 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 38 26 12 12 1.1 28 0.296 450.2 0.074 3.00 No Yes No SP-SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 14 40.5 39 SM 130 5013 5013 4291 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 25 1.30 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 50 31 28 28 1.2 36 0.557 483.0 0.073 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 16 45.5 132 SM 130 5663 5663 4629 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 78 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 169 100 16 16 1.1 107 113.501 513.7 0.072 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 18 50.5 100 ML 125 6288 6288 4942 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 56 1.30 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 128 72 73 35 1.2 84 19.297 543.0 0.071 3.00 No Yes No ML 24 Yes Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 20 55.5 100 SM 130 6938 6938 5280 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 54 1.30 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 128 69 12 1.1 73 8.095 571.1 0.070 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 21 60.5 100 SM 130 7588 7588 5618 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 51 1.30 1.00 7 20.3 1.00 128 66 12 1.1 70 6.303 597.7 0.069 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 23 65.5 100 SM 130 8238 8181 5956 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 49 1.30 1.00 7 21.8 1.00 128 63 45 35 1.2 74 8.671 622.4 0.068 3.00 No Yes No SM - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 25 70.5 120 ML 125 8863 8494 6269 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 58 1.30 1.00 7 23.3 1.00 154 75 35 1.2 87 22.461 647.0 0.067 3.00 No Yes No ML - Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 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: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Bottom of channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
ACN_A2
Station: 5048+89
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
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
4/25/2014
Drilled May 2007
WRARFC_003B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/5048+89_NEMDC East - WRARFC_003B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
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)=NfieldCE).

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:

47.0 Note: Intermittently (I) or Frequently (F) Loaded Levee = I Earthquake Information:

Groundwater Elev. During Drilling (ft.) = -13.0 Note: Groundwater Depth Below GS During Drilling (ft.) = 60.0 Hammer Type = Automatic Return Period (years) = 200 PHA (g) = 0.14 Analyzed Groundwater Elevation (ft.)= 26.9 Note: Analyzed Groundwater Depth Below GS (ft.) = 20.1 Energy Ratio = 77 Mw = 6.5 Location = Crest Enter: Crest, Landside, or Waterside Sample ID Depth to Sample (ft.) Nfield USCS Classification Unit Weight (pcf) Total Overburden Pressure, sv (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Drilling, sv' (psf) Effective Overburden Pressure During Earthquake, sv' (psf) Overburden Correction Factor, CN Correction for Hammer Energy Efficiency, CE Drilling Method Borehole Diameter (inches) Correction for Borehole Diameter, CB Sampler Code (S, SW, SCAL, MCAL) N1 for Sampler Correction Only (for SW sampler) Sampler Correction, Cs (for SW Sampler only) Sampler Correction for Analysis, Cs Stick Up (Protrusion) Rod Length Above Ground (feet) Rod Length (m) Rod Length Correction Factor, CR N60 N1,60 Fines Content (%) Fines Content for Analysis (%) Correction Factor for Fine Content, Cfines N1,60,CS Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR τmax (psf) Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR Factor of Safety, FSL FSL < 1.25 (Yes/No) Below Analyzed Ground water Level (Yes/No) N1,60,CS<23 (Yes/No) USCS Classification Liquid 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 Liquefiable for FSL≤1; Less Likely Liquefiable for 1.0<FSL<1.25; Non-Liquefiable for FSL≥1.25) 1 3 10 SC 115 345 345 345 1.6 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 16 1.21 0.80 7 2.7 0.75 9 14 47 35 1.3 18 0.283 67.6 0.127 2.22 No No Yes SC 33 20 15 No No No 2.22 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 3 8 5 CL 120 945 945 945 1.5 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 7 1.10 1.00 7 4.3 0.80 6 9 55 35 1.3 11 0.132 174.9 0.120 1.10 Yes No Yes CL 36 26 15 No No No 1.10 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 4 10.5 9 SC 115 1233 1233 1233 1.3 1.3 H 10 1.15 MCAL 11 1.16 0.80 7 5.0 0.84 9 11 40 35 1.3 15 0.156 226.0 0.119 1.31 No No Yes SC - No No 1.31 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 5 13 31 SC 130 1558 1558 1558 1.1 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 35 1.30 1.00 7 5.8 0.87 40 45 12 1.1 48 1.800 260.2 0.109 3.00 No No No SC - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 6 15.5 14 MH 125 1870 1870 1870 1.0 1.3 H 10 1.15 S 14 1.22 1.00 7 6.6 0.90 19 19 57 35 1.2 24 0.274 292.6 0.102 2.69 No No No MH 55 23 48 No No No 2.69 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Sample is above the groundwater surface. 8 20.5 35 CL 125 2495 2495 2470 0.9 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 31 1.30 1.00 7 8.1 0.94 42 38 61 35 1.2 45 1.236 341.8 0.090 3.00 No Yes No CL 37 21 22 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 10 25.5 34 CL 125 3120 3120 2783 0.8 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 27 1.30 1.00 7 9.6 0.96 42 34 35 1.2 40 0.839 379.8 0.089 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 12 30.5 35 CL 125 3745 3745 3096 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 26 1.30 1.00 7 11.1 0.98 44 32 35 1.2 38 0.712 417.3 0.088 3.00 No Yes No CL - No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 14 35.5 82 ML 125 4370 4370 3409 0.7 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 55 1.30 1.00 7 12.6 0.99 104 70 75 35 1.2 82 18.108 450.2 0.086 3.00 No Yes No ML 46 17 29 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. LL>35, PI>10. 16 40.5 29 ML 125 4995 4995 3722 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 18 1.28 1.00 7 14.2 0.99 37 23 62 35 1.2 28 0.321 483.0 0.084 3.00 No Yes No ML 32 7 30 Yes Yes No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. 18 45.5 37 CL 125 5620 5620 4035 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 22 1.30 1.00 7 15.7 0.99 47 28 64 35 1.2 34 0.474 513.7 0.083 3.00 No Yes No CL 36 14 26 No No No 3.00 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. 20 50.5 23 ML 125 6245 6245 4348 0.6 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 17.2 1.00 29 17 52 35 1.2 21 0.173 543.0 0.081 2.13 No Yes Yes ML 35 8 26 No No No 2.13 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. Not susceptible to liquefaction. LL>35. 22 55.5 24 SM 130 6895 6895 4686 0.5 1.3 M 4 1.00 S 13 1.19 1.00 7 18.7 1.00 31 17 45 35 1.2 21 0.168 571.1 0.079 2.12 No Yes Yes SM 28 Yes Yes Yes No 2.12 Non-Liquefiable Non-Liquefiable. FSL≥1.25. Bottom of boring.

DWR Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program (ULE)
Reach ID:

PROJECT NAME:

Table 1: Liquefaction-Triggering Analysis for ULE
Task Area: NEMDC East
LEVEE SEGMENT:

Data Input By Analyst
NEMDC East Results of Analysis
DWR Urban Levee Evaluations Program
K. Atyam
L. Hong
Bottom of Channel
Ground Elevation (ft.)=
DCS_A2
Station: 6049+18
PROJECT NUMBER: 17326653
Regional Groundwater Map
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
4/25/2014
Drilled June 2007
WRARFC_008B
Liquefaction Assessment
Calculated Values
Non-Liquefiable
Less Likely Liquefiable
5/5/2014
https://kleinfelder1-my.sharepoint.com/personal/aklomp_kleinfelder_com/Documents/Desktop/SAC24R172217 - NASL SPSR/App F - Original Liquefaction Spreadsheets/NMDE_Liquefaction Spreadsheets/6049+18_NEMDC East - WRARFC_008B_V1.3SPT Based Liquefaction 9/10/20
Appendix F.

American River North ULDC
Due Diligence, Geotech - MBK
Engineers
455 University Ave. Suite 100  Sacramento, California 95825  Phone: (916) 456-4400  Fax: (916) 456-0253  Website: www.mbkengineers.com 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.

September 11, 2024
Mr. Dan Tibbitts, P.E.

Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
1325 J Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Geotechnical Due Diligence Report – Urban Levee Design Criteria American River North Basin
American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50
SAFCA FEMA and ULDC Evaluation
Sacramento County, CA
Dear Mr. Tibbitts:

This report has been prepared to summarize the geotechnical evaluation of the American River North Levee Stations 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Stations 2986+50 to 3001+50. These levee segments correspond to segments previously designed and constructed by USACE, refer to Figure 1. MBK has relied upon prior documentation provided and/or collected by USACE and others. This evaluation is being performed to support SAFCA and the design team to provide an engineering finding that the American River North (ARN) Basin meets the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC) (DWR, 2012).

The evaluation discussed herein applies to the geotechnical criteria outlined in the ULDC documentation specifically for items 7.3 Soil Sampling, Testing, and Logging, 7.4 Slope Stability for Intermittently Loaded Levees, 7.5 Underseepage for Intermittently Loaded Levees,

7.8 Levee Geometry, 7.9 Interfaces and Transitions, and 7.14 Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures. MBK has summarized the work that has been performed to date and provided an opinion on whether the subject levee segments meet these geotechnical criteria. It should be noted that the other ULDC criteria are being evaluated by others and are summarized and provided in separate documentation.
2 BACKGROUND
Over the last 25 years major construction efforts have been completed to build and improve the Federal project levees, as authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1992, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2014, and 2016. The majority of construction has been completed through design contracts led either by USACE or SAFCA while there are ongoing efforts that are necessary to complete the remaining improvements in reducing flood risk in Sacramento. The improvements have been or shall be completed to address underseepage, slope stability, freeboard, erosion, and other deficiencies to meet both FEMA and ULDC criteria. At the date of publication of this letter, erosion repair on the American River is being performed and is anticipated be complete in 2025, and a waterside fill replacement project was recently completed along Arcade Creek in June 2024.

ULDC certification of data for the levee basins require engineering evaluation and preparation of due diligence documentation to demonstrate that all applicable Federal and State criteria are met for the levee systems within SAFCA’s jurisdiction. The certification for ULDC is for the 200- year design water surface elevation (DWSE). This certification effort includes the need to meet various design criteria by demonstration of applicable evaluation, design, and construction. The design criteria are shown in Table 1 and a summary of additional documentation needed to support the evaluation is shown in Table 2.

Table 1. ULDC Certification Criteria

7.1 Design Water Surface 7.11 Right of Way

7.2 Minimum Top of Levee 7.12 Encroachments

7.3 Soil Sampling, Testing, Logging 7.13 Penetrations

7.4 Slope Stability 7.14 Floodwalls, Retaining Wall, and Closure Structures

7.5 Seepage 7.15 Animal Burrows

7.6 Levee Loading 7.16 Levee Vegetation

7.7 Seismic Vulnerability 7.17 Wind Setup and Wave Runup

7.8 Levee Geometry 7.18 Security

7.9 Interfaces and Transitions 7.19 Sea Level Rise

7.10 Erosion 7.20 Emergency Actions and Flood Safety Plans *Note: In Table 1, bold text indicates scope performed by MBK Engineers. Text in italics indicates the scope was performed by MBK Engineers for USACE designed levee segments. Non-bold and non-italic text indicate the scope was performed by others.

3 Table 2. Additional Documentation to Support ULDC Certification As-built/Record Drawings
Construction Documentation Report
Between 1997 and 2014 USACE and their consulting teams have performed a detailed review of existing design and construction documentation for the entire lengths of the American River north and south levees. This review included, where available, geotechnical explorations, laboratory testing, seepage and slope stability analysis results, design documentation and evaluation, construction field observations and notations, QA/QC results, construction as-builts or record drawings, and construction documentation reports. This review process was iterative as the WRDA96 and WRDA99 construction contracts were awarded and completed. Reviews were performed by USACE staff and consultants most knowledgeable of the design and construction projects including field engineers, designers, project managers, and technical reviewers. The purpose of these reviews was to move the complete project forward, which was to mitigate the entire length of the American River levees. The original cutoff wall design left windows or gaps in the wall at critical structures or features such as road bridges, pipes, overhead utilities that conventional equipment could not complete. These windows were methodically repaired or evaluated and determined to not require future work. Around 2012 to 2014, a summary review was performed by USACE to gather all provided design and construction documentation for the work performed along the American River levees. A letter from USACE was written in 2014 which provides a Statement of Performance of the work completed along the American River north and south levees to pass the 115,000 cfs and 160,000 cfs flows in the American River (USACE, 2014). This letter along with a table summarizing the supporting documentation which was made public and accompanied the letter are included in Appendices A and B, respectively.

The 115,000 cfs is applicable to the 200-year DWSE and the 160,000 cfs flow is applicable to the 325-year event. This 2014 USACE letter is the basis or foundation to the conclusions provided in this due diligence report. However, additional review by USACE staff was performed between 2015 and 2019 to capture subsequent evaluations and construction completed after publishing the 2014 letter. A revised letter was never formalized, but three areas were identified as needing additional evaluation. These areas are:
1) Left Bank (RM 2.7) Bell Marine floodwall provides an area of high ground that is relied upon to meet USACE criteria and should be protected from future removal. SAFCA has acquired approximately 2/3 of this land in an easement from the City of Sacramento and the City of Sacramento has flagged the remaining parcel and places restrictions on this property for future grading. This is not applicable to this ULDC report. 2) Left Bank (RM 3.0) Existing high ground around the UPRR is relied upon to meet USACE criteria and should be protected from future removal. This area has been evaluated by USACE and the concern is no longer valid. This is not applicable to this ULDC report.
3) Right Bank (Station 171+50 to 173+00) at Del Paso Boulevard a landside slope flattening is needed to meet USACE criteria. However, additional evaluation was performed to confirm this work is only needed for the 160,000 cfs flow, which is higher than the 200- year DWSE for this ULDC report.
4 APPROACH
Based on the use of the Statement of Performance provided by USACE (USACE, 2014), MBK has taken the following steps to reach and provide conclusions related to the geotechnical aspects of the subject levee reaches:

Step 1: Review the 2014 USACE Statement of Performance and provided documentation.

Step 2: Collect and review subsequent documentation to the 2014 USACE letter.

Step 3: Confirm provided documentation in Steps 1 and 2 covers all reaches covered in this letter.

Step 4: Provide conclusions related to geotechnical ULDC certification items.

This approach is notably different from other due diligence reporting for the following reasons:
- The design engineer, USACE, is not the certifying engineer - MBK Engineers is relying on statement from USACE for certification - Analysis results are not available for all reaches and/or construction contracts - All desirable documentation is not available for all reaches and/or construction contracts

CRITERIA
The geotechnical evaluation criteria for ULDC criteria follows guidance included in these references:
• USACE EM 1110-2-1913 “Design and Construction of Levees,” dated 30 April 2000 • USACE ETL 1110-2-569 “Design Guidance for Levee Underseepage,” dated 1 May 2005 (this has been withdrawn, but was utilized during prior design and evaluation tasks) • USACE SOP SPK EDG-03 “Standard Operating Procedure 3, Geotechnical Levee Practice,” dated May 2022
• USACE Sacramento District “Geotechnical Levee Practice,” dated April 11, 2008 • Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC), State of California Department of Water Resources, dated May 2012

PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION
A list of reviewed documentation including reports, as-builts, and additional supporting data provided by USACE is included in Appendix B. MBK has reviewed these documents in relation to work performed along the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50.
5 WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS AND DATUM
Water surface elevations were provided by MBK (MBK, 2024a) to utilize as part of this evaluation. This data is included in Appendix C.

Elevations reference in this document and the evaluation of data are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

In general, the DWSE associated with a flow 115,000 cfs is summarized in Table 3 and compared to the current DWSE. All elevations are provided in NAVD88.

Table 3. Comparison of Water Surface Elevations
Approximate Station Previous DWSE* Current DWSE
3085+00 41.57 37.87
3100+00 42.1 40.99
3195+00 44.7 41.29
3230+00 44.75 42.49
3295+00 51.77 46.31
3375+00 56.83 48.54
Note: * Previous DWSE tied to 160,000 cfs + 1.5 feet in American River. Values were provided in NGVD29 and converted to NAVD88 by adding 2.5 feet.

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
The American River north levee was enlarged under a documented design and construction project in 1955. Rehabilitation was performed in 1962 with various bank protection projects completed in 1967 and 1968. Major levee reconstruction was performed between 1999 to 2023 to install slurry cutoff walls and erosion protection.

The NEMDC east levee was originally constructed or enlarged under a documented design and construction project in 1955. Rehabilitation was performed in 1962 with major modifications constructed in 1996. Levee reconstruction was performed between 2012 and 2018 including seepage cutoff walls in the downstream reaches.

The Arcade Creek south levee was originally constructed or enlarged under a documented design and construction project in 1955. Rehabilitation was performed in 1962 with major construction performed in 1996 to raise the levee and flatten slopes and again in 2018 to add a seepage cutoff wall.
6 EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS
MBK’s evaluation included review of existing design and construction documentation, review of prior certification statements by USACE and others, and comparison of this data to the referenced ULDC criteria. These evaluations also compared the water surface elevation (WSE) used in the original design to the current design water surface elevation (DWSE). Additional evaluation was made to compare as-built geometry to current survey cross section and landside levee toe data. The following sections provide a description of each ULDC criteria, and the supporting documentation used to provide a conclusion. The previously evaluated WSEs range from 1 to 6 feet higher than the current 200-year WSE, therefore, additional computations or correlations of results to higher WSEs were not needed.

ULDC 7.3 Soil Sampling, Testing, and Logging
This section describes the levee documentation and general requirements for ULDC 7.3 Soil Sampling, Testing, and Logging.
“Soil sampling, testing, and logging should follow standard procedures described in current guidance documents from USACE; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; DWR; and others – such as the USACE Sacramento District’s Geotechnical Levee Practice Standard Operating Procedures and DWR’s Division of Flood Management Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, Description and Presentation Manual (2009).”
A specific accounting of all explorations along the subject levee reaches was not performed, however, it is known that waterside and landside explorations at a distance from the levee toe were generally not performed and therefore an exception is needed for this ULDC topic.

The justification for this exception of a lack offset explorations is the availability of additional field observations, mapping, and documentation to understand the construction interaction with the subsurface stratigraphy. MBK performed a review of the as-built documentation and construction records which indicate that sufficient documentation exists to meet this requirement through exception. This documentation includes:
- Full time trench logging by a USACE representative for the USACE contracted slurry cutoff and jet grout walls with internal QC review
- Contractor explorations needed for mix design prior to construction along each of the cutoff wall and jet grout reaches
- Prior geotechnical explorations performed by USACE and other consultants - Geomorphology and geologic map interpretations
- As-built documentation for the original levees and improvements - QC/QA laboratory testing results
Therefore, MBK concludes the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50 meet the requirements for ULDC 7.3 Soil Sampling, Testing, and Logging by exception.
7 ULDC 7.4 Slope Stability for Intermittently Loaded Levees This section describes the levee documentation and general requirements for ULDC 7.4 Slope Stability for Intermittently Loaded Levees. An intermittently loaded levee is defined as “a levee that does not experience a water surface elevation of one foot or higher above the elevation of the levee toe at least once a day for more than 36 days per year on average.” “Landside slope stability analyses are to use appropriate phreatic surfaces based on the DWSE and HTOL (if the HTOL is more than 0.5 foot above the DWSE – otherwise a separate slope stability analysis with the HTOL is not required). A minimum factor of safety of 1.4 is required for failure surfaces based on the DWSE that intersect the levee crown and are greater than a few feet deep in the levee slope. A minimum factor of safety of 1.2 is required for failure surfaces based on the HTOL that intersect the levee crown and are greater than a few feet deep in the levee slope, as discussed later.

If the phreatic surface corresponding to the DWSE or HTOL emerges on a landside levee slope consisting of erodible soils, then remediation will be required to prevent unraveling and progressive slope failure that may lead to a levee breach (see discussion of extremely wide levees in Section 7.8, if applicable).

A rapid lowering of water level from a sustained high water condition causes rapid drawdown loading of a levee’s waterside slope. This condition may occur due to either a decrease in upstream reservoir releases, decreases in surface drainage inflow, or as a result of a levee or floodwall breach in an adjacent/upstream levee reach. The rapid drawdown shall be considered from the DWSE. The amount of drawdown should be established based on site-specific data and/or hydrologic and hydraulics studies, using sound engineering judgment. As per USACE guidance, a factor of safety for stability of

1.0 to 1.2 is required, depending on the extent to which the DWSE may have saturated the waterside levee slope.”
The documentation listed in Appendix B was reviewed and the analysis results were summarized in a table provided in Appendix D. These results provide the condition evaluated, water surface designation, and the calculated stability factor of safety. The analyses were not reviewed in detail and a review was not performed to confirm that every reach was evaluated due to the Statement of Performance provided by USACE. However, the results cover the levee segments reviewed by MBK, American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50, and the documentation discusses the engineering evaluations performed for these segments with respect to meeting USACE criteria. It should be noted that Slope Stability loading condition Case IV was not evaluated per USACE EM 1110-2-1913, “Earthquake loadings are not normally considered in analyzing the stability of levees because of the low probability of earthquake coinciding with periods of high water.” Kleinfelder performed a seismic vulnerability assessment as part of the ULDC evaluation and findings from this effort led to preparation of a Post Earthquake Remediation Plan which is considered sufficient to meet the USACE requirements. This plan is an appendix to the ARFCD Flood Safety Plan. 8 Based on the review of documentation described above, review of summarized analysis results, and Statement of Performance provided by USACE, MBK concludes the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50 were designed following ULDC and USACE criteria. Additionally, the analysis results indicate the construction configuration or existing levee meets the requirements for ULDC 7.4 Slope Stability for Intermittently Loaded Levees.

ULDC 7.5 Underseepage for Intermittently Loaded Levees
This section describes the levee documentation and general requirements for ULDC 7.5 Underseepage for Intermittently Loaded Levees. An intermittently loaded levee is defined as “a levee that does not experience a water surface elevation of one foot or higher above the elevation of the levee toe at least once a day for more than 36 days per year on average.” “Levee underseepage criteria for intermittently loaded levees are as follows:
• The underseepage exit gradient for levees is required to be 0.5 or less at the landside levee toe using a steady-state seepage analysis for a water surface set at the DWSE.

For levees with a landside blanket layer with a saturated unit weight less than 112 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), a minimum factor of safety for underseepage of 1.6 is required at the landside levee toe.
• The underseepage exit gradient is required to be 0.8 or less at the toe of a seepage berm less than 300 feet wide using steady-state seepage analysis for a water surface set at the DWSE. If the saturated unit weight of the blanket layer is less than 112 pcf, a minimum factor of safety for underseepage of 1.0 is required at the toe of the seepage berm.”
The documentation listed in Appendix B was reviewed and the analysis results were summarized in a table provided in Appendix D. These results provide the condition evaluated, water surface designation, and the calculated seepage gradients. The analyses were not reviewed in detail and a review was not performed to confirm that every reach was evaluated, due to the Statement of Performance provided by USACE. However, the results cover the levee segments reviewed by MBK and the documentation discusses the engineering evaluations performed for all segments.

A review of existing swimming pools was conducted for the American River north levee. There are over 115 pools located within 50 feet of the landside levee toe, with some as close as 15 to 20 feet. In 2013, the City of Sacramento adopted a grading ordinance (Ordinance 2013-0020 Section 1; Ordinance 2013-0007 Section 1) outlined in Title 17, Division II, Article III (17.200.340 F zone - Setbacks) that restricts any grading activity within 50 feet of the levee.

Sacramento County has adopted a similar ordinance found in Sacramento County Zoning Code Section 4.7.3 Development Standards, specifically for Lots Protected by Levees (Section

4.7.3.A) which restricts construction of structures to no closer than 25 feet from the landside levee toe. However, based upon a review of historic photographs, these pools were constructed prior to these ordinances.
9 The geotechnical design reports associated with the original WRDA 99 Common Features project listed as Reports 1, 3, and 4 in Appendix B were reviewed. These reports discussed evaluating topographical conditions including ditches, ponds, and other features that may affect underseepage gradient calculations. The provided calculations indicate the seepage gradients dropped considerably when modeled with a deep cutoff wall that fully penetrates the underlying permeable sand, gravel, and cobble layer. This fully penetrating cutoff wall was constructed along a majority of the American River north levee, including the locations where swimming pools are present. There are no recorded past performance issues with pools in this levee segment. It is also worth noting the previous design and analyses were performed using a much higher WSE than the 200-year DWSE. Therefore, due to the presence of this cutoff wall, the depth, and continuous length designed for a higher WSE, and lack of past performance issues, it is MBK’s conclusion that the wall is sufficient to mitigate the presence of swimming pools located near the landside levee toe for the 200-year DWSE. In general, it is important for all swimming pools to remain full of water during the winter and spring to reduce the potential for uplift and cracking of the pool bottom as groundwater conditions may fluctuate.

Based on the review of documentation described above, review of summarized analysis results, and Statement of Performance provided by USACE, MBK concludes the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50 were designed following ULDC and USACE criteria. Additionally, the analysis results indicate the construction configuration or existing levee meets the requirements for ULDC 7.5 Underseepage for Intermittently Loaded Levees.

ULDC 7.8 Levee Geometry
This section describes the levee documentation and general requirements for ULDC 7.8 Levee Geometry.
“Minimum levee geometry criteria have previously been specified by various USACE and State guidance documents. The guidance for various minimum levee geometry and their references are as follows in Table 7-1.
10 Table 7-1. Summary of Existing Levee Geometry Guidance For new levees, or levees with extensive reconstruction, situated along major waterways, a minimum 20-foot-wide crown width and 3h:1v waterside and landside slopes (4h:1v waterside slope for bypass levees) is required.”
As outlined in the 1953 MOU, the American River North Levee is considered a major stream levee and the NEMDC east levee is considered a minor stream levee.

Psomas obtained recent ground survey data to compare existing geometry to criteria provided in Table 7-1, above. Cross sections are included in Appendix E (Psomas, 2024).

These cross sections confirm the prior as-built cross sections still exist which indicate the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50 meet current geometry criteria. Therefore, MBK concludes these levee reaches meet requirements for ULDC 7.8 Levee Geometry.

ULDC 7.9 Interfaces and Transitions
This section describes the levee documentation and general requirements for ULDC 7.9 Interfaces and Transitions.
“The civil engineer must consider, evaluate, and explicitly design for interfaces and transitions between different types of levee sections and features along a levee system.

Appropriate overlaps, transitions, and connections between features must be evaluated and designed to ensure that the levee system functions holistically, such that no levee reach is more susceptible to problems than an adjacent reach due to gaps in features, loading/demand concentrations, or other three-dimensional effects. Such interfaces, 11 transitions, and connections commonly occur at the ends of seepage berms, seepage cutoff walls, revetments, and floodwalls.”
There are five transition (four major transitions and one general transition) statements for the reaches MBK is documenting. These include:
1) NEMDC Extension transition upstream on NEMDC to previous work constructed under ARCF WRDA99 located along the NEMDC East Levee Station 3001+50 which included waterside slope flattening and crest widening. The NEMDC Extension reach included construction of a seepage cutoff wall that extended approximately 50 feet into an over widened levee section containing a waterside ramp.
2) NEMDC Extension transition downstream on NEMDC to the NEMDC North project constructed under ARCF WRDA99 located along the NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 which included extending the cutoff wall to overlap the NEMDC North cutoff wall approximately 50 feet.
3) NEMDC South project constructed under ARCF WRDA99 at the tie in with the American River north levee at Station 3051+00 transitioned upstream on the American River north levee by extending the cutoff wall to overlap the existing American River north levee cutoff wall approximately 100 feet.
4) American River north levee transitions to high ground near Station 3548+50 at the Arden Way entrance to the American River Parkway. Surrounding high ground in this area is approximately a minimum of 6 feet above the design water surface elevation. 5) American River north levee includes dozens of construction features including slope flattening, crest widening and raising, long cutoff wall reaches, and short jet grout reaches to close windows. The transitions and overlaps between these reaches were evaluated by USACE and accounted for during construction activities.

These overlaps and transitions are considered appropriate as discussed above for the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50. Additionally, the USACE 2014 letter provides a Statement of Performance which is applicable to interfaces and transitions, and therefore, MBK concludes these levee reaches meet requirements for ULDC 7.9 Interfaces and Transitions.

ULDC 7.14 Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures This section describes the levee documentation and general requirements for ULDC 7.14 Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures.
“Current USACE design guidance for special features such as floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures is to be followed. This information is included in EM 1110- 2-1913, EM 1110-2-2502, EC 1110-2-6067, and ETL 1110-2-571. Because design considerations for floodwalls and closure structures are still evolving since the 2005 New Orleans flood, caution should be used when designing and assessing these structures. All global slope stability and embankment through-seepage and underseepage safety criteria 12 requirements are applicable for floodwalls, retaining walls, and closure structures on levees.

For closure structures, the civil engineer needs to provide the following information:
maintaining entity, levee mile, Global Positioning System coordinates, Board permit number (if applicable), structure details, length of time to close structure, location and type of materials for closure, structure dimensions, age, and performance history.

Closure structures need to be tested at least once a year before the flood season so that crews responsible for implementing the structures are familiar with their operation and to provide assurance that all parts are present and in working order.” There are no Floodwall or Closure Structures located along the American River North Levee Station 3051+00 to 3548+50 and NEMDC East Levee Station 2986+50 to 3001+50.

Additionally, there are no retaining walls used for flood control. There are retaining wall structures utilized as part of roadway crossings. These features will be discussed as part of ULDC 7.13 Penetrations, provided by others. Therefore, MBK concludes these levee reaches meet requirements for ULDC 7.14 Floodwalls, Retaining Walls, and Closure Structures.

LIMITATIONS
The conclusions provided in this report are limited to 2-years or until additional construction, evaluation criteria, revised hydraulic and hydrologic modeling, or other changes modify the current evaluation parameters.

The statements provided herein are based on observations and data available at the time the report was written. It is possible that differing conditions may be present within the levee segments evaluated. If identified, these differing conditions should be brought to the attention of the certification team in order to provide reevaluation and updates to conclusions provided in this report.

Risk cannot be completely removed, but levees provide a reduction in risk to flooding. The conclusions provided herein are not a certification or guarantee that flooding will not occur, but are provided to document the engineering evaluation and available data supporting design and construction of flood control features. This evaluation was performed following the current standard of care provided by other engineers practicing in the same location, under similar conditions at the time of preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied, is provided.

Respectfully submitted,

MBK ENGINEERS
Rebecca Money
cc: MBK Engineers
13 Figure
Figure 1 – ULDC Evaluation: American River North Levee System, MBK Geotechnical Certification Reaches
Appendices:

Appendix A – USACE 2014 Statement of Performance Letter Appendix B – Summary of USACE Documentation
Appendix C – Design Water Surface Elevations
Appendix D – Summary of Analysis Results
Appendix E – Psomas Cross Sections
Appendix F – ULDC References

3000+00
3030+00
4110+00
2986+50
3051+40
3000+00
3548+50
4050+00
4100+00
4000+00
3050+00
3100+00
3150+00
3200+00
3250+00 3300+00
3350+00
3400+00
3450+00
3500+00
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal
East Levee
Northgate Blvd
Arcade Creek
South Levee
American River
North Levee
UPRR
Closure
Structure
UPRR
Closure
Structure Arcade Creek
Cal Expo
UPRR
Bridge
Business 80
Bridge
H Street
Bridge
Howe Ave
Bridge
Watt Ave
Bridge
American River
NEMDC
Del Paso Heights
Campus
Commons
Arden-Arcade
Harrington Way
River Walk Way
Guy West Bridge
(pedestrian)
Del Paso Blvd
Closure Structure
Arden Way
American River
Rio Linda Blvd Bridge
Norwood Ave Bridge
West El Camino Ave Bridge
Arden Garden Connector Bridge
Marysville Blvd
Carmichael

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
American River North Levee
3051+00 to 3548+50
NEMDC East Levee
2986+50 to 3001+50
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community MBK GEOTECHNICAL CERTIFICATION REACHES 0 1,500 3,000 6,000 Feet .

Legend
Geotechnical Reaches
evaluated by MBK
American River North Levee
Arcade Creek South Levee
NEMDC East Levee
City-County Boundary

SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY
ULDC EVALUATION: AMERICAN RIVER NORTH LEVEE SYSTEM
FIGURE 1
Document Path: R:\_Flood Control\SAFCA\FEMA_ULDC\FEMA\American North\GIS\American River Levee map- MBK geotech July 2023.mxd

Drawing Set Title Drawing Set Number Channel (Bank) Extents Date Constructed For Sacramento River from Sacramento to Collinsville, sheet No. 1 6-13-1100 American River (South) Confluence of American River January 1933 USACE Sacramento and American Rivers - Profile - Left Banks from Mi. 59.73 to 16th Street Bridge 50-10-2792 American River (South) Sacramento River to 16th Street Bridge March 1951 USACESouth Levee American River downstream from 16th Street Bridge and "H" Street Bridge 1-04-374 American River (South) 16th Street Bridge & H Street Bridge March 1952 USACE Emergency Bank Protection - Left Bank American River upstream from WPRR Bridge 1-04-378 American River (South) Upstream of Railroad Bridge March 1952 USACE Enlargement of South Levee of American River from 16th Street Bridge to Mayhews 1-04-362 American River (South) 16th Street Bridge to Mayhews February 1950 USACE Sacramento River Flood Control Project - Surface levee crown for patrol road purposes 50-04-2897 American River (South) Jibboom Street Bridge to 16th Street Bridge April 1952 USACE Bank Protection various locations left bank Sacramento and American River right and left banks Feather River and Elder Creek 50-04-4118 American River (South) Downstream of H Street Bridge July 1965 USACE Levee Rehabilitation Patrol Roads, Vicinity of Sacrament, California 50-04-3702 American River (South) Jibboom Street Bridge to
Sacramento River and
Upstream of Railroad
Bridge
June 1962 USACE
Bank Protection, Various Locations, Right and Left Banks, Sacramento River and Georgiana Slough 50-04-4283 American River (South) Mile 4.8 March 1969 USACE Bank Protection, Various Locations, Right and Left Banks, Sacramento River Mile 60.0 to Mile 110.0 50-04-5130 American River (South) USACE Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, Lower American River Repair Sites Rivermile (LAR RM) 0.3L, and 2.8L 50-04-6280 American River (South) RM 0.3L and RM 2.8L 2008 USACE Levee Rehabilitation and Patrol Roads, Vicinity of Sacramento, California 50-04-3702 American River (North) USACE Bank Protection Various Locations Right and Left Banks Sacramento River and Feather River 50-04-4078 American River (North) Mile 0.64 to 0.82 March 1968 USACE Emergency Levee Repairs and Bank Protection North Levee American River 1.3 Miles above H Street Bridge 1-04-375 American River (North) 1.3 Miles above H Street Bridge February 1951 USACELevee Construction and Bank Protection, Fair Grounds to Carmichael Bluffs 1-04-415 American River (North) Fair Grounds to Carmichael Bluffs March 1957 USACE Historic Documentation
AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, WRDA 96 AND WRDA 99
12 Sept 2013
Contract No. Contractor Spec No. Design File
No. Design Criteria Analysis Construction Data
R1 Natomas Main Drainage
Canal Conduits Sta: -1+27 to Sta: +1+50 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE W91238-09-D-0065 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1682 1-04-536
American River Common Features Project, California, Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site R1, Prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2009.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) QC Test Results for Permeability and UCS
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 0+49 to Sta: 34+41 CB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
NEMDC (Extension)
NEMDC Confluence to
Arden Garden Connector
Bridge
Sta. 143+50 to Sta. 157+00 CB Cutoff Wall USACE W91238-15-C-0003 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1952 1-04-620 American River Common Features - Natomas East Main Drainage Channel (NEMDC) Extension, Supplemental Design Documentation Report, Prepared by San Francisco District dated February 2014.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

NEMDC (North)
From Del Paso Blvd. and
Hwy 160 bridge to NEMDC
Confluence
Sta: 157+00 to Sta: 170+80, Sta:
171+50 to Sta: 173+00 CB Cutoff Wall Kleinfelder/Geomatrix JV W91238-13-C-0019 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1897 1-04-618 Final Design Documentation Report, American River Common Features, American River North Levee, River Mile 2.0 to 3.6, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Kleinfelder-Geomatrix JV date 20 August 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Del Paso Floodgates at Del Paso
Boulevard Sta. 170+80 to Sta. 171+50 Remediation not needed Kleinfelder/Geom
atrix JV
Final Design Documentation Report, American River Common Features, American River North Levee, River Mile 2.0 to 3.6, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Kleinfelder-Geomatrix JV date 20 August 2012.

No remediation required for Del Paso Gates.

UPRR & Highway
160
Floodgates at UPRR
crossing, and under Highway
160
Sta. 173+00 to Sta. 176+50 Remediation not
needed
Kleinfelder/Geom
atrix JV
Final Design Documentation Report, American River Common Features, American River North Levee, River Mile 2.0 to 3.6, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Kleinfelder-Geomatrix JV date 20 August 2012.

The USACE did not complete necessary improvements. Subject of instrumentation project. Current analysis shows levee not meeting criteria
NEMDC (South) From Johnston Business
Park to Hwy 160 Sta: 176+50 to Sta: 209+50 CB Cutoff Wall Kleinfelder/Geomatrix JV W91238-C-12-0041 Anderson Burton 1633 1-04-521 Final Design Documentation Report, American River Common Features, American River North Levee, River Mile 2.0 to 3.6, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Kleinfelder-Geomatrix JV date 20 August 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 208+28 to Sta: 240+85 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R1A
City of Sacramento Sump
151 Interior Drainage
Conduits
Sta: 217+86 to Sta: 219+10 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-03-C-0005 DDM/Nova JV 1294 1-04-488 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Levee Strengthening, Alternative Methods Contract A, Prepared by URS dated 26 March 2003.

NOT AVAILABLE
R2 UPRR Crossing Near Costco Sta. 240+85 to Sta. 242+88 Remediation not needed USACE
Remediation Methods Report, WRDA 1996 Phase III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and R10, Sacramento California.

Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated September 2012.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for Site R2.

Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 242+88 to Sta: 256+99 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R3A Business 80 Bridge Sta: 256+89 to Sta: 257+70, Sta:
259+53 to Sta: 260+44
Jet Grout Cutoff
Wall HDR/Fugro JV W91238-14-C-0003 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1827 1-04-605 Sites R3A & L10, Final Design Submittal, Design Documentation Report (DDR), American River Common Features (ARCF), WRDA 96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Prepared by HDR-Fugro JV dated August 2013.

Final Remediation Methods Report, Sites L7, L10, L13, R3A, and R7, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated January 2012.

American River Common Features, Site R3A Alternative Remediation, Additional Analysis of Extended Cutoff Wall. Prepared by HDR dated October 12, 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

I-80 Business 80 Bridge Sta. 257+70 to Sta. 259+53 Remediation not needed HDR/Fugro JV
American River Common Features, Site R3A Alternative Remediation, Additional Analysis of Extended Cutoff Wall. Prepared by HDR dated October 12, 2012.

Action associated with Site R3A, no action required across I-80.

R3
City of Sacrament Sump 152
Interior Drainage Conduits
and Force Main
Sta: 260+01 to Sta: 263+22 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-03-C-0005 DDM/Nova JV DDM/Nova JV 1294 1-04-488
American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Levee Strengthening, Alternative Methods Contract A, Prepared by URS dated 26 March 2003.

Note: Site R3 is referrenced in report as Site R3A.

NOT AVAILABLE
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane 263+06 to Sta: 333+74 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R4
City of Sacrament Sump 152
Interior Drainage Conduits
and Force Main
Sta: 332+59 to Sta: 340+40 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-03-C-0005 DDM/Nova JV 1294 1-04-488 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Levee Strengthening, Alternative Methods Contract A, Prepared by URS dated 26 March 2003.

NOT AVAILABLE
R4 (Repair to
Previous Work)
Strong Ranch / Chicken
Ranch Detention Basin East
Channel
Sta: 335+38 to Sta: 335+94
Remove/Replace
Concrete Outlet
Structure and key in
to existing cutoff
wall.

USACE W91238-09-D-0020 RDA Contracting,
Inc. 1593 1-04-514
Common Features Contract 1, Site R4, Structural Calculations (Analysis and Design), 100% Submittal, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 March 2014.

Memorandum for Structural Design Section, Site R4 Evaluation of Uplift Loading Conditions in Liner System, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 31 January 2008.

NOT AVAILABLE
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 338+33 to Sta: 355+32 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R5
Force Main Sewer Crossing
at west end of Northrop
Avenue
Sta: 355+13 to Sta: 356+57 CB Cutoff Wall USACE W91238-10-C-0035 JAG Construction, Inc. 1704 1-04-543
American River Common Features Project, California, Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site R5, Prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2009.

Partial QC/QA CB Cutoff Wall:

Documents provided include;
(1) Earthwork QC Test Results
(2) Partial QA Permeability and UCS
(3) Partial QC Permeability and UCS
(4) Construction Completion Report
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 356+31 to Sta: 362+01 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R6
High Voltage Overhead
Lines at Campus Commons
Golf Course
Sta: 361+71 to Sta: 369+33 CB Cutoff Wall USACE W91238-11-C-0015 RDA Contracting, Inc. 1711 1-04-550
American River Common Features Project, California, Geotechnical Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site R6, Prepared by Sacramento District dated July 2011.

QC CB Cutoff Wall:

Documents provided include;
(1) Earthwork QC Test Results
(2) Sandcone Summary
(3) QC Permeability and UCS
(4) Construction Completion Report
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 369+03 to Sta: 396+87 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R7 H Street Bridge Sta: 396+72 to Sta: 398+84 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall HDR/Fugro JV W91238-14-C-0041 Pacchiosi Drill
USA 1826 1-04-602
Sites R7 and L7, Final Design Submittal, Design Documentation Report (DDR), American River Common Features (ARCF), WRDA 96 Phase 2 Remaining SItes, prepared by HDR/Fugro WLA Joint Venture dated July 2013.

Final Remediation Methods Report, Sites L7, L10, L13, R3A, and R7, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated January 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 398+69 to Sta: 421+18 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R8 Guy West Bridge at CSUS Sta: 420+98 to Sta: 422+54 CB Cutoff Wall HDR W91238-10-C-0027 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1723 1-04-559
American River Project, Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 2, Sacramento County, California, Design Documentation Report, Prepared by HDR dated November 2009 Remediation Methods Report, American River Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 2. Sites L8 and R8, Sacramento County, CA, Prepared by HDR dated March 5 2010.

Notes: 1) Document addresses Sites L8, R8, and L9A. Sites L8 and R8 were constructed in general accordance with the document under the same contract, while L9A was constructed under seperate contract. 2) During plans and specs development Site L8 and R8 cutoff wall was changed from SCB to CB).

CB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength, hydraulic Conductivity Data, and Slurry Trench Test. QC Earthwork: Laboratory Compaction Curves, In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests.

Documents provided include;
(1) CB Wall Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS
(2) CB Wall Trench Data
(3) Pavement Test Results
(4) Construction Completion Report
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 422+24 to Sta: 451+33 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R9 Howe Ave. Bridge Sta. 451+33 to Sta. 452+90 Remediation not needed USACE
Remediation Methods Report, WRDA 1996 Phase III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and R10, Sacramento California.

Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated September 2012.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for Site R9.

Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening,
Howe Ave to Watt
Ave
Howe to Watt Sta: 452+90 to Sta: 531+85 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-98-C-0053 AFA 9866 1-04-467 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) QA Permeability and UCS Test Results
(2) QC Permeability and UCS Test Results
(3) Trench Test Results
(4) Trench Test Results
(5) Trench Profile
Contract 2 Howe
Avenue Howe Avenue Sta. 452+90 to Sta. 494+13 Raise and Widen Levee URS W91238-09-D-0059 Hard Rock Construction 1632 1-04-520
American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features, Lower American River Sites, Prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2000.

QC Earthwork:

Laboratory Compaction Curves and In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests.

Documents provided include;
(1) Sandcone Summary
(2) Lab Materials Summary
(3) Lab Materials Summary
(4) ABC Review

TURNOVER STATUS
SITE LOCATION Levee Stationing REMEDIATION

METHOD DESIGNER
1 AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, WRDA 96 AND WRDA 99
12 Sept 2013
R10 Watt Ave. Bridge Sta: 531+67 to Sta: 533+82 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall
PCSC (Wood
Rodgers) W91238-12-C-0045 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1689 1-04-540 USACE-American River Common Features Projectm WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Design Documentation Report for Site R10, Cutoff Wall at Watt Avenue Bridge, Final Submittal, Prepared by PCSC dated July 2012.

Remediation Methods Report, WRDA 1996 Phase III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and R10, Sacramento California.

Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated September 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 533+39 to Sta: 556+42 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
R11
(Mod 1)
Wilhaggin Interior Drainage
Conduits Sta: 556+25 to Sta: 557+76 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-02-C-0004 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1034 1-04-474 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

Jet Grouting
QC: Drilling Record, Injection Records, Column and Coring Drilling Deviation Measurements, Core Drilling Records, & Core Sample Tests. QC Earthwork: Laboratory Compaction Curves, In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests
Documents provided include:
(1) Spreadsheet of Jet Grout Test Sections;
(2) Column Deviation Drawings;
(3) Jet Grout Column Rept;
(4) As-Built Column Locations
(5) Production Table
(6) In-Situ Coring Results
(7) Master Summary Results
Right (North) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Down Stream of Sump 151
near Jacob Lane Sta: 557+60 to Sta: 642+88 SCB Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-99-C-0048 Soletanche Inquip 9985 AM1-4-793 Lower American River levee Project, Basis of Design for Levee Rememdiation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 25 July 1997.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Right Bank Slurry Wall Contract, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Trench Profile
Jacob Lane Reach A
North bank of American
River around river mile 11 -
parallel to McClaren Drive
Sta: 561+35 to Sta: 631+05 Raise and Widen
Levee USACE W91238-08-D-0028 RDA Contracting, Inc. 1631 1-04-519 American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features, Lower American River Sites, Prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2000.

American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features,Reevaluation of Right Bank Near Jacob Lane, Prepared by Sacramento District dated November 2001.

NOT AVAILABLE
Jacob Lane Reach B
North bank of American
River around river mile 11 -
parallel to McClaren Drive
Sta: 641+76 to Sta: 666+58 and Sta.
680+05 to Sta. 705+58
Raise and Widen
Levee USACE W91238-09-D-0057 RDA Contracting, Inc. 1655 1-04-531 American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features, Lower American River Sites, Prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2000.

American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features,Reevaluation of Right Bank Near Jacob Lane, Prepared by Sacramento District dated November 2001.

NOT AVAILABLE
Jacob Lane Reach C Between Harrington and
Arden Way Sta: 666+58 to Sta: 680+05 Raise and Widen
Levee USACE W91238-12-C-0037 RDA Contracting, Inc. 1832 1-04-575 American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features, Lower American River Sites, Prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2000.

American River Watershed, Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features,Reevaluation of Right Bank Near Jacob Lane, Prepared by Sacramento District dated November 2001.

American River Common Features (Remaining Sites) WRDA 99, Jacob Lane - Reach "C" Project, 100% Civil Design Documentation Report (Station 24+90 to 38+14), Prepared by Sacramento District dated 8 June 2012.

NOT AVAILABLE
2 AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, WRDA 96 AND WRDA 99
12 Sept 2013
Contract No. Contractor Spec No. Design File
No. Design Analysis Construction Data
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street Sta: 9+97 to Sta: 29+42 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
L1 I-5 & Discovery Park Sta. 29+42 to Sta. 34+44 Remediation not Needed HDR/Fugro JV
Final Remediation Methods Report - Sites L1 and L5, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated 20 September 2013.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for Site L1.

Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street Sta: 34+44 to Sta: 118+34 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
L2 Highway 160 Sta: 118+27 to Sta: 121+33 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-02-C-0004 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1034 1-04-474 Final-Site Specific Documentation was not developed. Site is generally addressed in:

American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

Jet Grouting
Drilling Record, Injection Records, Column and Coring Drilling Deviation Measurements, Core Drilling Records, and Core Sample Tests.

Documents provided include:
(1) Spreadsheet of Jet Grout Test Sections;
(2) Column Deviation Drawings;
(3) Jet Grout Column Rept;
(4) As-Built Column Locations
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street
Sta: 34+44 to Sta: 118+34; Sta:
120+97 to Sta: 136+84; Sta: 138+02
to Sta: 159+41; Sta: 214+68 to Sta:
216+91; Sta: 217+56 to Sta: 222+06;
Sta: 224+52 to Sta: 336+92
SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
L3 UPRR Bridge Sta. 136+84 to Sta. 138+02 Remediation not Needed USACE
Remediation Methods Report, WRDA 1996 Phase III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and R10, Sacramento California.

Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated September 2012.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for Site L3.

Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street Sta: 138+02 to Sta: 159+41 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
Bell Marine Property Private Property Adjacent to
City Landfill Sta. 159+41 to Sta. 162+41 Remediation not needed USACE Final Report, Alternatives Analysis, Replacement of the Existing Floodwall at Lower American River Mile 2.7, Sacramento, California. Prepared by MBK Engineers dated 27 March 2007.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for Bell Marine Site.

City Landfill Old City Landfill and Park Sta. 162+41 to Sta. 213+23 Remediation not needed USACE
WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for City Landfill Site.

L4 UPRR Bridge Near Landfill Sta: 213+23 to Sta: 214+97 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-02-C-0004 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1034 1-04-474 Final-Site Specific Documentation was not developed. Site is generally addressed in:

American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Jet Grouting
QC: Drilling Record, Injection Records, Column and Coring Drilling Deviation Measurements, Core Drilling Records, & Core Sample Tests. QC Earthwork: Laboratory Compaction Curves, In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests
Documents provided include:
(1) Spreadsheet of Jet Grout Test Sections;
(2) Column Deviation Drawings;
(3) Jet Grout Column Rept;
(4) As-Built Column Locations
(5) Field Sampling and Testing Report
(6) Core Sample Test Report
(7) Production Table
(8) In-Situ Coring Results
(9) Master Summary Results
(10) Fill Compaction Test Report
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street Sta: 214+68 to Sta: 216+91 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
L4A 42-inch Sewer Line Next to
Site L4 Sta: 216+78 to Sta: 217+73 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall USACE DACW05-02-C-0004 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1034 1-04-474 Final-Site Specific Documentation was not developed. Site is generally addressed in:

American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Jet Grouting
QC: Drilling Record, Injection Records, Column and Coring Drilling Deviation Measurements, Core Drilling Records, & Core Sample Tests. QC Earthwork: Laboratory Compaction Curves, In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests
Documents provided include:
(1) Spreadsheet of Jet Grout Test Sections;
(2) Column Deviation Drawings;
(3) Jet Grout Column Rept;
(4) As-Built Column Locations
(5) Field Sampling and Testing Report
(6) Core Sample Test Report
(7) In-Situ Coring Results
(8) Master Summary Results
(9) Fill Compaction Test Report
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street Sta: 217+56 to Sta: 222+06 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
L5 D/S
Downstream of Business 80
Bridge as well as SCB wall
upstream of bridge
Sta. 220+09 to Sta. 222+06
Landside seepage
berm and SCB
Cutoff Wall
URS DACW05-03-C-0005 DDM/Nova JV 1294 1-04-488 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Levee Strengthening, Alternative Methods Contract A, Prepared by URS dated 26 March 2003.

NOT AVAILABLE
L5 U/S Upstream of Business 80
Bridge Sta. 222+06 to Sta. 224+58 Remediation not
needed HDR/Fugro JV
Final Remediation Methods Report - Sites L1 and L5, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated 20 September 2013.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

No remediation required for Site L5.

Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 2 (Including
L6 as Modification)
Jibboom to H Street Sta: 224+52 to Sta: 336+92 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0023 Geo Con 1140 1-04-477 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Technical Memorandum - Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by Woodward Clyde dated 19 March 1999.

Technical Memorandum-Additional Geotechnical Investigations and Recommendations for Deep Cutoff Wall Section, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Contract 2, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde dated 9 March 2000.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 8 Jan 2002, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 2, Evaluation of Test Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
(3) Job Photos
L5A City of Sacramento Sump 10
River Park Pump Station Sta: 261+26 to Sta: 261+75 CB Cutoff Wall USACE W91238-12-C-0034 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1864 1-04-617
L5A - Remaining Sites - WRDA 1996 Project, American River Watershed Project (Common Features), Left Bank Lower American River Downstream of Glenn Hall Park, Sump #10 Stormwater Pumping Station, Sacramento, California, Prepared by Sacramento District dated 28 June 2012.

Notes: 1) Site L5A was not originally listed as a gap location for the cutoff wall. It was assumed that the contractor for the South (left) bank levee contract 2 constructed the cutoff wall and that only pump station modifications were required. It was found during construction that there was no wall a the location. The CB cutoff wall was added to the construction contract through a mod. Construction took two years.

American River WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Cement Bentonite Cutoff Walls Sites R5, R6, R8, L5A, L8, and L12 Construction Completion Report.

L7 H Street Bridge Sta: 336+77 to Sta: 340+45 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall HDR/Fugro JV W91238-14-C-0041 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1826 1-04-602 Sites R7 and L7, Final Design Submittal, Design Documentation Report (DDR), American River Common Features (ARCF), WRDA 96 Phase 2 Remaining SItes, prepared by HDR/Fugro WLA Joint Venture dated July 2013.

Final Remediation Methods Report, Sites L7, L10, L13, R3A, and R7, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated January 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 340+20.16 to Sta: 379+10.24 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
L8 Guy West Bridge at CSUS Sta. 364+82 to Sta. 367+84 CB Cutoff Wall HDR/Fugro JV W91238-10-C-0027 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1722 1-04-556
American River Project, Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 2, Sacramento County, California, Design Documentation Report, Prepared by HDR dated November 2009 Remediation Methods Report, American River Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 2. Sites L8 and R8, Sacramento County, CA, Prepared by HDR dated March 5 2010.

Notes: 1) Document addresses Sites L8, R8, and L9A. Sites L8 and R8 were constructed in general accordance with the document under the same contract, while L9A was constructed under seperate contract. 2) During plans and specs development Site L8 and R8 cutoff wall was changed from SCB to CB).

CB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength, hydraulic Conductivity Data, and Slurry Trench Test. QC Earthwork: Laboratory Compaction Curves, In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests.

Documents provided include;
(1) CB Wall Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS
(2) CB Wall Trench Data
(3) Compaction Test Results
(4) Pavement Test Results
(5) Construction Completion Report
L9 2- Force Main Sewers Near
Fairbairn WTP Sta: 378+65 to Sta: 380+09 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall PCSC (Wood
Rodgers) W91238-12-C-0046 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1721 1-04-553 American River Project, Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phases 2 & 3, Sacrament County, California, Design Documentation Report, Sites L9 and L9A, Prepared by HDR/Fugro WLA Joint Venture dated July 2012.

Remediation Methods Report, WRDA 1996 Phase III Remaining Sites L3, L9, R2, R9, and R10, Sacramento California.

Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated September 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

L9A Fairbairn Water Treatment
Conduit Sta: 382+01 to Sta: 383+75 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall HDR/Fugro JV Per USACE 20170831
This project does not
have any available
QA/QC Data.A25:K25
Pacchiosi Drill
USA 1721 1-04-553
American River Project, Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phases 2 & 3, Sacrament County, California, Design Documentation Report, Sites L9 and L9A, Prepared by HDR/Fugro WLA Joint Venture dated July 2012.

American River Project, Common Features, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 2, Sacramento County, California, Design Documentation Report, Prepared by HDR dated November 2009 Remediation Methods Report, American River Common Features, WRDA96 Remaining SItes, Phase 2, SItes L8, R8, and L9A, Sacramento County, CA, Prepared by HDR dated November 10 2009. (DRAFT) Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

TURNOVER STATUS

SITE LOCATION REMEDIATION
METHOD Levee Stationing DESIGNER
1 AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES, WRDA 96 AND WRDA 99
12 Sept 2013
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 384+74.40 to Sta: 404+55.52 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
L10 Howe Ave. Bridge Sta: 404+43 to Sta: 406+80 Jet Grout Cutoff Wall HDR/Fugro JV W91238-14-C-0003 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1827 1-04-605 Sites R3A & L10, Final Design Submittal, Design Documentation Report (DDR), American River Common Features (ARCF), WRDA 96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Prepared by HDR-Fugro JV dated August 2013.

Final Remediation Methods Report, Sites L7, L10, L13, R3A, and R7, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated January 2012.

Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 406+45 to Sta: 443+22 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
L11
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 443+88 to Sta: 456+90 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
L12 Florin-Perkins Interior
Drainage Conduits Sta: 456+67 to Sta: 458+80 CB Cutoff Wall USACE W91238-10-C-0034 Contractor
Services Group,
Inc.
1710 1-04-547
American River Common Features Project, California, Design Documentation Report, WRDA 1996 Remaining Sites, Site L12, prepared by Sacramento District dated August 2009.

CB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity Data
Documents provided include;
(1) QC Hydraulic Conductivity and UCS Test Reults
(2) Construction Completion Report
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 458+05.20 to Sta: 484+29 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
L13
Watt Ave. Bridge (Blanket
and Chimney Drain both Up
Stream and South Stream)
Sta. 484+29 to Sta. 489+21 Remediation Not
Needed HDR/Fugro JV
Final Remediation Methods Report, Sites L7, L10, L13, R3A, and R7, American River Common Features WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sacramento, California. Prepared by HDR-Fugro dated January 2012.

WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites, Engineering Evaluation of No Actions Sites L1, L3, L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM

3.15L. Prepared by the Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers dated April 2014.

Remediation not required at Site L13.

Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 489+21 to Sta: 515+28 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
L14 Manlove Interior Drainage
Conduits Sta: 515+09 to Sta: 516+34 Jet Grout USACE DACW05-02-C-0004 Pacchiosi Drill USA 1034 1-04-474 Final-Site Specific Documentation was not developed. Site is generally addressed in:

American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

Jet Grouting
QC: Drilling Record, Injection Records, Column and Coring Drilling Deviation Measurements, Core Drilling Records, & Core Sample Tests. QC Earthwork: Laboratory Compaction Curves, In-Situ Sand Cone Density Tests
Documents provided include:
(1) Spreadsheet of Jet Grout Test Sections;
(2) Column Deviation Drawings;
(3) Jet Grout Column Rept;
(4) As-Built Column Locations
(5) Field Sampling and Testing Report
(6) Core Sample Test Report
(7) In-Situ Coring Results
(8) Master Summary Results
(9) Fill Compaction Test Report
Left (South) Bank
Levee Strengthening
Contract 1
H Street to Mayhew Drain Sta: 516+17 to Sta: 574+49 SCB Cutoff Wall URS DACW05-00-C-0022 Geo Con 9824A 1-04-466 American River Watershed Project (Common Features), California, Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening, Prepared by URS Greiner Woodwar Clyde dated 16 April 1999.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) Memorandum dated 22 May 2001, Left Bank Slurry Wall Contract 1, Evaluation of QC/QA Data.
(2) Supplemental Record Drawings
Mayhew Drain
Closure Structure
South bank of lower
American River around river
mile 11
Sta: 569+18 to Sta: 571+77
cutoff wall installed;
closure structure
installed at Mayhew
drain.

USACE W91238-07-C-0016 FCI Contracting,
Inc.
1501-
1555 AM-04-514
Basis of Design, American River Watershed Project Common Features, Left Bank Lower American River, Mayhew Drain Closure Structure, Sacramento Count, California, Prepared by Sacramento District dated June 2007.

Mayhew Closure Structure DDR Outline, Prepared by Sacramento District.

Memorandum for Record, Subject Mayhew Drain Closure Structure Hydraulic Design and Evaluation of Hydraulic Effects in the Mayhew Drain Area Associated with the American River Projects, Prepared by Sacramento District dated February 2008.

NOT AVAILABLE
Mayhew Raising
Existing Levee
South bank of lower
American River around river
mile 11
Sta: 569+18 to Sta: 571+77 Levee Raised 2.5
feet USACE W91238-07-C-0016 FCI Contracting, Inc.
1501-
1555 1-04-509
Interim Mayhew Levee Raise Design and Construction Support Documentation, Prepared by Sacramento District dated November 2009.

SCB Cutoff Wall:

QC: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

QA SCB Cutoff Wall: Unconfined Compressive Strength and Hydraulic Conductivity.

Documents provided include;
(1) QA-QC Results
(2) QC Hydraulic Condusctivity and UCS
Mayhew Levee Raise
East End Connection
East End of Mayhew Levee
Raise 617+99 to High Ground Levee Extended USACE W91238-14-P-0108 PWS 1-04-0621 Mayhew East End Extension Per USACE 20170831 This project does not have any available QA/QC Data.

Site L11 is located just downstream of Site L12. Initial archive research indicated a utility pipe crossing that would have affected the soil-cement-bentonite (SCB) cutoff wall excavation for the Left Bank, Contract 1 project by Geo-Con. Site L11 was eliminated almost immediately after the initial numbering of the potential cutoff wall windows. Geo-Con continued with their excavation from the park entrance at Watt Ave access ramp (Site L10) to Site L12, the La Riveria park access ramp (near the high voltage overhead powerlines). 2 Drawing Set Title Drawing Set Number Channel (Bank) Date Constructed For Levee Construction; American River, Natomas Canal, Arcade Creek, and Linda Creek; Sacramento River California Flood Control Project 1-04-392
Robla Creek (South),
NEMDC (East), Arcade
Creek (North & South)
December 1954 USACE
Arcade Creek Unit 1A Levee Improvements N/A Arcade Creek (North) August 1993 SAFCAArcade Creek Unit 1B Levee Improvement Project N/A Arcade Creek (North & South) March 1996 SAFCA Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, Units 2B & 3B, Levee
Improvement Project N/A NEMDC (East) April 1996 SAFCA
Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, Unit 3A, Levee
Improvement Project N/A NEMDC (East) February 1995 SAFCA Dry / Robla Creek Levee Project N/A Dry Creek (North) / Robla Creek (South) February 1995 SAFCA North Area Streams

File Name Levee Location
(Right or Left)
Documentation Type
(Design, As-Builts, Other)
Date Full Description Prepared By
1-04-466 Left Record Drawing FY-2000 (Oct 5, 2012) Levee Strengthening Contract 1 (cutoff walls) URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 1-04-467 Right Record Drawing FY-98 (Sept 9, 2013) Levee Strengthening Howe Ave to Watt Ave USACE 1-04-474 Left Record Drawing FY-2001 (Jan 4, 2013) Jet Grout Contract 1 USACE 1-04-477 Left Record Drawing FY-2000 (Oct 9, 2012) Levee Strengthening Contract 2 (cutoff walls) URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 1-04-488 Left and Right Record Drawing (Sept 9, 2013) Levee Strengthening Alternative Methods Contract A
URS
1-04-509 Left Record Drawing FY-2007-2008 (July 18,
2013)
Left Bank Raise - Mayhew USACE
1-04-514 Right Record Drawing FY-2009 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 96 Remaining Site Contract 1 USACE 1-04-519 Right Record Drawing FY-2008 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 99 Contract 1 Jacob Lane - Reach "B" - Waterside fill plus raise
USACE
1-04-520 Right Record Drawing FY-2011 (July 20, 2011) WRDA 99 Contract 2 Howe Ave - Waterside fill plus raise
USACE
1-04-521 Right Record Drawing FY-2012 WRDA 99 - NEMDC South USACE/Kleinfelder 1-04-531 Right Record Drawing FY-2009 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 99 Contract 1 Jacob Lane - Reach "A" - Waterside fill plus raise
USACE
1-04-536 Right Record Drawing FY-2009 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 1 - Contract A - Site R1
USACE
1-04-540 Right Record Drawing FY-2012 (Aug 15, 2012) WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Site R10 Pacific Civil and Structural Consultants, LLC
1-04-543 Right Record Drawing FY-2010 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 1 - Contract C - Site R5
USACE
1-04-547 Left Record Drawing FY-2009 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 1 - Contract B - Site L12
USACE
1-04-550 Right As-built FY-2011 WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Phase 1 - Contract D - Site R6
USACE
1-04-553 Left As-built FY-2012 WRDA 96, Sites L9 and L9A HDR/Pacific Civil and Structural Consultants, LLC
1-04-556 Left Record Drawing FY-2009 (July 18, 2013) WRDA 96, Phase 2, Contract 1 - Site L8 HDR 1-04-559 Right Record Drawing WRDA 96, Phase 2, Contract 3 - Site R8 HDR 1-04-575 Right As Built FY 2012 (Approved
06/25/2012)
American River Common Features (REMAINING
SITES) WRDA 99 Jacob Lane - Reach "C"
USACE
1-04-602 Left and Right Record Drawings/As Built FY 2013 (Approved 9/30/2013)
American River Common Features WRDA96 -
Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Sites R7 and L7, H Street
Bridge Crossing
HDR
1-04-605 Left and Right Record Drawings/As Built FY 2013 (Approved 9/30/2013)
American River Common Features WRDA96 -
Phase 2 Remaining Sites, Site R3A - Business 80
Crossing & Site L10 - Howe Avenue Bridge
Crossing
HDR
1-04-617 Left As Built FY 2012 (Approved
06/28/2021)
American River Common Features Remaining
Sites - WRDA 96 Project Sump #10 - Site L5A
USACE
1-04-618 Right As Built FY 2013 (Approved
06/01/2013)
American River Common Features WRDA 99 -
NEMDC North
USACE
1-04-0620award Right Drawings FY-2014 (approved
03/10/2014)
American River Common Features (Remaining
Sites) WRDA 99 - NEMDC Extension
USACE
1-04-0621 Left As Built FY 2014 American River Common Features WRDA 99 Project Mayhew Levee Repair

MAYHEW LEVEE REPAIR
USACE
12-097 Sandcone Summary.10-12-12 Unknown - Contract
Number: W91238-
09-D-0059
Sierra Testing
Laboratories Project
Number: 12-097
As-Built Field Compaction
Test Summary
10/12/2012 As-Built Field Compaction Test Summary - Howe Ave Site WRDA 1999 Contract 2 - Sandcone
Summary
Sierra Testing Laboratories
50-04-6280 Left - American
River
Right - Sac River
100% Submittal Unknown; engineer
seal exp 2009; DWR
Design file
50+04+6280; spec no
1644
Sacramento River Bank Protection Project - Lower
American River and Sacramento River Erosion
Repairs Sites Rivermile (LAR RM) 0.3L, 2.8L, (SAC
RM) 53.5, and 177.8R
Ayers
1034 Left Request for Proposals Unknown, Drawing
File No. 1-04-474/1-25-
479 FY 2001
Jet Grout Sections, Contract 1/Jet Grout Test
Sections, American River Watershed Project,
(Common Features), California
USACE
1140 Left Request for Proposals Uknown, Drawing File
No. 1-04-477 FY-2000
American River Watershed Project (Common
Features), California - Left (South) Bank Levee
Strengthening – Contract 2
USACE
1294 Left and Right Invitation for Bids (IFB) Unknown, Drawing File No. 1-04-488
American River Watershed Project (Common
Features), California Levee Strengthening,
Alternate Methods Contract A
URS
1501 Left Invitation for Bids (IFB) Issued 06/26/2007 American River Common Features Lower American River, Raise Existing Levee And
Construct Mayhew Drain Closure Structure
USACE
1593 Contract No.

W91238-09-R-0006
Contract Specifications Contract No. W91238-
09-R-0006
American River Common Features WRDA 1996 -
Remaining Sites Contract 1 (W91238-09-R-0006)
USACE (Verify)
1631 Right Contract Specifications POCA NO. W91238-08-
R-0012
SPECIFICATION NO.
1631
American River Common Features WRDA 1999
Contract 1
- Jacob Lane (Reach A)
USACE
1632 DRAWING FILE NO.
01-04-520
SPECIFICATION NO.
1632
Contract Specifications DRAWING FILE NO. 01-
04-520
SPECIFICATION NO.
1632
American River Common Features (Remaining
Sites)
WRDA 1999 Contract 2
Howe Avenue
USACE
1633 Contract No.

W91238-08-D-0015
Contract Specifications Contract No. W91238-
08-D-0015
American River Common Features (Remaining
Sites) WRDA 99 NEMDC South to Lathrop Way
USACE (Verify)
1655 Right Contract Specifications POCA NO. W91238-09-
R-0006
SPECIFICATION NO.
1655
American River Common Features WRDA 1999
Contract 1
- Jacob Lane (Reach B)
USACE
1682 Right Contract Specifications POCA NO. W91238-09-
R-0037
SPECIFICATION NO.
1682
American River Common Features WRDA 1996
Phase 1
Contract A Sites R1
USACE
1689 Right Request for Proposals SPECIFICATION NO.
1689
DRAWING FILE NO. 1-
04-540
American River Common Features (ARCF), WRDA
96 Remaining Sites, Site R10 – Watt Avenue
USACE
1704 Right Contract Specifications SPECIFICATION NO.
1704
DRAWING FILE NO. 1-
04-543
American River Common Features WRDA 1996 -
Phase 1 Contract C Site R5
USACE
1710 Left Request for Proposals RFP NO. W91238-09-R0037 SPECIFICATION NO.
1710
American River Common Features Remaining
Sites -
WRDA 96 Project Phase 1 - Contract B - Site L12
USACE
American River Certification Documentation Summary Note: Where detail information could not be located/verified, the contract/spec/drawing 1711 Right Invitation for Bids (IFB) DRAWING FILE NO.1- 04-0550
SPECIFICATION NO.
1711
American River Common Features Remaining
Sites -
WRDA 1996 Project Phase 1- Contract D
Site R6
USACE
1721 Left Request for Proposals FY-2012 American River Common Features (ARCF), WRDA 1996 Levee Improvements, Sites L9 AND L9A
USACE
1722 Left Request for Proposals RFP NO. W91238-10-R0027 SPECIFICATION NO.
1722
DRAWING FILE NO.

AM-04-556
Recovery – Project Number 75522, American
River Watershed (Common Features), CA - Phase
2 Contract Efforts Would Address 96 Sites –Site L8
USACE
1723 Right Request for Proposals RFP NO. W91238-10-R0027 SPECIFICATION NO.
1723
DRAWING FILE NO.

AM-04-559
Recovery – Project Number 75522, American
River Watershed (Common Features), CA - Phase
2 Contract Efforts Would Address 96 Sites –Site
R8
USACE
1826 Right and Left Request for Proposals RFP NO. W91238-13-R0041 SPECIFICATION NO.
1826
DESIGN FILE NO. 01-04-
0602

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES (ARCF) -
WRDA 96 - PHASE 2 REMAINING SITES - SITES
R7 AND L7
USACE
1827 Right and Left Request for Proposals RFP NO. W91238-13-R0040 SPECIFICATION NO.
1827
DESIGN FILE NO. 01-04-
0605

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES (ARCF) -
WRDA 96 - PHASE 2 REMAINING SITES - SITES
R3A AND L10
USACE
1832 Right Specifications 2012 AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES (ARCF) (REMAINING SITES) WRDA 99 JACOB LANE –
REACH "C"
USACE
1864 Left Request for Proposals SPECIFICATION NO.
1864
DRAWING FILE NO. 1-
04-617 FY 2012

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES (ARCF)
REMAINING SITES – WRDA 96 PROJECT
SUMP #10 – SITE L5A
USACE
1897 Right Request for Proposals RFP NO. W91238-13-R0034 SPECIFICATION NO.
1897
DESIGN FILE NO. 01-04-
0618

AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES
(REMAINING SITES) WRDA 99 - NEMDC NORTH
USACE
1952 Left Specifications Unknown - missing
cover page
ARCF (Remaining Sites) WRDA 99 - NEMDC
Extension
USACE
9824A Left Request for Proposals RFP NO. DACW05-00-R0004 SPECIFICATION NO.
9824A
DRAWING FILE NO. 1-
04-046

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT
(COMMON FEATURES), CALIFORNIA -

LEFT (SOUTH) BANK LEVEE
STRENGTHENING – CONTRACT I
USACE
9866 Right Final Rule - Central
Contractor Registration to
All Prospective Bidders and
Offerors
4/20/1998 American River Watershed Project (Common
Features) California Right (North Bank) Levee
Strengthening Howe Avenue to Watt Avenue
USACE
9985 Right Amendment of
Solicitation/Modification of
Contract (Amendments 1-
5)
4/20/1999 American River Watershed Project (Common
Features) California Right Bank Slurry Wall
American River, California
USACE
10122012_ARCF_Site_R3A_TM Final Right Technical Memorandum - Analysis of Cutoff Wall
10/12/2012 American River Common Features –Site R3A
Alternative Remediation
HDR
AM1-04-793 Right Record Drawings FY-1999 (11/21/2012) American River Watershed Project (Common Features) California Right (North Bank) Levee
Strengthening
USACE
AM-04-514 Record Drawings FY-2007 (07/18/2013) American River Common Features (Common Features) WRDA 99 Lower American River
Mayhew Drain Closure Structure
USACE
American River (Lower) Basis of Design 1997 07-25 Left Basis of Design 7/25/1997 Lower American River Levee Project Basis of Design for Levee Remediation
USACE
AR00 Lt Bank, Cont 2 Evaluation QAQC Data Left Memorandum: Evaluation of QC/QA Test Data
1/8/2002 Memorandum for Chief, Soil Design Section;
Subject American River Watershed Project,
DACW05-00-C-0023 Left (South) Bank Slurry Wall,
Contract 2 Evaluation of QC/QA Test Data
American River Project Office
AR10 Site L8 QC CB Wall Perm Str Results Left and Right Lab Report 10/21/2010 Lab Report: American River Watershed Common Features L8 and R8 Slurry Wall
Vector Engineering
AR10 Site L8 QC Compaction Test Left Compaction Test 7/20/2010 American River Common Features WRDA 1996 - Phase 2 Site L8 - Daily Compaction Tests Summary
Vector Engineering
AR10 Site L8 QC Trench Sta, Depth & Slurry Results Left and Right Trench Depth and Slurry Results
7/30/2010 American River Sites R8 and L8 Magnus Pacific AR10 Site L8 R8 QC Pavement & Earth Results Left and Right Pavement and Earth Results
10/25/2010 American River Sites R8 and L8 Contractor Services Group AR10 Site R8 QC CB Wall Perm Str Results Left and Right Lab Report 10/17/2010 Lab Report: American River Watershed Common Features L8 and R8 Slurry Wall
Vector Engineering
AR10 Site R8 QC Trench Sta, Depth & Slurry Results Left and Right Trench Depth and Slurry Results
8/13/2010 American River Sites R8 and L8 Magnus Pacific AR12 Site R06 Cutoff Wall QC Results Right QC Results - Cutoff Wall 1/10/2013 American River Common Features Site R6 RDA Contracting AR98 Howe to Watt Ave QA Cutoff Wall Results Xls Unknown QC Results - Cutoff Wall 10/7/1998 QA Test Results, American River 98 Howe to Watt Ave
Vector Engineering
AR98 Howe to Watt Cutoff Wall Results Xls Unknown Field Batch Testing Cast and Permeability
September 1998 Field Batch Testing Cast and Permeability American River Howe to Watt
Unknown
AR98 Howe to Watt QAQC Results 1998 09-16 Unknown Field Test Mixes Bentonite Slurry
9/16/1998 American River 98 Howe to Watt QAQC Results Woodard Clyde AR98 Howe to Watt SCB Wall QC Results Unknown Field Batch Testing Cone Slump
October 1998 American River 98 Howe to Watt SCB QC Results Unknown ArcadeCreekLeveeImprovementsUnit1 1996-03 Left and Right - Verify
Record Plans 3/22/1996 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project Arcade
Creek, Unit 1B Levee Improvement Project
The Spink Corporation
ARCF WRDA 1996-1999 Remaining Sites Rationale for No
Action (Final)
Left and Right Technical Memorandum -
Engineering Evaluation
April 2014 American River Watershed Common Features
Project WRDA 1996/1999 Remaining Sites
Engineering Evaluation Of No Action Sites L1, L3,
L5, L13, R2, R9, RM 2.7L, and RM 3.15L Technical
Memorandum
USACE
ARCF_WRDA96_RMR_Final Left and Right Remediation Methods Report
January 2012 Remediation Methods Report Sites L7, L10, L13, and R7 American River Common Features
WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites
USACE
American River Common Features (Remaining Sites) WRDA 99 - NEMDC Extension
Left As-Builts 3/3/2014 NEMDC Extension As-Builts USACE BOD_ALL Disciplines_L5A Left Basis of Design 6/28/2012 Basis of Design, Connect Existing SCB Cutoff Walls with new CLSM Wall and Stormwater Force Mains
Raising/Replacement, Left bank Lower American
River Downstream of Glenn Hall Park Sump #10
Stormwater Pumping Station
USACE
COMPLETE_DDR_Site_R10_FINAL Right Final Submittal - Design Documentation Report
July 2012 USACE-American River Common Features Project, WRDA 96 Remaining Sites, Design Documentation
Report for Site R10, Cutoff Wall at Watt Avenue
Bridge, Final Submittal
Pacific Civil and Structural Consultants
(MGE Engineering and Wood Rodgers)
AR00 Lt Bank, Cont 1 Evaluation QAQC Data Left Memorandum: Evaluation of QC/QA Test Data
5/22/2001 Memorandum for Chief, Soil Design Section;
Subject: American River Watershed Project,
DACW05-00-C-0022 Left (South) Bank Slurry Wall,
Contract 1 Evaluation of QC/QA Test Data
American River Project Office
AR00 Lt Bank, Cont 2 Evaluation QAQC Data Left Memorandum: Evaluation of QC/QA Test Data
1/8/2002 Memorandum for Chief, Soil Design Section;
Subject: American River Watershed Project,
DACW05-00-C-0023 Left (South) Bank Slurry Wall,
Contract 2 Evaluation of QC/QA Test Data
USACE
Site L14 Compact Fill Matl Rpt Tab Left Material Test Report February 2003 Site L14 Compact Fill Material Report Tabulation Sierra Testing Laboratories SiteR5DDR Right Design Documenation
Report
August 2009 AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES PROJECT

CALIFORNIA, DESIGN DOCUMENTATION REPORT,
WRDA 1996 REMAINING SITES
SITE R5
USACE
Contract 2 Howe Avenue ABC Data Review and Evaluation Unknown Evaluation of Aggregate Base Course Compaction
And Gradation
2012 American River Common Features Project, WRDA
96 Contract 2, Howe Avenue Review and
Evaluation of Aggregate Base Course Compaction
And Gradation
USACE
DDR-Final Submittal_111009 Left and Right Final Design
Documentation Report
November 2009 American River Project
Common Features
WRDA96 Remaining Sites, Phases 2
Sacramento County, California
Design Documentation Report
HDR
DDR-Site R-6 Right Design Documentation
Report
6/17/2009 AMERICAN RIVER COMMON FEATURES PROJECT

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
REPORT
WRDA 1996 REMAINING SITES
SITE R6

CALIFORNIA
USACE
Design Analysis 100% Submittal - Left Bank Levee
Strengthening (1999)
Left 100% Submittal Design
Analysis
4/16/1999 Design Analysis 100% Submittal American River Watershed Project Common Features California
Left (South) Bank Levee Strengthening
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
Design Analysis 100% Submittal - Levee Strenthening
Alternative Methods Contract A (2003)
Left and Right 100% Submittal Design
Analysis
3/26/2003 American River Watershed Project Common
Features California Left (South) Bank Levee
Strengthening, Alternative Methods Contract A
Sacramento, CA
URS
Final_NEMDC_Ext_DDR Left 100% Supplemental Design
Documentation Report
February 2014 American River Common Features - Natomas East Main Drainage Channel (NEMDC) Extenstion
100% Supplemental Design Documentation
Report
USACE
FINAL_RMR_L1_L5_2013.09.20 Left Remediation Methods
Report
9/20/2013 Remediation Methods Report
Sites L1 and L5
American River Common Features
WRDA96 Phase 2 Remaining Sites
Sacramento, California
W91238-10-D-0003, Delivery Order No. 0010
Fugro HDR WLA
Geotech Rpt American Rvr Watershed WRDA 99 Right Geotechnical Report November 2001 Geotechnical Report American River Watershed Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features
Reevaulation of Right Bank Near Jacob Lane
USACE
Geotech Rpt American Rvr Watershed Left Geotechnical Report August 2000 Geotechnical Report American River Watershed Implementation of WRDA 99 Common Features
Lower American River Sites
USACE
JacobLaneC-DDR Unknown 100% Civil Design
Documentation Report
6/8/2012 American River Common Features
(Remaining Sites) WRDA 99
Jacob Lane- Reach “C” Project
100% Civil Design Documentation Report
(Station 24+90 to 38+14)
USACE
JG02 Site L2 Sec 4 JG Elements Record Unknown Jet Grout Column Report 2002 Jet Grout Column Report American River Contract DACW05-02-C-0004
Pacchiosi Drill
JG02 Site L2 Sec 6 Deviations Meas Left Deviation Drawing 2003 American River Watershed Project Site L2 Deviations Drawing for Columns C0 to C15
(Coreholes)
Genesis Civil Engineers
JG02 Site L2 Sec 8 JG Test Result Sum Left Jet Grout Tests 2002 American River Watershed Contract 1 Jet Grout Test Sections
Sierra Testing Laboratories
L4A-Drilling and Injection Records Left Jet Grout Column Report 2002 Jet Grout Column Report American River Contract DACW05-02-C-0004
Pacchiosi Drill
L4-QC Drilling and Injection Records Left Jet Grout Column Report 2002 Jet Grout Column Report American River Contract DACW05-02-C-0004
Pacchiosi Drill
L14 Drilling and Injection Records Left Jet Grout Column Report 2003 Jet Grout Column Report American River Contract DACW05-02-C-0004
Pacchiosi Drill
Lab Materials Summary.10-12-12 Unknown Laboratory Materials Testing Summary
2012 Laboratory Testing Materials Summary American
River Common Features Howe Ave WRDA 99
Sierra Testing Laboratories
Mathcad - Liner walls100%Submittal Left 100% Submittal Structural Calculations
3/25/2014 COMMON FEATURES CONTRACT 1
SITE R4

STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (ANALYSIS &

DESIGN)
100% SUBMITTAL
USACE
Mayhew Closure BOD Left Basis of Design June 2007 BASIS OF DESIGN

AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT

COMMON FEATURES

LEFT BANK LOWER AMERICAN RIVER

MAYHEW DRAIN CLOSURE STRUCTURE
USACE
Mayhew Levee Extension - 7 Alternates_Dec 30 2013 Left In House Design - Drawings 11/25/2013 Mayhew East End Extension Short Connection to Private Property In House Design
USACE
Mayhew Raise DDR Left Interim Design &
Construction Support
Documentation
November 2009 Interim Mayhew Levee Raise Design &
Construction Support Documentation
USACE
MayhewLeveeRepairPWSFinal Left PERFORMANCE WORK

STATEMENT
7/22/2014 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 22 JULY 2014